Poll: Are Far Right ideologues brilliantly deep thinkers or pathologically delusional

[Brass]

Quote from Ricter:

Oh yeah, the soon-to-haves, forgot about that line. All you need is faith. ; )

To be fair, like you and me they <del>think</del> feel their worldview will save them.

Perhaps. But unlike ours, theirs is a bigger challenge, because they must relentlessly keep dismissing the continually streaming evidence that flies in the face of their beliefs. Nothing short of heroic, really.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

You illustrate how spewing the commie party line confuses fiction for truth.

1. Evolution. There is very little chance we evolved by random chance.

I'm glad it wasn't a zero chance, non-existence would... suck?

2. Climate change... earth warms before it accumulates C02.

And then it cools, over and over again. Like a circle. Therefore it's just as true to say accumulating CO2 precedes warming.

3. I have just shown you that 4 tax cuts, including Carnegie, Mellon and Reagan tax cuts were followed by tax revenue gains.

Four tax cuts among thousands of tax increases. Just on preponderance alone one could say that tax increases had more influence in making the US the greatest empire the world has ever known.

4. The constitutions was set up to allow people the freedom to practice or not practice religion. Your last point does not make sense. But, what we do know is that the Federal Govt has no right telling a Church to distribute baby killing drugs...abortafacients.

Fair enough. The church aint getting back to where it used to be. Not until the collapse of civilization, anyway.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Ricter:

...Four tax cuts among thousands of tax increases. Just on preponderance alone one could say that tax increases had more influence in making the US the greatest empire the world has ever known....

But did all of those tax cuts actually pay for themselves? They may have raised revenues a bit, but was it enough to pay for themselves, i.e., cover their own "cost?" To someone such as jem, who is ostensibly concerned with the deficit and the national debt, you would think that the latter consideration would be dominant.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Ricter:

...Fair enough. The church aint getting back to where it used to be. Not until the collapse of civilization, anyway.

The Right is working on that very project, looking to sideline government and cooperative society. Oh, and on a completely unrelated note, bought a gun recently?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

You illustrate how spewing the commie party line confuses fiction for truth.

1. Evolution. There is very little chance we evolved by random chance. The current model most scientists use is directed evolution.

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.

2. Climate change... earth warms before it accumulates C02 - so there is no proof C02 is causing warming. That is just guess. And it should be so stated.

3. I have just shown you that 4 tax cuts, including Carnegie, Mellon and Regan tax cuts were followed by tax revenue gains.

4. The constitutions was set up to allow people the freedom to practice or not practice religion. Your last point does not make sense. But, what we do know is that the Federal Govt has no right telling a Church to distribute baby killing drugs...abortafacients.

1 ....So I gather you've never been to a museum of natural history.

2 ..... We've been through this already. You're an idiot that is unable to make even a tiny logical connection in your brain or recognize basic facts about climate science.

3.... So if there was no taxes there would be no deficit. And up is down.

4.....Unless that church is part of the US and has employees that are not of that religion. Your little club of theological psychos don't get to make your own laws that supercede the government's. Deal with it. You can't have everything.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

But did all of those tax cuts actually pay for themselves?

You might want to remind Pelosi and Obama. I hear they're both calling for tax cuts of one kind or another. They're claiming the cuts are needed.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Brass:

But did all of those tax cuts actually pay for themselves? They may have raised revenues a bit, but was it enough to pay for themselves, i.e., cover their own "cost?" To someone such as jem, who is ostensibly concerned with the deficit and the national debt, you would think that the latter consideration would be dominant.

Well, if "revenues went up", from where they were, then it follows that... revenues were up and the cuts were covered.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

You might want to remind Pelosi and Obama. I hear they're both calling for tax cuts of one kind or another.

Relief for the middle class, so say thank you. That is a cost of easing out of the economic turmoil. Meanwhile, the rich should manage to get by without any such accommodation, don't you think? Or are they the truly vulnerable?

 

[Brass]

Quote from Ricter:

Well, if "revenues went up", from where they were, then it follows that... revenues were up and the cuts were covered.

"...Shorthand: The tax cuts did pay for themselves a little bit by inducing growth, but not nearly enough to pay for themselves entirely..."

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html

(As you know, this was originally your link in another thread. I merely appropriated it repeatedly.)

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

Relief for the middle class, so say thank you. That is a cost of easing out of the economic turmoil. Meanwhile, the rich should manage to get by without any such accommodation, don't you think? Or are they the truly vulnerable?

So you're constantly ranting about how evil and ridiculous the whole idea of ANY tax cuts are, except when a democrat proposes the cuts.

LOL Jeezus H Christ Gabby. What do you dress up as for Halloween parties? A hypocrite?