Talent on loan from god!

[edthecynic]

uh, conservatives care about the enviroment and they want to keep the government out of the church
so, what next?

CON$ care only about how to exploit the environment for profit and they do not want to keep the church out of the government, which is the other half of separation of church and state.

As Limpboy says in one of his unassailable truths, "The best thing about a tree is what you do after you cut it down."

nope, that is a lie

and the tree will grow back
and the lumber industry grows trees to be cut

and as far as the sepperation of church and state, it doesnt exist in the constitution, what DOES exist is the state needs to stay out of the church and not enact a national religion
thats doesnt say that members of the churches cant be in the government

They only grow trees because of pressure from environmentalists. And I never said members of churches can't be in government, and you know that. I don't want religious dogma made into law.

 

[DiveCon]

CON$ care only about how to exploit the environment for profit and they do not want to keep the church out of the government, which is the other half of separation of church and state.

As Limpboy says in one of his unassailable truths, "The best thing about a tree is what you do after you cut it down."

nope, that is a lie

and the tree will grow back
and the lumber industry grows trees to be cut

and as far as the sepperation of church and state, it doesnt exist in the constitution, what DOES exist is the state needs to stay out of the church and not enact a national religion
thats doesnt say that members of the churches cant be in the government

They only grow trees because of pressure from environmentalists. And I never said members of churches can't be in government, and you know that. I don't want religious dogma made into law.

wrong again, they grow trees because they need the wood to sell
you really dont understand how things work, do you?

and conservatives dont want religious dogma as law either

seems like you dont really understand what a conservative is

 

[edthecynic]

nope, that is a lie

and the tree will grow back
and the lumber industry grows trees to be cut

and as far as the sepperation of church and state, it doesnt exist in the constitution, what DOES exist is the state needs to stay out of the church and not enact a national religion
thats doesnt say that members of the churches cant be in the government

They only grow trees because of pressure from environmentalists. And I never said members of churches can't be in government, and you know that. I don't want religious dogma made into law.

wrong again, they grow trees because they need the wood to sell
you really dont understand how things work, do you?

and conservatives dont want religious dogma as law either

seems like you dont really understand what a conservative is

They used to just cut more trees in another area rather than plant new ones, it's more profitable that way. Only when old growth forests became protected did they incur the extra expense of planting trees to cut so they would have wood to sell. I fully understand the profit motive in business.

And CON$ are constantly trying to legislate dogma and gay marriage is a perfect example. What right does the church have to say what constitutes a CIVIL marriage. I say, just as the government has no right to require churches to marry gays the church has no right to ban civil marriages between gays.

 

[DiveCon]

They only grow trees because of pressure from environmentalists. And I never said members of churches can't be in government, and you know that. I don't want religious dogma made into law.

wrong again, they grow trees because they need the wood to sell
you really dont understand how things work, do you?

and conservatives dont want religious dogma as law either

seems like you dont really understand what a conservative is

They used to just cut more trees in another area rather than plant new ones, it's more profitable that way. Only when old growth forests became protected did they incur the extra expense of planting trees to cut so they would have wood to sell. I fully understand the profit motive in business.

And CON$ are constantly trying to legislate dogma and gay marriage is a perfect example. What right does the church have to say what constitutes a CIVIL marriage. I say, just as the government has no right to require churches to marry gays the church has no right to ban civil marriages between gays.

yet there are serveral conservatives on this very board that have expressed the idea that the government should get completely out of the marriage business
and every so called government benefit should be placed into a civil contract and relegate marriage to the religion

that has been my postition for YEARS
you just keep proviong over and over that you dont have a fucking clue what conservatives believe

you confuse REPUBLICANS, with CONSERVATIVES

 

[edthecynic]

wrong again, they grow trees because they need the wood to sell
you really dont understand how things work, do you?

and conservatives dont want religious dogma as law either

seems like you dont really understand what a conservative is

They used to just cut more trees in another area rather than plant new ones, it's more profitable that way. Only when old growth forests became protected did they incur the extra expense of planting trees to cut so they would have wood to sell. I fully understand the profit motive in business.

And CON$ are constantly trying to legislate dogma and gay marriage is a perfect example. What right does the church have to say what constitutes a CIVIL marriage. I say, just as the government has no right to require churches to marry gays the church has no right to ban civil marriages between gays.

yet there are serveral conservatives on this very board that have expressed the idea that the government should get completely out of the marriage business
and every so called government benefit should be placed into a civil contract and relegate marriage to the religion

that has been my postition for YEARS
you just keep proviong over and over that you dont have a fucking clue what conservatives believe

you confuse REPUBLICANS, with CONSERVATIVES

And I say those several CON$ are few and far between.

I notice you have avoided my post on taxes. CON$ want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, Obama wants to let them expire and I want to replace them dollar for dollar with cuts in payroll taxes.
Do I have CON$ right on that issue???

 

[DiveCon]

They used to just cut more trees in another area rather than plant new ones, it's more profitable that way. Only when old growth forests became protected did they incur the extra expense of planting trees to cut so they would have wood to sell. I fully understand the profit motive in business.

And CON$ are constantly trying to legislate dogma and gay marriage is a perfect example. What right does the church have to say what constitutes a CIVIL marriage. I say, just as the government has no right to require churches to marry gays the church has no right to ban civil marriages between gays.

yet there are serveral conservatives on this very board that have expressed the idea that the government should get completely out of the marriage business
and every so called government benefit should be placed into a civil contract and relegate marriage to the religion

that has been my postition for YEARS
you just keep proviong over and over that you dont have a fucking clue what conservatives believe

you confuse REPUBLICANS, with CONSERVATIVES

And I say those several CON$ are few and far between.

I notice you have avoided my post on taxes. CON$ want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, Obama wants to let them expire and I want to replace them dollar for dollar with cuts in payroll taxes.
Do I have CON$ right on that issue???

the Bush tax cuts went to everyone paying income taxes
do you realize that removing them would give the lower end a 50% increase in taxes and some that with the Bush tax cuts arent even paying anything would have to start paying, and i'm not talking about the top end, i'm talking about the bottom end

 

[edthecynic]

yet there are serveral conservatives on this very board that have expressed the idea that the government should get completely out of the marriage business
and every so called government benefit should be placed into a civil contract and relegate marriage to the religion

that has been my postition for YEARS
you just keep proviong over and over that you dont have a fucking clue what conservatives believe

you confuse REPUBLICANS, with CONSERVATIVES

And I say those several CON$ are few and far between.

I notice you have avoided my post on taxes. CON$ want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, Obama wants to let them expire and I want to replace them dollar for dollar with cuts in payroll taxes.
Do I have CON$ right on that issue???

the Bush tax cuts went to everyone paying income taxes
do you realize that removing them would give the lower end a 50% increase in taxes and some that with the Bush tax cuts arent even paying anything would have to start paying, and i'm not talking about the top end, i'm talking about the bottom end

I take it I got CON$ right on this issue.

Do you realize that even wage earners that don't pay income taxes pay payroll taxes? Even LimpBoy admits this.

So while the people on the bottom might see their income taxes go up, since I would replace Bush's tax cuts DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with payroll tax cuts, they would certainly pay no more in total taxes and for most at the bottom they would pay much less.

Jul 14, 2009
RUSH: 43% of taxpayers now do not pay income tax. They pay FICA, payroll and all that, but they don't pay income tax.

 

[Soaring]

I listen to Rush a lot. He makes perfect sense, unlike the loons in congress.

 

[DiveCon]

And I say those several CON$ are few and far between.

I notice you have avoided my post on taxes. CON$ want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, Obama wants to let them expire and I want to replace them dollar for dollar with cuts in payroll taxes.
Do I have CON$ right on that issue???

the Bush tax cuts went to everyone paying income taxes
do you realize that removing them would give the lower end a 50% increase in taxes and some that with the Bush tax cuts arent even paying anything would have to start paying, and i'm not talking about the top end, i'm talking about the bottom end

I take it I got CON$ right on this issue.

Do you realize that even wage earners that don't pay income taxes pay payroll taxes? Even LimpBoy admits this.

So while the people on the bottom might see their income taxes go up, since I would replace Bush's tax cuts DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with payroll tax cuts, they would certainly pay no more in total taxes and for most at the bottom they would pay much less.

Jul 14, 2009
RUSH: 43% of taxpayers now do not pay income tax. They pay FICA, payroll and all that, but they don't pay income tax.

no shit sherlock
so why not just leave the Bush tax cut
if your going to cut other taxes dollar for dollar
you make zero sense

 

[edthecynic]

I listen to Rush a lot. He makes perfect sense, unlike the loons in congress.

Well, I guess it all depends on what you know. I have often said he lies to your level of ignorance.

Do either of these glittering jewels of collossal ignorance make perfect sense to you???

And DiveCon, I challenge you to find a Lib site that didn't get these quotes from me.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

July 9, 2008
Do you know what a black hole is? A black hole is a star we can't see because there's so much mass, so much gravity, not even light can escape it. The only thing that's been known to escape it is the USS enterprise, captained by William Shatner. Other than that, nothing's ever gotten out of one. A black hole is nothingness.

 

[edthecynic]

the Bush tax cuts went to everyone paying income taxes
do you realize that removing them would give the lower end a 50% increase in taxes and some that with the Bush tax cuts arent even paying anything would have to start paying, and i'm not talking about the top end, i'm talking about the bottom end

I take it I got CON$ right on this issue.

Do you realize that even wage earners that don't pay income taxes pay payroll taxes? Even LimpBoy admits this.

So while the people on the bottom might see their income taxes go up, since I would replace Bush's tax cuts DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with payroll tax cuts, they would certainly pay no more in total taxes and for most at the bottom they would pay much less.

Jul 14, 2009 RUSH: 43% of taxpayers now do not pay income tax. They pay FICA, payroll and all that, but they don't pay income tax.

no shit sherlock
so why not just leave the Bush tax cut
if your going to cut other taxes dollar for dollar
you make zero sense

Two reasons.
One, payroll tax cuts reward only those businesses that employ Americans, and those businesses that employ the most Americans get the most benefit, exactly the group you want to benefit most. Whereas Bush's tax cuts give a tax break to business that profited by outsourcing American jobs. The more they profited by outsourcing American jobs the more they profit from Bush's tax cuts.

And two, payroll taxes are the only taxes that are producing a surplus and there is a threshold of $102,000 in income that is taxed, and when you use across the board income tax rates instead of payroll tax rates to rebate that surplus you redistribute part of that surplus collected from incomes under the threshold to incomes over the threshold. And I thought real CON$ were against redistribution of wealth.

 

[Liability]

I listen to Rush a lot. He makes perfect sense, unlike the loons in congress.

Well, I guess it all depends on what you know. I have often said he lies to your level of ignorance.

Do either of these glittering jewels of collossal ignorance make perfect sense to you???

And DiveCon, I challenge you to find a Lib site that didn't get these quotes from me.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

July 9, 2008
Do you know what a black hole is? A black hole is a star we can't see because there's so much mass, so much gravity, not even light can escape it. The only thing that's been known to escape it is the USS enterprise, captained by William Shatner. Other than that, nothing's ever gotten out of one. A black hole is nothingness.

Some of his commentary on what a black hole is (at least the fragment you quote) is mocked by you for no apparent reason. Do you even grasp, in non-expert terms, what a "black hole" is?

Out of curiosity, relative to the water/CO2 comment Rush made as quoted by you, I'd like to understand your post a bit better. Is it your belief that no portion of atmospheric CO2 comes from Earth's waters, or that no significant portion of atmospheric CO2 comes from the Earth's waters, or do you have some other "understanding" of what Rush said? For my part, I believe it is quite scientifically accurate to say that a huge amount and proportion of atmospheric CO2 comes from the oceans each year.

I grant you this much, however. To say "water vapor" in that context is inaccurate or at least muddies the point he was otherwise making.

 

[ozzmdj]

Obama: I've Rescued the Economy


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: President Obama this afternoon in Washington, during this program, was all giddy over the fact that "only" 240,000 more Americans lost their jobs, only excited that the full unemployment figure is 16%. When you add the people who have been unemployed and have then given up looking for work, to those who are recorded as unemployed and looking, the unemployment rate nationally is 16.9%. President Obama and his remarks basically said that his administration has rescued our economy from catastrophe.

OBAMA: This morning we received additional signs that the worst may be behind us. Though we lost 247,000 jobs in July, that was nearly 200,000 fewer jobs lost than in June and far fewer than the nearly 700,000 jobs a month that we were losing at the beginning of the year. Today we're pointed in the right direction. We're losing jobs at less than half the rate we were when I took office. We've pulled the financial system back from the brink and a rising market is restoring value to those 401(k)s that are the foundation of a secure retirement.

RUSH: The worst is behind us, America! Obama saved the economy. He touts the rising stock market, which in previous months this administration said they pay no attention to. It's just "a tracking poll." So 247,000 jobs are not saved. Do you feel saved, America? See, I made this point yesterday. He's making the same great oratorical speeches. He still looks cool. He has the same warm smile and so forth, but the numbers are going down. What's different here? Do you feel saved? Let's go to the next sound bite. We need a new foundation, Obama says -- and he means it, and this is very important. We do not need a new foundation. We have had the best foundation any country has ever had for over 200 years. We don't need a new one. Here's what he said:

OBAMA: As we begin to put an end to this recession, we have to consider what comes next because we can't afford to return to an economy based on inflated profits and maxed-out credit cards, an economy where we depend on dirty and outdated sources of energy, an economy where we're burdened by soaring health care costs that serve only the special interests. Now's the time to build a new foundation for a stronger, more productive economy that creates the jobs of the future. And this foundation has to be supported by several pillars to our economy.

RUSH: That's it. We're going to remake it. We're going to get rid of profits. We're going to get rid of all the energy sources that are cheap, economical and that work. We're going to get health care costs down, which everybody knows isn't true. The polling data shows that people aren't buying this. Oh, this is just... He's rescued our economy from catastrophe. Here's the final sound bite.

OBAMA: Americans who have kept their confidence in their country and in our future. That's how we've pulled the economy back from the brink. That's why we're turning this economy around. I am convinced that we can see a light at the end of the tunnel, but now we're going to have to move forward with confidence and conviction to reach the promise of a new day.

RUSH: 240,000 more people lost their jobs. Now, you could say, "Okay, maybe jobs are a lagging indicator and maybe things are turning around." But folks, let's just hypothetically say, "Okay, it is a turnaround. We've hit bottom and we're now sort of bouncing back up." You wait until cap and trade and health care are implemented and start impacting the economy. All this is out the window. Wait until these tax increases hit. He must be stopped.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Hey. Hey. President Obama just rescued us from catastrophe. We haven't been rescued from a catastrophe. This is a catastrophe! He is a catastrophe. However, I have here a State-Run Associated Press dispatch: "President Barack Obama on Friday welcomed a dip in unemployment..." It did not dip! It did not dip. I know it went 9-5 to 9-4, but it didn't dip. At any rate, I don't want to split hairs. "President Barack Obama on Friday welcomed a dip in unemployment as evidence 'the worst may be behind us,'" and it may not. "Earlier, however," before his 1:15 p.m. TV appearance, "the White House said that the president still expects unemployment to hit 10 percent sometime later this year." Now, that could mean one of two things. They say it and when it doesn't happen, "Ooooh!" Or they know it's gonna happen. They know it's probably already there now. They're just cooking the books. That's what I think.

You want to hear some startling numbers? "In 2008, over two million US citizens fled the United States for greener pastures, and while this figure still represents less than 1% of the total US population, the trend is astounding. Between 2006-2008, the average number of US permanent resident filings stood at roughly 1.1 million/year..." That's how many people would leave. That's how many people would leave. It was two million in 2008, and in 2009 and beyond it's going to double, going to triple. You know, when a state goes nuts and starts taxing you out the wazoo, you can split the scene and move to another state. When your federal government does, there's nowhere you can go. You can't escape it, except leave -- and some people do. Two million people in 2008? That's -- and I guarantee you they're not leftists, who are upset that the country's not liberal enough.


END TRANSCRIPT

 

[garyd]

Ed, are you retarded? Do you know that the payroll tax you pay is little more than a function of how much tax you wish to pay the government at the end of the year? Payroll taxes, other than the time and energy necessary to compute them don't benefit a company in the slightest nor do they benefit the American worker unless you consider reducing his take home pay to benefit him in some peculiar and arcane leftist way. Hell I pay more to social security and medicare every week than I do to payroll tax.

You sir when it comes to tax policy are an obvious know nothing buffoon which is to say a typical leftist blowhard.

 

[ozzmdj]

Ed, are you retarded? Do you know that the payroll tax you pay is little more than a function of how much tax you wish to pay the government at the end of the year? Payroll taxes, other than the time and energy necessary to compute them don't benefit a company in the slightest nor do they benefit the American worker unless you consider reducing his take home pay to benefit him in some peculiar and arcane leftist way. Hell I pay more to social security and medicare every week than I do to payroll tax.

You sir when it comes to tax policy are an obvious know nothing buffoon which is to say a typical leftist blowhard.

Ed just needs to stick with things he knows.....like do you want to super-size your order

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, are you retarded? Do you know that the payroll tax you pay is little more than a function of how much tax you wish to pay the government at the end of the year? Payroll taxes, other than the time and energy necessary to compute them don't benefit a company in the slightest nor do they benefit the American worker unless you consider reducing his take home pay to benefit him in some peculiar and arcane leftist way. Hell I pay more to social security and medicare every week than I do to payroll tax.

You sir when it comes to tax policy are an obvious know nothing buffoon which is to say a typical leftist blowhard.

SS and FICA taxes ARE payroll taxes.

This is a perfect example of just how STUPID you have to be to be a CON$ervative.

 

[edthecynic]

I listen to Rush a lot. He makes perfect sense, unlike the loons in congress.

Well, I guess it all depends on what you know. I have often said he lies to your level of ignorance.

Do either of these glittering jewels of collossal ignorance make perfect sense to you???

And DiveCon, I challenge you to find a Lib site that didn't get these quotes from me.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

July 9, 2008
Do you know what a black hole is? A black hole is a star we can't see because there's so much mass, so much gravity, not even light can escape it. The only thing that's been known to escape it is the USS enterprise, captained by William Shatner. Other than that, nothing's ever gotten out of one. A black hole is nothingness.

Some of his commentary on what a black hole is (at least the fragment you quote) is mocked by you for no apparent reason. Do you even grasp, in non-expert terms, what a "black hole" is?

Out of curiosity, relative to the water/CO2 comment Rush made as quoted by you, I'd like to understand your post a bit better. Is it your belief that no portion of atmospheric CO2 comes from Earth's waters, or that no significant portion of atmospheric CO2 comes from the Earth's waters, or do you have some other "understanding" of what Rush said? For my part, I believe it is quite scientifically accurate to say that a huge amount and proportion of atmospheric CO2 comes from the oceans each year.

I grant you this much, however. To say "water vapor" in that context is inaccurate or at least muddies the point he was otherwise making.

I see you have cut and ran from the U3 and U6 posts!!! No surprise there.

As far as Black Holes, if you read his quote, I highlighted him saying "there's so much MASS" and you still don't get it while pretending you know something about physics and I don't!!!
MASS is not "nothingness"!!!!!!!!
As I said, LimpBoy lies to the ignorance of his audience.

And water vapor is H2O. H2O has no carbon so not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe comes from H2O. He actually pulled that quote from his free side because of me.
His saying "water vapor" does not "muddie the point," it is completely asinine, it shows his complete scientific stupidity.

Here's another example of his complete ignorance of science where he again contradicts himself in his own rant, just like the Black Hole nonsense, but is again tooooo STUPID to know it!!! (pay attention to the underlined words)

December 20, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

What law of physics explains that? We don't have one. They've had to create it because they haven't observed it.

 

[garyd]

So basically your lumping all taxes in with the income tax how stupid of you. And still none of them truly benefit anyone paying them. Damn near everything you put into Social security and Medicare Medicaid is paid out the next day in either administrative costs or benefits to recipients. That was straight from the SS website.

 

[Liability]

Well, I guess it all depends on what you know. I have often said he lies to your level of ignorance.

Do either of these glittering jewels of collossal ignorance make perfect sense to you???

And DiveCon, I challenge you to find a Lib site that didn't get these quotes from me.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

July 9, 2008
Do you know what a black hole is? A black hole is a star we can't see because there's so much mass, so much gravity, not even light can escape it. The only thing that's been known to escape it is the USS enterprise, captained by William Shatner. Other than that, nothing's ever gotten out of one. A black hole is nothingness.

Some of his commentary on what a black hole is (at least the fragment you quote) is mocked by you for no apparent reason. Do you even grasp, in non-expert terms, what a "black hole" is?

Out of curiosity, relative to the water/CO2 comment Rush made as quoted by you, I'd like to understand your post a bit better. Is it your belief that no portion of atmospheric CO2 comes from Earth's waters, or that no significant portion of atmospheric CO2 comes from the Earth's waters, or do you have some other "understanding" of what Rush said? For my part, I believe it is quite scientifically accurate to say that a huge amount and proportion of atmospheric CO2 comes from the oceans each year.

I grant you this much, however. To say "water vapor" in that context is inaccurate or at least muddies the point he was otherwise making.

I see you have cut and ran from the U3 and U6 posts!!! No surprise there.

Not even a little, LyingMassiveMoron. It's just that you have yet to respond properly to the challenge I laid down for you. No surprise THERE at all.

As far as Black Holes, if you read his quote, I highlighted him saying "there's so much MASS" and you still don't get it while pretending you know something about physics and I don't!!!
MASS is not "nothingness"!!!!!!!!
As I said, LimpBoy lies to the ignorance of his audience.

I agree that the incredible amount of mass necessary for a star to form a Black Hole is NOT the same thing as "nothingness." I suspect that this was not the sense in which Rush meant that, but still, it was spoken in a sloppy way. Oh nosies.

And water vapor is H2O. H2O has no carbon so not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe comes from H2O. He actually pulled that quote from his free side because of me.
His saying "water vapor" does not "muddie the point," it is completely asinine, it shows his complete scientific stupidity.

Wrong. He did muddy the point because while H2O (such as water molecules and water vapor vapor) does not produce carbon dioxide, the OCEANS release (some estimates indicate) about 90 GIGATONS of it ANNUALLY. (It is also estimted to absorb roughly the same amount annually -- all other things being equal -- but the point is that the OCEANS do release MANY TIMES the amount of CO2 into our atmosphere each year as all of man-made CO2 production annually.

Here's another example of his complete ignorance of science where he again contradicts himself in his own rant, just like the Black Hole nonsense, but is again tooooo STUPID to know it!!! (pay attention to the underlined words)

December 20, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

What law of physics explains that? We don't have one. They've had to create it because they haven't observed it.

Again, you appear to be struggling to mock Rush. What he was suggesting was that in order to accept the Big Bang theory you are obliged to accept (or at least waffle on) the notion that the "material" came into existence without causation. In short, all he's suggesting is that the cosmic stuff (mass/energy) either came from somewhere or that it "always" existed (even outside the parameters of time/space). And to accept the latter, one is positing a belief in something existing which was not created. It kinda sorta begins to sound a bit like "faith."

YOU and a few supercilious others here at USMB mock anybody who doesn't accept the received wisdom that you happen to agree with or otherwise have. But some truly brilliant physicists -- unlike you -- have been perfectly willing to acknowledge that the basic premise of their Big Bang theory requires believing that matter/energy came into existence by some forces which we cannot comprehend. "Where did it come from?" is actually not a bad question, no matter how you try to mock it.

 

[DiveCon]

I take it I got CON$ right on this issue.

Do you realize that even wage earners that don't pay income taxes pay payroll taxes? Even LimpBoy admits this.

So while the people on the bottom might see their income taxes go up, since I would replace Bush's tax cuts DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with payroll tax cuts, they would certainly pay no more in total taxes and for most at the bottom they would pay much less.

Jul 14, 2009 RUSH: 43% of taxpayers now do not pay income tax. They pay FICA, payroll and all that, but they don't pay income tax.

no shit sherlock
so why not just leave the Bush tax cut
if your going to cut other taxes dollar for dollar
you make zero sense

Two reasons.
One, payroll tax cuts reward only those businesses that employ Americans, and those businesses that employ the most Americans get the most benefit, exactly the group you want to benefit most. Whereas Bush's tax cuts give a tax break to business that profited by outsourcing American jobs. The more they profited by outsourcing American jobs the more they profit from Bush's tax cuts.

And two, payroll taxes are the only taxes that are producing a surplus and there is a threshold of $102,000 in income that is taxed, and when you use across the board income tax rates instead of payroll tax rates to rebate that surplus you redistribute part of that surplus collected from incomes under the threshold to incomes over the threshold. And I thought real CON$ were against redistribution of wealth.

you dont even understand how a business decides how much it pays someone
so this discussion is a waste of time with you