I love when the people on that show decide to make fun of some people for being too crazy even for them...

I remember one show, the radio host picks up the phone... Conversation goes like this:

Hello, caller!  What's on your mind?
OH, GOD!  I'VE BEEN POISONED!  I USED TO WORK IN THAT AREA 51 PLACE, AND NOW I'VE BEEN POISONED
Well, can you give me more information?
I DON'T WANT TO DIE!  I'VE BEEN POISONED!
I can't help you unless you give me more information... can you tell me anything?
I'VE BEEN POISONED!
Caller?  Hmm... the line dropped... Okay, next caller...

They made fun of him all day. 

> Lizon wrote:

> They talk about them a lot on Coast to Coast with George Noory.....along with UFO's, government conspiracies, and "proof" that Elvis is alive. -.-;

Don't dismiss everything they say on that show.  I once listened to an episode where they were talking about the financial crisis.  Now the host was trying to analyze it from a real-world perspective... "oh, shit, this could be a huge economic collapse!"  Anyway, his callers, one after another, suggest things such as, "The financial crisis was orchestrated to herald the coming of the Antichrist" and whatever other conspiracy theories you could come up with.  The host, one by one, rebuked them, and actually had a real-world, no-bullshit discussion.

(I thought it was funny that the conspiracy theory host was suddenly caught knee-deep in conspiracy theory callers when he wanted to avoid conspiracy theories...)

That's subjective.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> ok wiseass, name three.

Arguments in favor of your stance?  Not my job.  It's your opinion.  You name three. 

Okay, so I'm a "right" answer... you just believe there is a "more right" answer... fair enough... once we hear it. 

Yeah...

Biodigesters operate on small scales (family farms) or on large scales (industrial-scale versions in the US and Europe).

Safe?  Not really any prior accidents occurring... you would have to define "safe" here, really... In addition, it could be argued that in the "safety" factor, we can add the issue of what would occur with the fuel if it was not used in biodigesters.  Studies have shown that these systems can destroy bacteria through the chemical process, creating a more clean and efficient manure than if the fuel were directly used as manure.

This solves external issues beyond basic energy, that being the disposal of human and animal waste.

Easy to maintain?  Small systems are given to third world farmers to run and maintain themselves... I guess that means they can be run easily!

Fuel is plentiful?  How often do you take a shit?  How often do cows take a shit?  How often do all domesticated animals and all humans collectively take a shit?  Considering that we currently collect that shit through plumbing systems, we have access to unused waste, plus future generations of waste.

> [RPA] Arocalex wrote:

> 5. Your presidents

I want to get into this one in particular...

Okay, countries such as Great Britain have two different leaders: A political leader and a symbolic leader.  The political leader is open for criticism: People can attack Gordon Brown if they want, and it's reasonably acceptable because his position is deciding policy.  But if you start personally attacking the Queen of England... whoo boy... that's bad.  Why?  Because the Queen isn't a political actor: She's a representative of the nation, its heritage, and its tradition.  If you attack the Queen, you attack the country itself.

Herein lies the problem: The US doesn't have this.  We have a political leader, but our symbolic leader is also the political leader.  Thus, when you do attack the President, you essentially do the exact same thing as if someone were to personally attack the Queen of England.

Does that explain the issue?

My guess would be it's balanced based on utilitarian calculus, rather than ideology.

I'm guessing Zimbabwe.

You're insane.  Happy?

The right to privacy was an established right under the 9th amendment in the Constitution since shortly after the document was written.

Remember the 9th?  It basically says that, although the Constitution grants people X, Y, and Z rights, those are not the limits of the rights individuals have... meaning they have other rights (including privacy).

As for your slippery slopes... seriously?  That applies to every right!

Should we have freedom of religion?  What if that religion blatantly advocates killing the Jews?  (i.e., US neo-Nazi groups that claimed religious rights)

Freedom of the press?  What if the press uses its power to obtain military secrets?

It's simple: A "freedom" is not absolute.  You have freedoms, but you lose those freedoms once they interfere with another person's ability to exercise their freedoms (generally speaking, that's the way it works).  We don't need to choose between "should we have a right to privacy" and "omg, 13TZ PUT C4M3R4Z 1N 3VRY1'Z B3DR00MZ!"