bencook2 wrote:

Changing one’s mind based on the best available evidence is what I consider being a ‘realist.’
___________________________

Tim if I or you could actually do what you said above with any consistancy we would be very special indeed!  There is no way to parse out every instance and judge it by its own weight.  We are not little difference engines.  We jugde and assume and apply past experience.  We have our own set of values.  My set is based on conservative principles that state: Individual responsibility for myself and Individual Responsibility should be expected of others.

People can not just "get a pass" for bringing three souls into this world with no way of providing for them.  There has to be some responsibility here.  It may be a harsh one.  But it must happen.  And by NO means should it be rewarded.

I volunteer, I give to charity, I work in the community.  I do my part and I expect others to do theirs.  If a mother of three wants to go to school.  I say let the government loan her the money.  LOAN.  If she wants food stamps...she can work for it.  Stuff envelops from home.  Do medical billing.  (trust me, it doesn't take much to do it.  My cousins wife makes 21k per year doing it and she has 3 kids and only a rural SC high school education)

The entitlements must stop.  I am not without feeling and believe we have a responsibility as citizens, neighbors, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., etc. to help those in need.  But HELP does not necessarily translate into handout.  NO one should get a dime of my money for free.  NO ONE.  IF you want my money I will give it to you if you earn it.  I will also give you my respect.  That is also worth alot.

Ben, I agree if there is (pardon the pun) a clearly defined exit strategy. My suggestion, once the government stops giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and major corportions who receive more income in a year than ID (or God - pick one, unless you're in Kansas), then let's start on the poor.  Unfortunately, the present budget does exactly the opposite.  It's cutting entitlement to pay for 1) a war; 2) Katrina/Rita/ and 3) continue tax cuts on capital gains and non-earned income (not sure if that last one made it or not, to be honest), at the expense of Medicare, Medicaid, and school loan programs (hard to go to college and stuff envelopes in the same day).

When that happens, then let's restructure programs for the socially disadvantaged, not before.

/Tim

Tim Baker wrote:
Kickfight, you said you do not care to debate with me.  Thus, don't.

Well, that applied for the period when I was debating with Marcus. I reserve the option to re-engage at will

Tim Baker wrote:
I am the OP on this thread and the topic is 'ID and the Dover, PA, court case'. If you don't really care to debate, stay somewhat on topic, but continue with the moronic logic and refocusing of your thought processes and debating skills on 'spelling errors' and your inability to tell 'opinion' from well-supported research, then you certainly are free to go to another thread.

Being the OP is irrelevant... digressions happen. It's a fact of life. You can dissemble, and excuse your inadequate debating skills, and justify your inability to sustain a logical thought for more than a couple of seconds, and your transparent attempt at avoidance by misuse of the word 'opinion' all you want, but digressions *will* happen, and there's very little that anyone can do about it. It's the MM way!

Tim Baker wrote:
It may come as a surprise to you, but words such as ‘ad hominem’ are very much part of my vocabulary and many other with which I work and discuss issues with on MM.

It comes a surprise *sometimes*, yes... although not always. You get extremely defensive sometimes, Tim, and it shows. No-one is questioning your intelligence, so there's no need to try to over-extend yourself in that respect. You can continue to refer to my arguments as 'opinions' all you want, but it's clear that's purely an avoidance mechanism, and nothing more than an avoidance mechanism. I hope we can get to the point where you can overcome your defensiveness and argue coherently. Until then, we're just going to end up here every single time.

kickfight wrote:

Tim Baker wrote:
Kickfight, you said you do not care to debate with me.  Thus, don't.

Well, that applied for the period when I was debating with Marcus. I reserve the option to re-engage at will

Tim Baker wrote:
I am the OP on this thread and the topic is 'ID and the Dover, PA, court case'. If you don't really care to debate, stay somewhat on topic, but continue with the moronic logic and refocusing of your thought processes and debating skills on 'spelling errors' and your inability to tell 'opinion' from well-supported research, then you certainly are free to go to another thread.

Being the OP is irrelevant... digressions happen. It's a fact of life. You can dissemble, and excuse your inadequate debating skills, and justify your inability to sustain a logical thought for more than a couple of seconds, and your transparent attempt at avoidance by misuse of the word 'opinion' all you want, but digressions *will* happen, and there's very little that anyone can do about it. It's the MM way!


It comes a surprise *sometimes*, yes... although not always. You get extremely defensive sometimes, Tim, and it shows. No-one is questioning your intelligence, so there's no need to try to over-extend yourself in that respect. You can continue to refer to my arguments as 'opinions' all you want, but it's clear that's purely an avoidance mechanism, and nothing more than an avoidance mechanism. I hope we can get to the point where you can overcome your defensiveness and argue coherently. Until then, we're just going to end up here every single time.

Kickbox, when one says to me that they no longer care to debate with me, then that's it for me.  You're no longer on my radar, so to speak.  In another forum, perhaps, but not here.  With whom I debate is my choice, not yours.

The OP does have the right to refocus the discussion, however no authority to deal with one who doesn't it, except to ignore him/her.  You're free to find another forum.

I do not get defensive.  I enjoy an intellectual debate, and attempt to support my opinion with evidence that support my thesis.  I have yet to see you provide evidence of anything you say, other than your own opinion.  Regarding my posts, I could care less what you or anyone else thinks, unless my logic is based on a foundation other than sand.  I simply reply to what someone posts to me, drink my tea, read mail, pay bills, or return phone calls.  Comments made on MM or any other forum are nothing to get defensive about; and I don’t.  The illusion of defense of internet posted material is nothing more than that which exists in the reader's mind.

I've paid my dues in college. Regarding my education, I’m sorry if spending ten years learning offends you.  That is your issue to deal with, however, not mine.  I do teach a course in Research Methods for medical students.  I have to say that most of the time I read what you post and just shake my head in embarrassment (for you), considering how sophomoric you sound, apparently without understanding.

Happy holidays.

/Tim

kickfight wrote:
Until then, we're just going to end up here every single time.

Then there is only one answer.  Shut up.

Tim Baker wrote:
Ben, I agree if there is (pardon the pun) a clearly defined exit strategy. My suggestion, once the government stops giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and major corportions who receive more income in a year than ID (or God - pick one, unless you're in Kansas), then let's start on the poor.  Unfortunately, the present budget does exactly the opposite.  It's cutting entitlement to pay for 1) a war; 2) Katrina/Rita/ and 3) continue tax cuts on capital gains and non-earned income (not sure if that last one made it or not, to be honest), at the expense of Medicare, Medicaid, and school loan programs (hard to go to college and stuff envelopes in the same day).

When that happens, then let's restructure programs for the socially disadvantaged, not before.

/Tim

There is one point here that most people forget.  Maybe two points.

1.  Poor people don't pay taxes nor do they employ any one.  Most people don't work for poor people.  They work for rich corporations/people. (rich like poor is a relative term)

So if tax cuts create jobs and invigorate the economy...well...where is the problem?

HOLD ON...I know where the problem is before you say it.  The tax breaks are not translating into jobs at all or fast enough.  They are going in CEO's pockets.  That may be true.  And where that happens it needs to stop. 

But, it is a tired and intellectually dishonest trick of the left to demonize the companies that provide the very jobs that put food on the table.  You know the picture of the evil empire with smoke stacks polluting the world.  That "evil empire" employs someones mom and dad and puts food on the table.  That "evil empire" pays taxes so welfare moms can feed their babes.

This is why I am for a flat tax.  NO breaks.  NO loop holes.  But democrats are scared shitless that the poor may actually have to pay some damn taxes under a flat tax.

Medicare and Medicaid are entitlements.  But they are not the problem.  The problem is the cost of health care.  Anytime the government pays it is a buracracy.  That costs more money.  That also increase coruption.  Who doesn't want to stick it to the government?

In the conservative Ben Cook plan we would have universal health care for non working age citizens only.  If you can work you can pay your own bills.  It would be run by the state.  Not the Feds.

Anyway.  If the rich pay the taxes and employ the workers...  why shouldn't they get the breaks?  (again, rich being relative)

Tim Baker wrote:
Ben, I agree if there is a clearly defined exit strategy. My suggestion, once the government stops giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and major corportions who receive more income in a year than ID, then let's start on the poor. 

When that happens, then let's restructure programs for the socially disadvantaged, not before.

Exactly.  Those who pay very little in taxes should get back a heck of a lot more than they put in and those who pay the vast majority of taxes should barely get anything back!  Rob from the rich and give to the poor!  That will solve all social problems... look at communism and how well it works!

You know what does work?  Setting restrictions on welfare and social programs that say "If you continue spurting out kids you get cut off, you don't get more money".  If you fail to get a job within 2 months of being in our program you are cut off.  If you cut off access from the leaches of society you then have far more money to direct to the true needy.  You don't punish the successful for being successful.  If you do that, why would anyone strive to be successful?  Heck, they can get something for doing nothing under your system!

Tim Baker wrote:
LOL ... come over to the Dark Side .... come over (we have cookies and free food stamps ... Come over, Ben).  Oh, the Entitlement Society?  Are you talking about Halliburon, the oil, the Pharmaceutical companies?

I now there are moderate Republicans.  By definition, there cannot be moderate conservatives.  /Tim

Oh I love it!  There are absolutely no liberals or democrats with stakes in Haliburton, the oil or Pharmaceutical companies?  If there are, your "conservative" slant you put on them all is balony!  BTW, a Democrat used Haliburton during his 8 years as President...........

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

kickfight wrote:
But they have been measured, haven't they?

No, absolute zero has not been measured. It's a theoretical minumum. And E=MC2 is a notation that represents a model of physics reality. All of these things - like pi, infinity, irrational numbers, or the square root of -2 - are notations for aspects of reality as we understand it, which we've never seen and cannot write touch or point to. They're notations exactly because they are not "real" but are aspects of reality.

I suppose you could say they are ways in which science transcends experience, since you certainly can't "experience" infinity - you're too small.

You're just having fun wanking around and are going to say whatever comes to mind, aren't you? This is like high school philosophy class.

mjr.

A much simpler one that everyone runs in to every day is the concept of Zero... "0" is a notation for nothingness, though the human brain has no way of representing nothingness because... nothingness is the state of nonexistence.  There is no way to observe nothing.  We can observe the fact that something isn't there, but you're not observing nothing...you're observing a lack of something...yet until the Mayan (or was it the Inca) culture invented the concept of zero, the world had no representation of nothingness.

Zero is however a very important concept in both math and science, and also one that no one would argue is real.  At least I hope not...maybe so after this post...but hey 2+2=5 (for large values of 2)

bencook2 wrote:
There is one point here that most people forget.  Maybe two points.

1.  Poor people don't pay taxes nor do they employ any one.  Most people don't work for poor people.  They work for rich corporations/people. (rich like poor is a relative term)

So if tax cuts create jobs and invigorate the economy...well...where is the problem?

HOLD ON...I know where the problem is before you say it.  The tax breaks are not translating into jobs at all or fast enough.  They are going in CEO's pockets.  That may be true.  And where that happens it needs to stop. 

But, it is a tired and intellectually dishonest trick of the left to demonize the companies that provide the very jobs that put food on the table.  You know the picture of the evil empire with smoke stacks polluting the world.  That "evil empire" employs someones mom and dad and puts food on the table.  That "evil empire" pays taxes so welfare moms can feed their babes.

This is why I am for a flat tax.  NO breaks.  NO loop holes.  But democrats are scared shitless that the poor may actually have to pay some damn taxes under a flat tax.

Medicare and Medicaid are entitlements.  But they are not the problem.  The problem is the cost of health care.  Anytime the government pays it is a buracracy.  That costs more money.  That also increase coruption.  Who doesn't want to stick it to the government?

In the conservative Ben Cook plan we would have universal health care for non working age citizens only.  If you can work you can pay your own bills.  It would be run by the state.  Not the Feds.

Anyway.  If the rich pay the taxes and employ the workers...  why shouldn't they get the breaks?  (again, rich being relative)

Ben, it's called a redistribution of income.  Of course the wealthy tax pay more taxes - they earn more.  The poor don't pay because they are poor.  The concept of taxation is to redistribute part of the income to help those who need it.

If I didn't see ENRON, WorldCom, Oil, and pharmaceutials reeping such huge profits at the expense of their employees or customers, then fine.  But I do.  Once we stopping rewarding the wealthy (corporations and individuals) for not contributing to the economy, but hurting it, then fine.  How did Enron's pension scandal help anyone, except Ken and his buddies.  How does spending more on advertising for very expensive 'me-too' drugs help anyone except the pharmaceutical companies (when's the last time you saw an ad for Penecillin?).

Tax cuts stimulate the economy?  Clinton raised taxes and we had the longest peace-time expansion of the U.S. economy in history. Bush cut taxes (and borrowed our future) and after six years we're just now seeing the economy back to where it was when he took office.  I'm sorry, but six years for a tax cut to stimulate the economy.  There is a question of causation here.

Medicare is an entitlement (anyone 65 and over qualifies regardless of income; Medicaid (program for the poor) is a means tested program (you have to be very poor to qualify).  Don't you think there isn't a profit driven bureaucracy in every hospital and insurance company in the U.S.  We have approximately 1,500 different bureaucracies in the U.S. health insurance system - spending about 11 percent of health care dollars on administration.  In contrast, Medicare spends 2 percent on administration. Medicare is considerably more efficient at managing its funds than are the for-profit-insurance companies.

A state-run health insurance program. I'll be damned. You need to read the last effort at creating a universal insurance program in the U.S. - it was Clinton's plan and it sought to create state buying cooperatives to do the very thing you discuss, however with federal oversight.  Of course the Republicans killed that idea.  Sure you're not a liberal?

I'm not for a 'flat tax' if I understand what you're saying. I'm for a national sales tax - the more you spend the more you pay.  Ten percent of a family earing $20,000 per year is a lot to pay; where ten percent of someone earning $1 billion dollars won't even be felt.  I'd argue for a tax on consumption of products than one on income.  Those who can afford to buy will; those who don't will not. 

But first, get rid of corporate welfare.

/Tim

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
And, according to my whacko mathematician buddy:
"My infinity is bigger than yours. How? Easy: I added 1 to it."
No joke. Mathematicians spend 5 years writing dissertations about stuff like that...  And you thought we were bad on ModelMayhem!

mjr.

Tell your whacky math buddy I said, "My infinity is bigger than any other infinity...how?  I multiplied it by infinity an infinite number of times to the infinite power."

jeffgreen wrote:

Exactly.  Those who pay very little in taxes should get back a heck of a lot more than they put in and those who pay the vast majority of taxes should barely get anything back!  Rob from the rich and give to the poor!  That will solve all social problems... look at communism and how well it works!

Those who don't pay taxes or very little don't get any or very little back. 

You know what does work?  Setting restrictions on welfare and social programs that say "If you continue spurting out kids you get cut off, you don't get more money".  If you fail to get a job within 2 months of being in our program you are cut off.

Most states do have Welfare to Work programs.  Not sure of your point.

If you cut off access from the leaches of society you then have far more money to direct to the true needy.  You don't punish the successful for being successful.  If you do that, why would anyone strive to be successful?  Heck, they can get something for doing nothing under your system!

And you will determine who the 'leaches are' and the 'true needy'?  Heck, under the Bush tax plan, I can simply do nothing and just invest my money and not pay taxes on my capital gains.  Just seems like the right thing to do, doesn't it.

/Tim

raveneyes wrote:

A much simpler one that everyone runs in to every day is the concept of Zero... "0" is a notation for nothingness, though the human brain has no way of representing nothingness because... nothingness is the state of nonexistence.  There is no way to observe nothing.  We can observe the fact that something isn't there, but you're not observing nothing...you're observing a lack of something...yet until the Mayan (or was it the Inca) culture invented the concept of zero, the world had no representation of nothingness.

Zero is however a very important concept in both math and science, and also one that no one would argue is real.  At least I hope not...maybe so after this post...but hey 2+2=5 (for large values of 2)

Which is where God comes in.  Because at one time there was only God.  God was like ZERO.  But the oposite of ZERO instead on nothing God was all that there was.  But like ZERO it there was no way to observe GOD.  Even God was unable to observe God.  There was no alternate to God.  No point of reference.  Then the Big Bang happened because God wanted to have an experience of himself.  The only way God could do that was to make what was NOT God.  Thus the creation of ZERO.  "That" that is and "That" that is not.

Or at least that is the theory that I like.  (over simplified of course)

raveneyes wrote:

A much simpler one that everyone runs in to every day is the concept of Zero... "0" is a notation for nothingness, though the human brain has no way of representing nothingness because... nothingness is the state of nonexistence.  There is no way to observe nothing.  We can observe the fact that something isn't there, but you're not observing nothing...you're observing a lack of something...yet until the Mayan (or was it the Inca) culture invented the concept of zero, the world had no representation of nothingness.

Zero is however a very important concept in both math and science, and also one that no one would argue is real.  At least I hope not...maybe so after this post...but hey 2+2=5 (for large values of 2)

However, zero doesn't always mean nothingness.  Zero Celcius is the temperature at which water freezes at sea level.  That doe not mean there is no temperature; it's just another number on the Celcius scale (However, zero Kelvin does mean no temperature).  Cheers, Tim

Tim Baker wrote:

However, zero doesn't always mean nothingness.  Zero Celcius is the temperature at which water freezes at sea level.  That doe not mean there is no temperature; it's just another number on the Celcius scale (However, zero Kelvin does mean no temperature).  Cheers, Tim

In the case of zero on any scale, you're still observing the lack of something, but in the case of any scale (temp measurement, distance, weight, etc) you're noting the lack of movement on the scale.  So you're still having to represent the concept of nonexistence or nothingness.

bencook2 wrote:

Which is where God comes in.  Because at one time there was only God.  God was like ZERO.  But the oposite of ZERO instead on nothing God was all that there was.  But like ZERO it there was no way to observe GOD.  Even God was unable to observe God.  There was no alternate to God.  No point of reference.  Then the Big Bang happened because God wanted to have an experience of himself.  The only way God could do that was to make what was NOT God.  Thus the creation of ZERO.  "That" that is and "That" that is not.

Or at least that is the theory that I like.  (over simplified of course)

Interesting Theory. But who made God?  /Tim

raveneyes wrote:
In the case of zero on any scale, you're still observing the lack of something, but in the case of any scale (temp measurement, distance, weight, etc) you're noting the lack of movement on the scale.  So you're still having to represent the concept of nonexistence or nothingness.

Actually, there are four levels of data:

Ratio: Zero = Nothing (and the ratios are meaningful, e.g., $0 = no dollars; $10.00 is twice as much as $5.00 (the ratio would be 2X)
Interval = Zero is just another number on the scale: Temperature other than Kelvin is an example.
Ordinal: A ranking of data (Good, Better, Best) without any knowledge of how much different is Good than Better and Better than Best - it's subjective)
Nominal: Describes something about what-ever-it is you're measuring (e.g., 20% were female; 80% were female).

And: OH yeah?  Well, my finity is much bigger than your infinity (Source: Your girlfriend/wife/SO) 

/Tim

bencook2 wrote:
Which is where God comes in.  Because at one time there was only God.  God was like ZERO.  But the oposite of ZERO instead on nothing God was all that there was.  But like ZERO it there was no way to observe GOD.  Even God was unable to observe God.  There was no alternate to God.  No point of reference.  Then the Big Bang happened because God wanted to have an experience of himself.  The only way God could do that was to make what was NOT God.  Thus the creation of ZERO.  "That" that is and "That" that is not.

Or at least that is the theory that I like.  (over simplified of course)

This is one of those nice wacky arguments that I use to disprove the concept of the Christian 'God'

The book of Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  Now it has come to pass as we've gained greater knowledge of the heavens and the earth that theologians have had to expand their concept of 'the heavens' from just simply the sky and that place where God sits.  'the heavens' now also includes the entire rest of the universe...all the stars, planets, and other astronomical bodies.  So, if there were no 'heavens' where was God?

What? God already existed you say....but God hadn't created anything yet.  Where was God?  How long had he been there?  Where did he come from?

It's just as silly as the idea of an omnipotent god.  If God is omnipotent, then there is nothing that he can not do correct?  That's the definition of omnipotent.

om·nip·o·tent
  adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotent

If God is omnipotent, he can create anything.  Therefore God can create a boulder that he can not move.  If he can move it he has not created a boulder he can not move, so he is not omnipotent.  If he can't move it he is not powerful enough to move it, so he is still not omnipotent

Tim Baker wrote:
Ben, it's called a redistribution of income.  Of course the wealthy tax pay more taxes - they earn more.  The poor don't pay because they are poor.  The concept of taxation is to redistribute part of the income to help those who need it.

OH that is what it is called alright and I am four-square against it!  That is fixing the symptoms...not the problems.  You assume that the rich don't need or have not earned that money fairly.  It is theirs to do with as they please in my book. (with few exceptions)

If I didn't see ENRON, WorldCom, Oil, and pharmaceutials reeping such huge profits at the expense of their employees or customers, then fine.  But I do.  Once we stopping rewarding the wealthy (corporations and individuals) for not contributing to the economy, but hurting it, then fine.  How did Enron's pension scandal help anyone, except Ken and his buddies.  How does spending more on advertising for very expensive 'me-too' drugs help anyone except the pharmaceutical companies (when's the last time you saw an add for Penecillin?).

Why in the world would companies need all that money?  OH to pay the Government when it puts its hand out.  If the Government where this benevolent arbitor I would say "you win".  But corporate America can't hold a candle the coruption and legalized theft that goes on in Washington.  And you want to give them more money?

Tax cuts stimulate the economy?  Clinton raised taxes and we had the longest peace-time expansion of the U.S. economy in history. Bush cut taxes (and borrowed our future) and after six years we're just now seeing the economy back to where it was when he took office.  I'm sorry, but six years for a tax cut to stimulate the economy.  There is a question of causation here.

Say it with me Tim..."intellectually dishonest"!  Yes!  I knew you could do it.  Clinton is no more responsible for the economic outcome of the 90's than was the republican controled congress.  Bush is no more responsible for the economic down turn that happened just 5-8 months after being in office than is Clinton. 

We have had this argument before.  The responsibility lays with the angry mob!  Us!  When you buy Linux/Redhat at $236 at its IPO there is going to be a correction.  All those people running code had to take jobs at the GAP.  Those who normally work at the GAP now work at Mikey D's and those who normally work at MIkey D's where then unemployed.  Along with the code writers that could not find GAP jobs.  Buying stocks at $125 and expecting them to double or split is what killed the economy.  It was a correction.  According to me.   And according to Alan Greenspan.

A state-run health insurance program. I'll be damned. You need to read the last effort at creating a universal insurance program in the U.S. - it was Clinton's plan and it sought to create state buying cooperatives to do the very thing you discuss, however with federal oversight.  Of course the Republicans killed that idea.  Sure you're not a liberal?

Positive!

Republicans killed it because they hated Clinton and because it was bad policy.  There can be no TRUELY universal healthcare.  There can possibly be a hybrid.  That I am willing to listen to.

I'm not for a 'flat tax' if I understand what you're saying. I'm for a national sales tax - the more you spend the more you pay.  Ten percent of a family earing $20,000 per year is a lot to pay; where ten percent of someone earning $1 billion dollars won't even be felt.  I'd argue for a tax on consumption of products than one on income.  Those who can afford to buy will; those who don't will not. 

But first, get rid of corporate welfare.

Flat tax plus national sales tax.  2-5% income tax and 5-10% consumption tax.  If you are the richest of the rich you pay the full 5% and what ever consumption.  If you are poor you pay 2% and what ever consumption.  Percentages NEVER CHANGE.  Make it a constitutional amendment along with a Balanced budget or Congress is forced to ajurn for new elections in 6 months. 

You want to first get rid of corporate welfare...get rid of the money in politics.  You figure that one out without violating freedom of speech let me know!

/Tim

bencook2 wrote:
Then the Big Bang happened because God wanted to have an experience of himself.

And then God spoke...God Damn!

Tim Baker wrote:

Interesting Theory. But who made God?  /Tim

Who made wondering "who made God"?

bencook2 wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid are entitlements.  But they are not the problem.  The problem is the cost of health care.

The problem is not the cost of health care, the problem is heath care as a cost for living.  We spend far too much money keeping people alive that as we all know are going to die anyway.  There is no need to keep people in the hospital for extended care when they will never leave the facility to live a meaningful life beyond.  Particularly old people, and hospitals are full of them.  The aged cash cows.

There are not enough plugs being pulled.  Keeping the juice flowing is the money spigot for the health care community...and that is why our health care system is so out of whack.

The hypocratic oath is a sham.  If the medical community truly felt it was about saving lives then how would they react if health care for all those over the age of 75 were treated for free.  Gasp!

Oh Tim, your reference to Worldcom was not about profit that created the downfall.  Their inability to incorporate legacy billing systems through their many mergers created overbilling customers and then reporting that mistaken billing as earnings...to the tune of over 20 Billion.  It caught up with them in the audit process when suddenly the bean counters said, "hey, we sent out bills that were wrong and upon being corrected we kept he initial figures as income...there's something wrong here!"

raveneyes wrote:

This is one of those nice wacky arguments that I use to disprove the concept of the Christian 'God'

The book of Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  Now it has come to pass as we've gained greater knowledge of the heavens and the earth that theologians have had to expand their concept of 'the heavens' from just simply the sky and that place where God sits.  'the heavens' now also includes the entire rest of the universe...all the stars, planets, and other astronomical bodies.  So, if there were no 'heavens' where was God?

What? God already existed you say....but God hadn't created anything yet.  Where was God?  How long had he been there?  Where did he come from?

It's just as silly as the idea of an omnipotent god.  If God is omnipotent, then there is nothing that he can not do correct?  That's the definition of omnipotent.

om·nip·o·tent
  adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotent

If God is omnipotent, he can create anything.  Therefore God can create a boulder that he can not move.  If he can move it he has not created a boulder he can not move, so he is not omnipotent.  If he can't move it he is not powerful enough to move it, so he is still not omnipotent

That does not disprove my Christian God.  I am a Christian.  But, admitedly...my kind of Christian.  Not any kind an organized religion would recognize.  I would most certainly be stoned (not the good kind) back in the day.  Or maybe a good stake burning. 

PS... Where God was there, here, everywhere.  He was all that there was.  He was space time and direction all at once. (or the lack there of)  God was the one thing.  The only thing.

Our current level of conciousness can only scrape the surface of what God is/was.  Just like 2000 years ago people could not grasp the ideas we hold today as simple.  Nano tech, Quantum Physics, Zero Gravity, Internet Porn!

bencook2 wrote:

Who made wondering "who made God"?

I was intelligently designed by my mother and father. /Tim

bencook2 wrote:
Where God was there, here, everywhere.  He was all that there was.  He was space time and direction all at once. (or the lack there of)  God was the one thing.  The only thing.

Our current level of conciousness can only scrape the surface of what God is/was.  Just like 2000 years ago people could not grasp the ideas we hold today as simple.  Nano tech, Quantum Physics, Zero Gravity, Internet Porn!

Ben, how you're sounding like a Buddhist who has studied Hinduism.  You pretty well summed up the Buddiht/Hindu belief in creation (expect they don't refer to a diety called God - their religion is much older than Christianity).  Sure you're not a Liberal Buddhist?  /Tim

bencook2 wrote:
That does not disprove my Christian God.  I am a Christian.  But, admitedly...my kind of Christian.  Not any kind an organized religion would recognize.  I would most certainly be stoned (not the good kind) back in the day.  Or maybe a good stake burning. 

PS... Where God was there, here, everywhere.  He was all that there was.  He was space time and direction all at once. (or the lack there of)  God was the one thing.  The only thing.

Our current level of conciousness can only scrape the surface of what God is/was.  Just like 2000 years ago people could not grasp the ideas we hold today as simple.  Nano tech, Quantum Physics, Zero Gravity, Internet Porn!

Ok, you may be a "Christian" in name, but if you don't believe in the omnipotence of your 'God' then you're not believing in the Christian concept of God.

-----------


If 'God' *was*, where was he?  If he existed then he had to have a place to exist in...unless you're saying that God is not an entity, but there are more passages than I could care to remember in the bible that show he is a physical being and an entity unto himself.  Do you see what I mean?  I know it's bad to use logic to argue religion, but what I'm trying to say is belief in God requires faith, and is not scientific in any means.  Religion and science can not be combined.  They are not mutually exclusive because it's not that science exists as a way to disprove religion, it's just that the observation and logical thinking required by science doesn't work in religion.

The Big Bang doesn't require faith...we can see evidence of the Big Bang and do math to represent the Big Bang....and use telescopes to observe the results of the Big Bang...and observe the effects of the Big Bang...etc

'God' requires faith.  If you ask a theologian these questions he will say "We don't understand God and we never will, God is all powerful" without investigating further.

bencook2 wrote:

Tim Baker wrote:
Ben, it's called a redistribution of income.  Of course the wealthy tax pay more taxes - they earn more.  The poor don't pay because they are poor.  The concept of taxation is to redistribute part of the income to help those who need it.

OH that is what it is called alright and I am four-square against it!  That is fixing the symptoms...not the problems.  You assume that the rich don't need or have not earned that money fairly.  It is theirs to do with as they please in my book. (with few exceptions)

If I didn't see ENRON, WorldCom, Oil, and pharmaceutials reeping such huge profits at the expense of their employees or customers, then fine.  But I do.  Once we stopping rewarding the wealthy (corporations and individuals) for not contributing to the economy, but hurting it, then fine.  How did Enron's pension scandal help anyone, except Ken and his buddies.  How does spending more on advertising for very expensive 'me-too' drugs help anyone except the pharmaceutical companies (when's the last time you saw an add for Penecillin?).

Why in the world would companies need all that money?  OH to pay the Government when it puts its hand out.  If the Government where this benevolent arbitor I would say "you win".  But corporate America can't hold a candle the coruption and legalized theft that goes on in Washington.  And you want to give them more money?

Tax cuts stimulate the economy?  Clinton raised taxes and we had the longest peace-time expansion of the U.S. economy in history. Bush cut taxes (and borrowed our future) and after six years we're just now seeing the economy back to where it was when he took office.  I'm sorry, but six years for a tax cut to stimulate the economy.  There is a question of causation here.

Say it with me Tim..."intellectually dishonest"!  Yes!  I knew you could do it.  Clinton is no more responsible for the economic outcome of the 90's than was the republican controled congress.  Bush is no more responsible for the economic down turn that happened just 5-8 months after being in office than is Clinton. 

We have had this argument before.  The responsibility lays with the angry mob!  Us!  When you buy Linux/Redhat at $236 at its IPO there is going to be a correction.  All those people running code had to take jobs at the GAP.  Those who normally work at the GAP now work at Mikey D's and those who normally work at MIkey D's where then unemployed.  Along with the code writers that could not find GAP jobs.  Buying stocks at $125 and expecting them to double or split is what killed the economy.  It was a correction.  According to me.   And according to Alan Greenspan.

A state-run health insurance program. I'll be damned. You need to read the last effort at creating a universal insurance program in the U.S. - it was Clinton's plan and it sought to create state buying cooperatives to do the very thing you discuss, however with federal oversight.  Of course the Republicans killed that idea.  Sure you're not a liberal?

Positive!

Republicans killed it because they hated Clinton and because it was bad policy.  There can be no TRUELY universal healthcare.  There can possibly be a hybrid.  That I am willing to listen to.

I'm not for a 'flat tax' if I understand what you're saying. I'm for a national sales tax - the more you spend the more you pay.  Ten percent of a family earing $20,000 per year is a lot to pay; where ten percent of someone earning $1 billion dollars won't even be felt.  I'd argue for a tax on consumption of products than one on income.  Those who can afford to buy will; those who don't will not. 

But first, get rid of corporate welfare.

Flat tax plus national sales tax.  2-5% income tax and 5-10% consumption tax.  If you are the richest of the rich you pay the full 5% and what ever consumption.  If you are poor you pay 2% and what ever consumption.  Percentages NEVER CHANGE.  Make it a constitutional amendment along with a Balanced budget or Congress is forced to ajurn for new elections in 6 months. 

You want to first get rid of corporate welfare...get rid of the money in politics.  You figure that one out without violating freedom of speech let me know!

/Tim

I must run. Couple comments and I'll come back to this (hard to refut when it's broken up like this).  Regarding the economy: Bush takes credit for the recession finally being over because of 'his' tax cuts.  Clinton raised taxes under his administration and two things happened: 1) the economy kept growing; 2) we were able to switch from a deficit to a surplus.  We are now borrow-and-spending (with China being the second largest holder of our debt) and spending like drunken sailers.  I'd rather be taxed now and spend now, than borrow now and have my grandchildren asking why we did this to them (hopefully not in Chinese).

Re: Universal health insurance for the U.S.  Why are we so special that every other developed country in the world can afford and implement one, yet we can't?  It's called the American Medical Association, the Health Insurance Institute of America (I believe that's their lobbying group's name), and the American Hospital Association).  We don't need a hybrid health care system: we have one now.  Employer based insurance is going to lead us to a health care system where we will ultimately have two physicians in hospital beds writing prescriptions to each other. 

/Tim

Tim Baker wrote:

Ben, how you're sounding like a Buddhist who has studied Hinduism.  You pretty well summed up the Buddiht/Hindu belief in creation (expect they don't refer to a diety called God - their religion is much older than Christianity).  Sure you're not a Liberal Buddhist?  /Tim

Thy birth, dear Lord, was in these later days,
And bright Vivaswata's preceded time!
How shall I comprehend this thing thou sayest,
"From the beginning it was I who taught?"
Bhagavad-Gita

Scary isn't it?  A God loving, Christ worshiping, conservative.  It is all the same to me.  The same God.  The same Universal Truths.  The only way to live is to live within ones self.  You can only teach those that are ready to learn.  Personal Responsibility!

raveneyes wrote:

Ok, you may be a "Christian" in name, but if you don't believe in the omnipotence of your 'God' then you're not believing in the Christian concept of God.

-----------


If 'God' *was*, where was he?  If he existed then he had to have a place to exist in...unless you're saying that God is not an entity, but there are more passages than I could care to remember in the bible that show he is a physical being and an entity unto himself.  Do you see what I mean?  I know it's bad to use logic to argue religion, but what I'm trying to say is belief in God requires faith, and is not scientific in any means.  Religion and science can not be combined.  They are not mutually exclusive because it's not that science exists as a way to disprove religion, it's just that the observation and logical thinking required by science doesn't work in religion.

The Big Bang doesn't require faith...we can see evidence of the Big Bang and do math to represent the Big Bang....and use telescopes to observe the results of the Big Bang...and observe the effects of the Big Bang...etc

'God' requires faith.  If you ask a theologian these questions he will say "We don't understand God and we never will, God is all powerful" without investigating further.

Good point. I don't look like an energy beam, and the Bible says that we were created in God's likeness - therefore God must look like me and not some energy force.

bencook2 wrote:

Thy birth, dear Lord, was in these later days,
And bright Vivaswata's preceded time!
How shall I comprehend this thing thou sayest,
"From the beginning it was I who taught?"
Bhagavad-Gita

Scary isn't it?  A God loving, Christ worshiping, conservative.  It is all the same to me.  The same God.  The same Universal Truths.  The only way to live is to live within ones self.  You can only teach those that are ready to learn.  Personal Responsibility!

Responsibility or Gullibility?

raveneyes wrote:

Ok, you may be a "Christian" in name, but if you don't believe in the omnipotence of your 'God' then you're not believing in the Christian concept of God.

-----------


If 'God' *was*, where was he?  If he existed then he had to have a place to exist in...unless you're saying that God is not an entity, but there are more passages than I could care to remember in the bible that show he is a physical being and an entity unto himself.  Do you see what I mean?  I know it's bad to use logic to argue religion, but what I'm trying to say is belief in God requires faith, and is not scientific in any means.  Religion and science can not be combined.  They are not mutually exclusive because it's not that science exists as a way to disprove religion, it's just that the observation and logical thinking required by science doesn't work in religion.

The Big Bang doesn't require faith...we can see evidence of the Big Bang and do math to represent the Big Bang....and use telescopes to observe the results of the Big Bang...and observe the effects of the Big Bang...etc

'God' requires faith.  If you ask a theologian these questions he will say "We don't understand God and we never will, God is all powerful" without investigating further.

Oh God is omnipotent.  In every sense.  He can make the bolder that he can not move.  You just can't conceive of how he can do it. (nor can I come to think of it)  I have faith.  I have reason.  I can conceive of a God that fits the universal mold of God.  I also do not attribute any human frailties to him.  Like limited intellect or limited conception.

PS...as for God needing a place to exist....   He was all that there was.  Including the space/place.  By all, I mean all! Now if you want me to blow your mind for real...wait till I tell you that you are actually part of God.

area291 wrote:
Ben and Tim need to get a room...

Ummm .... think I'm fine with mine, thanks. However, I do love the Buddhist ladies

Tim Baker wrote:

Responsibility or Gullibility?

The first one.

bencook2 wrote:

Oh God is omnipotent.  In every sense.  He can make the bolder that he can not move.  You just can't conceive of how he can do it. (nor can I come to think of it)  I have faith.  I have reason.  I can conceive of a God that fits the universal mold of God.  I also do not attribute any human frailties to him.  Like limited intellect or limited conception.

PS...as for God needing a place to exist....   He was all that there was.  Including the space/place.  By all, I mean all! Now if you want me to blow your mind for real...wait till I tell you that you are actually part of God.

Holy Crap. Not the "God works in mysterous ways" argument.  And of course, Ben, you have actual evidence to support your views?  /Tim

Tim Baker wrote:

Ummm .... think I'm fine with mine, thanks. However, I do love the Buddhist ladies

Uh...you're wearing the dress!  Not me.  Besides your the liberal that is "ok" with that behavior!

I am going to start a thread just so we can fight.  All this agreeing is starting to freak people out.  The come here to see me and you fight not agree!!!!!!!!

Dance Monkeys Dance!!!!

Tim Baker wrote:
Holy Crap. Not the "God works in mysterous ways" argument.  And of course, Ben, you have actual evidence to support your views?  /Tim

All will be reveiled in time.  Patience Grass Hopper.

I have all the evidence I need.  I am only explaining my religion. 

The main difference with me is that I believe religion is best taught FIRST by example.  Last by doctrine!  I would LOVE it if you believed what I believed.  That would satisfy so many "in group" yernings that psychology has taught me that we all have.  But I also believe that God is both benevolent and altruistic.  No vengence.  No anger.  God nor I need you to believe a GOD DAMNED thing.  Or un-damned.  You pick.

Leed by example.  Personal Responsibility!

bencook2 wrote:

All will be reveiled in time.  Patience Grass Hopper.

I have all the evidence I need.  I am only explaining my religion. 

The main difference with me is that I believe religion is best taught FIRST by example.  Last by doctrine!  I would LOVE it if you believed what I believed.  That would satisfy so many "in group" yernings that psychology has taught me that we all have.  But I also believe that God is both benevolent and altruistic.  No vengence.  No anger.  God nor I need you to believe a GOD DAMNED thing.  Or un-damned.  You pick.

Leed by example.  Personal Responsibility!

I have to give you credit Ben.  You don't seem to want to force your beliefs, which I appreciate...it means the argument just becomes academic and not a matter of life or death.

Tim Baker wrote:
Ummm .... think I'm fine with mine, thanks. However, I do love the Buddhist ladies