Good for them. While the Dems held Congress, Obama spent his entire presidency running up a gigantic debt while ignoring the Republicans and telling them to "ride in the back" -- and now suddenly he wants to play compromise? Fuck that. Running up a tab and then using it as an ultimatum to raise the debt ceiling (or taxes) is complete bullshit and just as disgusting as what you blame the Republicans for. It's like telling a habitual spender to "just get another job" instead of addressing the root cause.
Wrong.
We wouldn't have had to run up most of the debt we have in the last couple of years if it hadn't been for the economic crash which happened on Bush's watch, and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is if Bush hadn't run up so much debt already by not paying for the wars, the tax cuts, the drug bill, etc. Republicans had control of Congress for like 10 of the 12 years before the Dems took it over again in 2008. What did they do all that time? Spend like crazy on the national credit card, not paying for much of anything. STFU until you can at least be consistent in your bitching.
As for the whole "ride in the back" thing, you'd probably do that too if the people you had to deal with had a habit of comparing you to Hitler and Marx. Hell, Obama has alienated a lot of his base by being so right-leaning. He's continued a lot of Bush policies. It's retarded to call him anything but a centrist. The Republicans are so ridiculously far-right now though, they'd call Reagan a fucking commie if he were in politics today.
Because if they don't tell us what they offered to cut, or what taxes they wanted to raise, I have no idea if it was a legitimate plan. Also, how do you know that you would not have as much, or more, of a problem with what they wanted to cut and what taxes they wanted to raise than you do with the Republican plan?
If the Democrats put together a plan, it would have to be one that neither of us would consider legitimate, just as the Republican's plan isn't legitimate. There's just no way that it would pass. If they put together something legitimate, then the Tea Party, AT BEST, would consider it a starting point for introducing lots more cuts, and getting rid of whatever revenue increases are included. That would be incredibly stupid for them to do. It's more likely anyway that the TP would just refuse it flat-out as they've refused any compromise at all so far. So we're stuck.
Or, is it that you know you wouldn't because you would support anything the Democrats propose, even if it is something you would oppose when Republicans propose it?
I don't support either party for ideological reasons. They both do some things I agree with and some that I don't. They both act incredibly stupid sometimes, or at least it seems that way to me. I'm sure they see some benefit in it. In this case though, I think it's the Republicans that are being stupid. Actually that's not quite right, as a lot of them are apparently willing to be reasonable. It's the TP faction that's trying to screw over the whole country right now.
What cuts? What tax increases? Which taxes did they want to increase? What programs were they willing to cut? By how much?
It is easy to say, "I offered to cut $4 trillion," if you don't say what you were willing to cut.
Who cares what they offered to cut? The fact that it included revenue increases was enough for Cantor to call it off. What they offer to cut doesn't matter if the Tea Party refuses to even consider anything they come up with.
The reason to put the plan on paper is so that the American people can tell if you are serious about actually addressing the problem.
Why would they do that? Just so Cantor can lie about it? Like how he claimed that they had already agreed to certain cuts during negotiations, even though those cuts were only agreed to as part of an overall plan? He thinks it's some kind of a-la-cart thing apparently.
You are right that there is a "good reason" why the negotiations are being done behind closed doors, it is because they are trying to pull a fast one.
Unbelievable. Trying to pull a fast one? Negotiations are usually done behind closed doors. Both sides insist on this because it's the only way they can speak as openly and frankly as they need to in order to get a deal done, without the rest of their party shouting things down every five minutes.
You say that the Tea Party has refused to accept anything but what they want, but at least they have told you what they want. The Democrats have refused to accept anything.
No, the Democrats refused to accept the one ridiculously unbalanced proposal that the Republicans put out even though they knew it was a complete non-starter. They've made all kinds of offers of combinations of cuts with some revenue increases included. Every single one has been rejected by the Tea Party. They haven't even cared to see specifics. They are refusing to even consider a deal that includes any revenue increases at all. They are the problem.
Although, I know a girl with severe ms, who just graduated from with her Masters in (some form) of Education, early childhood I believe. She has to type with a pencil strapped to her head, her husband helps her get to work and back home. We definitely need to evaluate on a case by case basis for govt. aid.
That's great that she has that kind of support and the physical and financial ability to go to school. Not everyone gets that though. Many people with illnesses like that get little help and are lucky if they even have a roof over their heads. The costs and constant care needed can often break a family that has little to begin with.
Case by case is certainly the best way to evaluate things. That requires a lot of case-workers though too, which can also be expensive, even though most of those folks don't make much. It's a difficult job. I know a social worker, and I sure as hell wouldn't want her job. I'd probably be clinically depressed within weeks if I had to face what she does every day.
Making it more expensive for someone purchase and use anything just because YOU somehow think it's unfair that they can, is stupid.
That's pretty disingenuous. They aren't making it more expensive, they're taking away a tax break that was given for one item, but not others. Why should that one item get a break? If it can't make it in the market on a level playing field with the same taxes as everything else, maybe they need to rethink their business plan. Asking for a government handout is not a business plan.
His statements regarding this were couched in terms that portrayed those who buy and use private jets as selfish and financially foolish. His implications were clear. If you couldnâ(TM)t see it then you need to pay more attention.
Which statement was that? Every time he mentioned it, it was in relation to elimination of a tax break that there's no good reason to have. I saw nothing about owning planes being selfish or foolish. Could you be specific about what he said that implies that?
And if your purchase of a single washing machine literally supported hundreds of jobs, then I bet you would get a tax break for buying one too.
Again, they shouldn't need a tax break. The plane is worth it or it isn't. Money not spent on planes will be spent on something else that also creates jobs. At least it would be if Congress would quit screwing around and start doing things to create jobs again. Taxes are already the lowest they've been in several decades. More tax breaks aren't going to create jobs. Taxes have been higher during past economic booms, so that's not the issue here.
Why put a plan down on paper when the other side won't even give it consideration? Do you think they enjoy wasting their time? The Tea Party complaint isn't there there is no specific plan, it's that they refuse to accept anything but exactly what they want. So I really don't see why you care whether there's a plan on paper or not. Aside from a ridiculous non-starter, the Republicans haven't put anything specific on paper either. That's what negotiations are for, and those are being done behind closed doors right now, for good reason.
If you work, and need food stamps, I'm all for that. I'm not for the people that live in free houses, and get free food, and do nothing to earn it. Unfortunately, welfare reform is a tricky subject to bring up and implement.
I don't think you'll get much argument from people if you ask for specific changes to things that are being taken advantage of. But you'll need to be very specific. Your original blanket statement about doing away with welfare is definitely not going to work. I see people every day when I'm going to work who wouldn't survive without it. Many of them have serious mental issues that prevent them from being able to hold down a job. They can't get any real health care either, so they are often sick and suffer from chronic conditions. The idea that these people just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get real jobs is just ridiculous.
Guess what? That is up to Obama, unless Congress passes a law specifying differently. That means it is Obama who is threatening the lives of seniors, poor people or veterans. Obama or the Democrats in the Senate could put a proposal on the table and then we could debate the relative merits of the Republicans' plan and the Democrats' plan. The problem with criticizing the Republican's plan is that it is the only plan on the table. There are, currently, no other options (except to keep on racking up ever more debt until to no one will loan the government any money).
That's complete nonsense. If Congress abdicates on its responsibility to pay the country's bills, then yes, decisions will have to be made about where we will default, but that isn't on Obama. It's Congress' responsibility to pay the bills.
Saying that the Republican plan is the only plan is bullshit though. Proposing something that you know the other side can't possibly agree to is not a good-faith negotiation. There are two ways to close the deficit gap, cutting spending and raising revenues. The Tea Party Republicans want to take one of those completely off the table and have refused any compromise at all. This is on them.
There have been plenty of other plans being put together, even bi-partisan plans, but the Tea Party faction refuses to budge at all on any sort of tax revenue increase, so those plans are dead before they can even be formed. As long as they insist that only cuts and no revenues can be part of the bill, they are the ones holding the country hostage. Wonder how people will like the tax we all get to pay when it starts costing us more to borrow anything at all because our credit gets downgraded.
We've seen poll after poll now that shows that something like 70% of the country, including a large percentage of Republicans, think that both taxes and cuts should be part of any compromise plan, but the House Republicans won't allow it. This shit is on them, and I think people will see it that way come the next election too. You can't just sit there with your little faction and insist that everything be done your way. That's not how democracy works, and people will recognize which side isn't willing to compromise and get a plan put together that can pass both houses. If the shit hits the fan, we know which group is responsible.
When Obama first opened his Pie Hole about how corporations should not be buying these jets, within two weeks we had nearly 60% of our orders canceled as the jet builders like Gulfstream, Falcon, etc. had their orders canceled or placed on hold. With one Class Warfare speech he helped put thousands of people out of work.
He didn't say they shouldn't be buying them, he said they shouldn't be getting a tax break on them.
Private jets, yachts, expensive cars, etc. are no different than dishwashers, washers, dryers, TVs, etc. They are luxuries that people pay for and the industries that build these things support thousands of jobs. In fact, in our industry, itâ(TM)s almost 100% U.S. jobs, and well paying jobs at that.
I don't get a tax break on my TV or dishwasher. Why should some company get one on a jet?
People bitch and moan about how "rich people" and corporations have their money locked up and are not hiring, yet when they engage in commerce with that very same money, purchasing high end goods that end up paying for many, many salaries, they are demonized by this POS POTUS.
Demonized? Really? Because he said they shouldn't get a tax break on a jet?
I thought the Democrats were telling us there was no need to reform Social Security because there was a Trust Fund?
Who said that?
Sorry, but your rhetoric doesn't fly. It wasn't this Congressman who threatened the lives of seniors, poor people or veterans, it was Obama. The fact of the matter is that if the debt ceiling is not raised, there is no reason for the federal government to default. There is, also, no reason for the federal government to not send out SS checks or pay the military.
Someone's not gonna get paid. Who do you think it will be?
I have a question for you, what happens if they increase the debt ceiling and no one wants to buy the new bonds? That day is going to come sooner or later. Isn't it a good idea to start reining in spending now, while people are still willing to buy U.S. government bonds rather than wait for that day?
You assume that steps won't be taken to reign in the deficit. I'm not seeing any argument against that from anyone, only an argument about how it should be done.
What he said was ambiguous. Highly partisan people can't help but express themselves this way though. He wants to raise money. He wants to make sure the Republican wins. He happens to also have the motive and opportunity to ensure that that happens. This is very bad. The state shouldn't be using bullshit voting equipment like that anyway, but the fact that this guy is so openly partisan just feeds the suspicion. We need secure, accountable machines. The damn courts seem to be no help on this subject. Texas courts have let this stuff slide already. It's insane. It only seems to happen because those in power want to keep things the way they are. That's the system that got them into power, after all.
Perhaps it was, but it was also a system that had existed for a long time and had been used across the country. If it was unsuitable, it should have been dealt with before a major election and not during because you think you can recount a few select counties and win. Personally, I still think scanned paper ballots are way to go for the foreseeable future.
I agree that it should have been addressed earlier, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered valid when the problems it caused were significant enough, and the election close enough, that it could have caused a change in the outcome. Even more so for a presidential election.
To me, "descent" means, unmodified reproductive descent.
Do you really believe that your intentional misinterpretation of a scientific concept to suit your own agenda actually matters to science? Do you feel that you can redefine terms in your own mind and somehow that becomes reality and renders decades of scientific research and understanding invalid? Exactly how delusional are you?
Science is valid. Other methods are valid, too. Your immediate sense data without any scientific method applied, informing you that what's self-evidently there in front of you is indeed there in front of you, is another example, if you don't like religion as the alternative breaking the original fallacious argument. That argument, note, being the basis of my response.
Immediate sense data is just observation. It can provide some evidence, but without the ability to repeat an observation, or form a predictive hypothesis, it's not very valuable, and is known to be susceptible to all manner of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously fallible. When seeking solid explanations for natural phenomena, only science provides the necessary tools.
I think the more scary side of the coin is the 'my way or the highway' evolutionists. They do not even want to hear a different idea. They openly mock the other side. Science itself becomes better with people asking 'what if'. Yet none of them will hear it. On most boards instead of talking about it in a rational manner the degenerate into name calling (very quickly). Now I am not saying the creationists are not doing this as well but the creationists should be thanking their gods for them.
You have it a bit wrong. It's not that they don't want to hear a different idea, or that they don't want people to ask "what if". They want the idea to be scientific in nature, meaning that:
- it's testable
- it's falsifiable
- it has predictive power that is comparable to the leading theory
If your idea doesn't fit the last one, then it's not a competing theory, and if it doesn't fit the first two, it's not scientific. The only thing we've seen from creationists is Intelligent Design, which fits none of those criteria.
When I see scientists saying things like 'this does not need to be investigated further it is fact' I usually start looking at where their money comes from.
Give me one example of a scientist making such a claim. You seem to be implying that such a statement pertains to evolution, but we know that there is a massive amount of study still being done today to further understand it, as it is the foundation of modern biology and medicine.
Some aspects may be considered "settled science", but that's not an absolute end of discussion either. It simply means that it's settled until someone presents evidence that it cannot explain. It doesn't mean that it should be re-opened anytime someone has some idea that it could have happened differently. If they don't have the evidence and research to back up their claim, and they can't tie it in with the rest of the theory, or produce a new theory that has similar predictive ability, then they really have no challenge to the existing theory.
What is your point? The overall trend is that more highly educated people have fewer children. If you have evidence that disputes this, please present it. Your anecdote is not evidence.
And those that are so narrow-minded as to think that only Christians (or perhaps you were speaking about Romans?) hold beliefs not-in-line with Evolution? I think there are many cultures and beliefs around the world, at least as old as 2000 years, which did not propose or expound upon the idea of Evolution.
Umm, he was speaking about the Texas Board of Education, not Romans or anyone else. Please try to pay attention. If you know of anyone on the TBoE that doesn't believe in evolution, but is not a Christian, please point them out and I will issue an apology. Until then, please go away, as you're not adding anything useful to the conversation.
So it was their first and only lesson in blind obedience, with a consequence that would affect not only them, but all their descendants forevermore? I thought God was supposed to be forgiving and loving and all that. Not a lot of evidence to support that idea.
but if someone claimed that science itself should be balanced by a brief study of all the major religions during one year or semester of high school, that would make sense to me. Some of those in the video might have had that sort of idea in mind, but just weren't able, or didn't see the need, to express that aspect of it clearly.
How, exactly, would that "balance" the study of science?
Most of the controversy lies in the idea that beneficial genetic information can be somehow added through random mutations etc over millions of years. A fantastical narrative is spun around that which sounds great but has no more evidence to support it in the fossil record than the story of a global flood.
The only controversy around that comes from ignorant people with no understanding of modern biology or paleontology. There's nothingfantasticalabout itat all.
Slashdot Mirror
Good for them. While the Dems held Congress, Obama spent his entire presidency running up a gigantic debt while ignoring the Republicans and telling them to "ride in the back" -- and now suddenly he wants to play compromise? Fuck that. Running up a tab and then using it as an ultimatum to raise the debt ceiling (or taxes) is complete bullshit and just as disgusting as what you blame the Republicans for. It's like telling a habitual spender to "just get another job" instead of addressing the root cause.
Wrong. We wouldn't have had to run up most of the debt we have in the last couple of years if it hadn't been for the economic crash which happened on Bush's watch, and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is if Bush hadn't run up so much debt already by not paying for the wars, the tax cuts, the drug bill, etc. Republicans had control of Congress for like 10 of the 12 years before the Dems took it over again in 2008. What did they do all that time? Spend like crazy on the national credit card, not paying for much of anything. STFU until you can at least be consistent in your bitching.
As for the whole "ride in the back" thing, you'd probably do that too if the people you had to deal with had a habit of comparing you to Hitler and Marx. Hell, Obama has alienated a lot of his base by being so right-leaning. He's continued a lot of Bush policies. It's retarded to call him anything but a centrist. The Republicans are so ridiculously far-right now though, they'd call Reagan a fucking commie if he were in politics today.
Because if they don't tell us what they offered to cut, or what taxes they wanted to raise, I have no idea if it was a legitimate plan. Also, how do you know that you would not have as much, or more, of a problem with what they wanted to cut and what taxes they wanted to raise than you do with the Republican plan?
If the Democrats put together a plan, it would have to be one that neither of us would consider legitimate, just as the Republican's plan isn't legitimate. There's just no way that it would pass. If they put together something legitimate, then the Tea Party, AT BEST, would consider it a starting point for introducing lots more cuts, and getting rid of whatever revenue increases are included. That would be incredibly stupid for them to do. It's more likely anyway that the TP would just refuse it flat-out as they've refused any compromise at all so far. So we're stuck.
Or, is it that you know you wouldn't because you would support anything the Democrats propose, even if it is something you would oppose when Republicans propose it?
I don't support either party for ideological reasons. They both do some things I agree with and some that I don't. They both act incredibly stupid sometimes, or at least it seems that way to me. I'm sure they see some benefit in it. In this case though, I think it's the Republicans that are being stupid. Actually that's not quite right, as a lot of them are apparently willing to be reasonable. It's the TP faction that's trying to screw over the whole country right now.
I think maybe the all-caps was a bit excessive...
Just within the last year: Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Xavier Becerra, John Conyers, and Raul Grijalva.
Maybe you could point me to a quote from one or two of them that says what you say it says. I can't seem to find any. You seem to know of lots though.
What cuts? What tax increases? Which taxes did they want to increase? What programs were they willing to cut? By how much? It is easy to say, "I offered to cut $4 trillion," if you don't say what you were willing to cut.
Who cares what they offered to cut? The fact that it included revenue increases was enough for Cantor to call it off. What they offer to cut doesn't matter if the Tea Party refuses to even consider anything they come up with.
The reason to put the plan on paper is so that the American people can tell if you are serious about actually addressing the problem.
Why would they do that? Just so Cantor can lie about it? Like how he claimed that they had already agreed to certain cuts during negotiations, even though those cuts were only agreed to as part of an overall plan? He thinks it's some kind of a-la-cart thing apparently.
You are right that there is a "good reason" why the negotiations are being done behind closed doors, it is because they are trying to pull a fast one.
Unbelievable. Trying to pull a fast one? Negotiations are usually done behind closed doors. Both sides insist on this because it's the only way they can speak as openly and frankly as they need to in order to get a deal done, without the rest of their party shouting things down every five minutes.
You say that the Tea Party has refused to accept anything but what they want, but at least they have told you what they want. The Democrats have refused to accept anything.
No, the Democrats refused to accept the one ridiculously unbalanced proposal that the Republicans put out even though they knew it was a complete non-starter. They've made all kinds of offers of combinations of cuts with some revenue increases included. Every single one has been rejected by the Tea Party. They haven't even cared to see specifics. They are refusing to even consider a deal that includes any revenue increases at all. They are the problem.
Although, I know a girl with severe ms, who just graduated from with her Masters in (some form) of Education, early childhood I believe. She has to type with a pencil strapped to her head, her husband helps her get to work and back home. We definitely need to evaluate on a case by case basis for govt. aid.
That's great that she has that kind of support and the physical and financial ability to go to school. Not everyone gets that though. Many people with illnesses like that get little help and are lucky if they even have a roof over their heads. The costs and constant care needed can often break a family that has little to begin with.
Case by case is certainly the best way to evaluate things. That requires a lot of case-workers though too, which can also be expensive, even though most of those folks don't make much. It's a difficult job. I know a social worker, and I sure as hell wouldn't want her job. I'd probably be clinically depressed within weeks if I had to face what she does every day.
Making it more expensive for someone purchase and use anything just because YOU somehow think it's unfair that they can, is stupid.
That's pretty disingenuous. They aren't making it more expensive, they're taking away a tax break that was given for one item, but not others. Why should that one item get a break? If it can't make it in the market on a level playing field with the same taxes as everything else, maybe they need to rethink their business plan. Asking for a government handout is not a business plan.
His statements regarding this were couched in terms that portrayed those who buy and use private jets as selfish and financially foolish. His implications were clear. If you couldnâ(TM)t see it then you need to pay more attention.
Which statement was that? Every time he mentioned it, it was in relation to elimination of a tax break that there's no good reason to have. I saw nothing about owning planes being selfish or foolish. Could you be specific about what he said that implies that?
And if your purchase of a single washing machine literally supported hundreds of jobs, then I bet you would get a tax break for buying one too.
Again, they shouldn't need a tax break. The plane is worth it or it isn't. Money not spent on planes will be spent on something else that also creates jobs. At least it would be if Congress would quit screwing around and start doing things to create jobs again. Taxes are already the lowest they've been in several decades. More tax breaks aren't going to create jobs. Taxes have been higher during past economic booms, so that's not the issue here.
Why put a plan down on paper when the other side won't even give it consideration? Do you think they enjoy wasting their time? The Tea Party complaint isn't there there is no specific plan, it's that they refuse to accept anything but exactly what they want. So I really don't see why you care whether there's a plan on paper or not. Aside from a ridiculous non-starter, the Republicans haven't put anything specific on paper either. That's what negotiations are for, and those are being done behind closed doors right now, for good reason.
If you work, and need food stamps, I'm all for that. I'm not for the people that live in free houses, and get free food, and do nothing to earn it. Unfortunately, welfare reform is a tricky subject to bring up and implement.
I don't think you'll get much argument from people if you ask for specific changes to things that are being taken advantage of. But you'll need to be very specific. Your original blanket statement about doing away with welfare is definitely not going to work. I see people every day when I'm going to work who wouldn't survive without it. Many of them have serious mental issues that prevent them from being able to hold down a job. They can't get any real health care either, so they are often sick and suffer from chronic conditions. The idea that these people just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get real jobs is just ridiculous.
Guess what? That is up to Obama, unless Congress passes a law specifying differently. That means it is Obama who is threatening the lives of seniors, poor people or veterans. Obama or the Democrats in the Senate could put a proposal on the table and then we could debate the relative merits of the Republicans' plan and the Democrats' plan. The problem with criticizing the Republican's plan is that it is the only plan on the table. There are, currently, no other options (except to keep on racking up ever more debt until to no one will loan the government any money).
That's complete nonsense. If Congress abdicates on its responsibility to pay the country's bills, then yes, decisions will have to be made about where we will default, but that isn't on Obama. It's Congress' responsibility to pay the bills.
Saying that the Republican plan is the only plan is bullshit though. Proposing something that you know the other side can't possibly agree to is not a good-faith negotiation. There are two ways to close the deficit gap, cutting spending and raising revenues. The Tea Party Republicans want to take one of those completely off the table and have refused any compromise at all. This is on them.
There have been plenty of other plans being put together, even bi-partisan plans, but the Tea Party faction refuses to budge at all on any sort of tax revenue increase, so those plans are dead before they can even be formed. As long as they insist that only cuts and no revenues can be part of the bill, they are the ones holding the country hostage. Wonder how people will like the tax we all get to pay when it starts costing us more to borrow anything at all because our credit gets downgraded.
We've seen poll after poll now that shows that something like 70% of the country, including a large percentage of Republicans, think that both taxes and cuts should be part of any compromise plan, but the House Republicans won't allow it. This shit is on them, and I think people will see it that way come the next election too. You can't just sit there with your little faction and insist that everything be done your way. That's not how democracy works, and people will recognize which side isn't willing to compromise and get a plan put together that can pass both houses. If the shit hits the fan, we know which group is responsible.
When Obama first opened his Pie Hole about how corporations should not be buying these jets, within two weeks we had nearly 60% of our orders canceled as the jet builders like Gulfstream, Falcon, etc. had their orders canceled or placed on hold. With one Class Warfare speech he helped put thousands of people out of work.
He didn't say they shouldn't be buying them, he said they shouldn't be getting a tax break on them.
Private jets, yachts, expensive cars, etc. are no different than dishwashers, washers, dryers, TVs, etc. They are luxuries that people pay for and the industries that build these things support thousands of jobs. In fact, in our industry, itâ(TM)s almost 100% U.S. jobs, and well paying jobs at that.
I don't get a tax break on my TV or dishwasher. Why should some company get one on a jet?
People bitch and moan about how "rich people" and corporations have their money locked up and are not hiring, yet when they engage in commerce with that very same money, purchasing high end goods that end up paying for many, many salaries, they are demonized by this POS POTUS.
Demonized? Really? Because he said they shouldn't get a tax break on a jet?
Reign should be rein. Should have previewed.
I thought the Democrats were telling us there was no need to reform Social Security because there was a Trust Fund?
Who said that?
Sorry, but your rhetoric doesn't fly. It wasn't this Congressman who threatened the lives of seniors, poor people or veterans, it was Obama. The fact of the matter is that if the debt ceiling is not raised, there is no reason for the federal government to default. There is, also, no reason for the federal government to not send out SS checks or pay the military.
Someone's not gonna get paid. Who do you think it will be?
I have a question for you, what happens if they increase the debt ceiling and no one wants to buy the new bonds? That day is going to come sooner or later. Isn't it a good idea to start reining in spending now, while people are still willing to buy U.S. government bonds rather than wait for that day?
You assume that steps won't be taken to reign in the deficit. I'm not seeing any argument against that from anyone, only an argument about how it should be done.
I love how civil your arguments are been, Thank You!
Given the breathtaking stupidity of the post he was responding to, I thought it was amazingly polite.
What he said was ambiguous. Highly partisan people can't help but express themselves this way though. He wants to raise money. He wants to make sure the Republican wins. He happens to also have the motive and opportunity to ensure that that happens. This is very bad. The state shouldn't be using bullshit voting equipment like that anyway, but the fact that this guy is so openly partisan just feeds the suspicion. We need secure, accountable machines. The damn courts seem to be no help on this subject. Texas courts have let this stuff slide already. It's insane. It only seems to happen because those in power want to keep things the way they are. That's the system that got them into power, after all.
Perhaps it was, but it was also a system that had existed for a long time and had been used across the country. If it was unsuitable, it should have been dealt with before a major election and not during because you think you can recount a few select counties and win. Personally, I still think scanned paper ballots are way to go for the foreseeable future.
I agree that it should have been addressed earlier, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered valid when the problems it caused were significant enough, and the election close enough, that it could have caused a change in the outcome. Even more so for a presidential election.
To me, "descent" means, unmodified reproductive descent.
Do you really believe that your intentional misinterpretation of a scientific concept to suit your own agenda actually matters to science? Do you feel that you can redefine terms in your own mind and somehow that becomes reality and renders decades of scientific research and understanding invalid? Exactly how delusional are you?
Science is valid. Other methods are valid, too. Your immediate sense data without any scientific method applied, informing you that what's self-evidently there in front of you is indeed there in front of you, is another example, if you don't like religion as the alternative breaking the original fallacious argument. That argument, note, being the basis of my response.
Immediate sense data is just observation. It can provide some evidence, but without the ability to repeat an observation, or form a predictive hypothesis, it's not very valuable, and is known to be susceptible to all manner of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously fallible. When seeking solid explanations for natural phenomena, only science provides the necessary tools.
I think the more scary side of the coin is the 'my way or the highway' evolutionists. They do not even want to hear a different idea. They openly mock the other side. Science itself becomes better with people asking 'what if'. Yet none of them will hear it. On most boards instead of talking about it in a rational manner the degenerate into name calling (very quickly). Now I am not saying the creationists are not doing this as well but the creationists should be thanking their gods for them.
You have it a bit wrong. It's not that they don't want to hear a different idea, or that they don't want people to ask "what if". They want the idea to be scientific in nature, meaning that:
If your idea doesn't fit the last one, then it's not a competing theory, and if it doesn't fit the first two, it's not scientific. The only thing we've seen from creationists is Intelligent Design, which fits none of those criteria.
When I see scientists saying things like 'this does not need to be investigated further it is fact' I usually start looking at where their money comes from.
Give me one example of a scientist making such a claim. You seem to be implying that such a statement pertains to evolution, but we know that there is a massive amount of study still being done today to further understand it, as it is the foundation of modern biology and medicine.
Some aspects may be considered "settled science", but that's not an absolute end of discussion either. It simply means that it's settled until someone presents evidence that it cannot explain. It doesn't mean that it should be re-opened anytime someone has some idea that it could have happened differently. If they don't have the evidence and research to back up their claim, and they can't tie it in with the rest of the theory, or produce a new theory that has similar predictive ability, then they really have no challenge to the existing theory.
What is your point? The overall trend is that more highly educated people have fewer children. If you have evidence that disputes this, please present it. Your anecdote is not evidence.
And those that are so narrow-minded as to think that only Christians (or perhaps you were speaking about Romans?) hold beliefs not-in-line with Evolution? I think there are many cultures and beliefs around the world, at least as old as 2000 years, which did not propose or expound upon the idea of Evolution.
Umm, he was speaking about the Texas Board of Education, not Romans or anyone else. Please try to pay attention. If you know of anyone on the TBoE that doesn't believe in evolution, but is not a Christian, please point them out and I will issue an apology. Until then, please go away, as you're not adding anything useful to the conversation.
So it was their first and only lesson in blind obedience, with a consequence that would affect not only them, but all their descendants forevermore? I thought God was supposed to be forgiving and loving and all that. Not a lot of evidence to support that idea.
but if someone claimed that science itself should be balanced by a brief study of all the major religions during one year or semester of high school, that would make sense to me. Some of those in the video might have had that sort of idea in mind, but just weren't able, or didn't see the need, to express that aspect of it clearly.
How, exactly, would that "balance" the study of science?
Most of the controversy lies in the idea that beneficial genetic information can be somehow added through random mutations etc over millions of years. A fantastical narrative is spun around that which sounds great but has no more evidence to support it in the fossil record than the story of a global flood.
The only controversy around that comes from ignorant people with no understanding of modern biology or paleontology. There's nothing fantastical about it at all.