JoeBob 606 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Logic paraphrased form another site: Obamacare 's financial success depends upon: 1. Healthy young people with part time, minimum wage jobs, 2. buying something they don't see a need for, 3. and can't afford, 4. with money they don't have, 5. while they're still eligible to remain on their parents' insurance until age 26, 6. through a website that DOESN'T WORK!!! Ponzi or Pyramid? Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 99% of what our government does in the area of the nanny state is a Ponzi.... always has been always will be until the people call them on it. They won't though, they like the check coming in each month. It's free money anyway. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 You Smuckka heads are so scared of the individual mandate. Don't know why, nothing will force you to pay it, the IRS can not go after you or enforce it.. Just worry that you don't overpay and expect a rebate. They may be inclined to take from that the penelty.. But I'm not sure.. If all you guys wanted was to negotate and debate on FAIR ground you could have come to the table between May and Oct. when the Senate and House both had budgets and the House was asked 18 time to negotiate.. But NOOOOOO... You didn't have an unfair leverage.. The minute you shut the goverment down, and took it hostage.. THE VERY MINUTE.. then the house asked for negotiations to begin.. Now you get to go to negotiations without holding the government hostage and you are behaving as if there is no reason to negotiate.. I had to look up your 600,000 Americans died.. The Civil war??? Geesh!!! Your still crabbing because you can't keep black slaves?? What a moron.. Oh.. Wait a minute, wasn't Abe Lincoln a Republican?? Having a black president must really get your prejudicial dander up.. Other then that, yeah I wish we had waved bye, bye to the South, you haven't added anything positive to the mix that's for sure.. You could fall apart in poverty and ignorance with only a handful of wealthy people in control and taking advantage of the downtrodden, and the North could have erected a border to keep the southern immigrants from trying to hop the fence for a better life. Yeah, but they're doing it for the kids. Gotta remember that. The ends justify the means when one looks into the sad eyes of all those poor kids. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Stosh, I listed actual primary literature supporting the evolution of mosquitoes and you evidently ignored that. I picked that particular topic because YOU used the mosquito in your initial statement. But I could just have easily shown the evolution of hundreds of other species that have genetically adapted to pollutants or pesticides. This kind of thing is not confined to bacteria. The experiment Merlyn has noted is employing bacteria because of two primary factors: 1) the generation time is very short so it is possible to directly observe thousands of generations within the time span of a single human life, and 2) the genetics of that organism is well-defined and lends itself to quick and relatively easy analysis (not to mention the fact that PETA doesn't care about bacteria). But that ongoing experiment is merely a fast version of what happens all the time in nature. It is just as valid an example of evolution as the emergence of any other new genotype that is adapted to some change in habitat. Link to post Share on other sites
Brewmeister 132 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Logic paraphrased form another site: Obamacare 's financial success depends upon: 1. Healthy young people with part time, minimum wage jobs, 2. buying something they don't see a need for, 3. and can't afford, 4. with money they don't have, 5. while they're still eligible to remain on their parents' insurance until age 26, 6. through a website that DOESN'T WORK!!! Ponzi or Pyramid? They just need to raise their debt limit and they can afford it. Link to post Share on other sites
King Ding Dong 540 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 The simple fact remains a huge proportion of health care dollars are spent at the end of life. Until we as a nation are willing to address this issue we cannot hope to fix the structural problems. Unfortunately whenever the subject is brought up politicians start screaming "Death Panels!"Pack I don't have an answer it is a very complex subject. One that needs discussion and one the right refuses to allow. Link to post Share on other sites
SR540Beaver 116 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 99% of what our government does in the area of the nanny state is a Ponzi.... always has been always will be until the people call them on it. They won't though, they like the check coming in each month. It's free money anyway. Stosh Well, except for the Tea Party folks who do call them on it, but we all know they are terrorists, anarchists, arsonists, people with bombs strapped to their chests, and extortionists who want to destroy America thru responsible taxation and spending. How dare they! http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/66593/ Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh The basic problem I see it is that there is an enormous amount of energy devoted to the "science" of evolution in an attempt to justify it. If it were that easy none of us would be arguing the fine points of whether or not bacteria or mosquitoes can evolve. The experiment only shows that bacteria mutate, so do deformed frogs in Minnesota. One sample of mosquito doesn't make even a ripple of proof for proper scientific methodology. Even when applied to the scientific method the experiment can't be replicated, one of the basic standards of scientific research. What I see is the attempt by the evolutionists to give credibility to their cause by giving it some kind of scientific basis. Anomalies, mutations, and experiments that fall outside the normal process of real science don't cut it for me. I can just as easily make the statement that God created the 16 different species of mosquitoes all at the same time. With scientists all over the place still finding new species, it's not a far stretch of the imagination. It is 100% speculation based on religion. Well, so is evolution, but instead of debating the merits on a religious basis they have chosen to go the scientific route. Biblical creationism has done as well with equally ineffective results. We simply have no way of proving it either way. If some asteroid killed off the dinosaurs at one point in history, why were certain other species spared? And with a constant rate of evolution going on, how does one adjust the time periods to account for catastrophic interruptions sufficient to wipe out huge numbers of species? There is just too much stuff out there to automatically jump to some grand hypothesis in the realm of science. Leave the theological discussions in the realm of religion, after all Charles Darwin was a theologian, not a scientist. He was looking for some concept to discredit Christianity that the straw he grabbed at was evolution. And the debate rages on whether or not it was even a real straw. It captured the imagination of a lot of people, gave false credibility to the movement, but has done nothing to promote or advance the world of science. After 200 years an experiment using bacteria mutation as its basis really isn't going to rock the world of scientists, but may endorse a nod from the evolutionists. Spin offs of this religion have done more harm than a lot of people realize and Darwin has done a lot of damage in his anger against the Church, probably just as much as the Church has. But that's another whole story, but once a religion takes hold under a false guise, it's very difficult to recognize if for what it is. Even after 200 years of discreditation, the movement still has momentum, but it has done very little in progressing the field of biological sciences. A life-form that adapts or even mutates does not mean it's evolving. It just adapts to the existing environment in which it finds itself, or it dies. There is nothing evolutionary with that. It just means we have bears that live on the polar ice cap and bears that live in the jungle. They have adapted, not evolved. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 99% of what our government does in the area of the nanny state is a Ponzi.... always has been always will be until the people call them on it. They won't though, they like the check coming in each month. It's free money anyway. Stosh Well give it a year or so, I'm sure they will strap on the bombs and burn down the congress.. But for now terrorist and anarchist and extortionists are correct, You can add lunatic also.. Interest in Fiscal Responsibility is fine.. Just tanking the economy while stating you are doing it for the good of the economy is not being Fiscally Responsible.. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh I would just like to point out that jblake47 knows nothing about the science of evolution, so pay as much attention to him as you would a flat-earther or a geocentrist. Also, he knows nothing of Charles Darwin aside from his name. And he hasn't bothered to read the e. coli research I pointed him to, where the evolution of one strain's ability to consume citric acid WAS repeatable from earlier generations of the same strain that did NOT have the ability, so when he says evolution isn't repeatable, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. And for some reason he thinks there are 16 species of mosquito instead of over 3,000. But that's because he speak entirely out of ignorance. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Merlyn, for the same reason I went to grad school...I can't help myself. Stosh, there is no biologist who needs to 'justify' evolution. Our research is merely expanding on the mechanisms. The fact that there is a lot of such research is not a valid basis for anyone to conclude the ideas behind the research are incorrect. By that logic, the fact that there is a huge amount of cancer research must mean that the underlying ideas are also incorrect. Just to let you know, there are thousands of species of mosquitoes, over 40 genera discovered so far. As for the Minnesota frogs, the cause of those deformities has not been determined but they are not 'mutations'. Mutations, if they don't kill the organism, are heritable. The bacteria experiment employs mutations which occur all the time, to provide the necessary variations that then provide selective advantages for part of the population, imparting the ability to selectively survive whatever conditions are encountered in the habitat. This IS evolution. The experiments and studies are not outside normal science and ARE, in fact, real science in action. If you can find a flaw in their ideas, methods, or conclusions, you should write your critique and publish it as a comment or response in that journal. This kind of criticism is welcomed by the scientific community but you will be subject to the same standards of rigor as anyone else. If THAT doesn't "cut it for" you, then it is incumbent on you to correct the scientific community by informing us what WOULD "cut it" for you. I'd be interested in learning what, in your mind, WOULD be convincing evidence. As Ross Perot says, I'm all ears. To answer your question about the asteroid: "...why were certain other species spared?" Because if the asteroid had killed everything, you wouldn't be here to ask the question in the first place...they were spared because it DIDN'T kill everything. Science can't answer 'why'. It attempts to answer 'how'. "A life-form that adapts or even mutates does not mean it's evolving. It just adapts to the existing environment in which it finds itself, or it dies. There is nothing evolutionary with that." Actually, this is (in your tortured way of expressing it) the essence of evolution. Heritable variation in the presence of selective forces which over time change the genetic content of the population. The best examples of these evolutionary processes are the insects that have become resistant to pesticides and the disease organisms that have become resistant to antibiotics. MRSA is a gigantic monument to evolution. Again, I used YOUR example organism and gave you primary literature references for the evolution of mosquitoes. You have chosen to ignore that. Why? Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 99% of what our government does in the area of the nanny state is a Ponzi.... always has been always will be until the people call them on it. They won't though, they like the check coming in each month. It's free money anyway. Stosh The economy is tanking fast enough with the liberal policies of the current administration and the total disregard for fiscal responsibility over the past 5 years. The Tea Party is the scapegoat excuse used to justify their desire to continue the course of complete collapse. The Marxist premise of everyone getting equal share (except for the party leaders who make out like bandits) means everyone has to work to make it happen. Well, we're using Marxist ideals but only half the people are working, and they are having to work twice as hard to feed the slackers and governmental panhandlers. The Tea Party isn't anti- anything, it's merely pointing out the obvious which doesn't seem to be of much concern to many in Washington. If this doesn't make sense, take a course in Economics 101. It'll clarify a lot. Imagine for a moment you make $1 and it takes $.50 to live on. No problem, you're just fine. But the government comes in and takes $.50 so that the guy who isn't working can live on it. Not really an ideal state for economic growth. It's subsistence at best. Okay the Tea Party member who can't afford bombs, or guns, simply sits down and says, I'm not going to pay the government anymore, so arrest me. That's great until the government figures out that now it has no income and twice as many to feed, the slacker on the sofa AND the Tea Party member in jail. Civil disobedience is one thing, but the Tea Party is only interested at this point in fiscal responsibility. Let me re-emphasize, ...at this point... I hope the government is ready for the Tea Party taking a powder some day, for sure, they aren't going away any time soon. Better figure out how to deal with it before it's too late. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Pack, sorry for not getting back to you on this. Missed the posting. First of all I don't see evolution as science, but I do see many people trying to use it as if it were. To me evolution is a religion that has used science and whatever minutia they can glean out of it to give credibility to it and bring converts in through false premises. The ability of earth to create itself through natural progression first of all assumes no God is involved which makes evolution atheistic/pantheistic, etc. By establishing itself with scientific credibility it can thus expand itself into such areas as Social-Darwinism, and many other man generated humantheistic expressions. The danger lurks in the fact that it is atheism lurking under the disguise of natural science. Darwin was a trained theologian by training and his #1 supporter Lyell was a lawyer by training. Explain to me how these two were able to come up with a scientific based approach when neither had scientific training. At least the Russians were honest enough to identify their cause properly when they label themselves Scientific Atheists. Sorry, as Christian, I don't buy the program nor it's pseudo-science that attempts to give it credibility. By the way, The Theory of Evolution has been around for say, maybe 200 years??? give or take? The Theory of Creationism has been around for say, 4000 years, give or take?? It has endured the real test of time and still remains the basis for all non-atheistic religions of the world. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
DigitalScout 75 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh I'm not sure what the age of a theory has to do with anything other than to suggest that in 4000 years there hasn't been enough evidence to promote it to a law. The Theory of General Relativity is 100+ years old but the consequences have been in effect since the beginning of time. I'm hesitant to call Creationism a "theory" because that suggests that it is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory as one can't measure it's effect using scientific principles or techniques. Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Totally agree, but evolution is a religious belief as well, it's the atheist's creation story, just the same as all other religions have their creation story. There is just as much scientific support for any of those stories as well. All creation stories are the means by which nations have explained it, it's up to science to prove else wise. Until it does, it's just a hypothesis/theory. Once it is proven it becomes a scientific law of nature. None of which is based in religion. For 4,000 years Judean -Christian Creationism hasn't been proven one way or the other. Neither has atheistic evolution which has been around for about 200 years. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now