John Adams

You had me at Nazi. Will you marry me?

That's some resume. I'm filling out my timesheet for yesterday, and it's not adding up. I wonder why.

I heard an interview this morning with this piece of refuge. Here's what he had to say, in brief, about the budget. 1) The budget is very aggressive, and he's all for cutting back government, but most of the cuts go way too deep. He looks forward to making some cuts, but also spending more than is suggested, especially on education. His constiuents would not be happy if he cut as much as the president wants. 2) RE: the Iraq/Afghan money not being in the budget: it's important not to include it in the budget, because that way, there can't be a public debte about it (which would be bad for troop morale and good for terrorists). MFer.

Go review this thread and Tom's and my specific arguments with Schroeder. The insults precede and follow the arguments. Think of it like a scientific sandwich. One that you can't swallow. I have nothing against Warner as a QB. (Time to move this to the football board Ken.) Coughlin was a moron to put Manning in this year- Warner was perfectly adequate, and certainly better than Manning. As far as coming to the Bills, if Losman is ready, I'd rather have him start and Bledsoe be the backup. Warner would be a short term band-aid for the QB position. I'd want a longer term solution. If Losman is not yet ready, and Bledsoe is out of Buffalo, Warner would not be my first choice, but he'd be OK.

I agree that no current scientific theory can explain the exact instant the Big Bang took place. And further point out that Schroeder has contributed nothing to any scientific theory about what happened for the 6 24 hour periods following the Big Bang. He's a fool because he claims to have contributed something to the science... or at least you believe he has... and either way, he hasn't. If you want to call whatever started the Big Bang "God," that's fine with me. You are in a land of confusion trying to work Genesis into the Big Bang theory though.

Don't passive voice that. It's only after Warner made his faith an issue that people started to dislike him. His in your face football-JC combination is obnoxious. That's why I dislike him. Do you think he was benched because of his JC theatrics? Never mind... I know... "Ask a Sports psychologist PhD." You have now reached a point in this thread where you have ignored over 90% of the points made by other people refuting your arguments. The best you can hope for is that a moderator will lock this out so you can't continue to embarrass yourself (in this thread).

It's a miracle that curiousity survives formal education. -some wannabe physicist I've never seen someone so in love with a degree in my life. You are really out of touch brother. I know PhDs from several schools, including 2 MIT PhDs. Some are smart. Some are dumb. The smart ones, believe it or not, get published, work hard, and get critical acclaim. At least some of the dumb ones are pompous windbags who try to convince stupid people that their degree entitles them to accolades. Dodge. Dodge. Dodge. You've ignored a substantive argument on this topic for at least 8 replies, and you keep reframing your issues, but you are still wrong at every turn. To sum up: 1) You don't understand Shroeder's theories. 2) You can't engage in a dialog about them. 2a) You can't address the holes in Schroeder's theories. 3) You believe Schroeder because he's (maybe) a PhD physicist from MIT. 3a) You would follow a PhD from a good school's word on anything. 4) You believe Genisis is right that the world was created in 6 days... err 24 hour periods. 5) You like Kurt Warner because he doesn't suck as much as Bledsoe... or because he is a super-Christian, or both. Ever think of taking piano lessons from Schroder? He plays a mean piano. Of course, he doesn't have a music PhD.

Calling him Jay Schroeder was probably a complement. Read the posts: I was clearly playing on your boy's name. Gerald is commonly shortened to Jay. But hey, don't take my word for that. Go find a linguist PhD to explain it to you. Still no answer on your take of the Bible? Still no answer on your love affair with Jesus Warner(1) having something to do with this? And again, you really love the credentials don't you? I know a lot of science PhDs because of what I do for a living. Some are brialliant. Others are morons. Hanging a piece of paper on your wall means you worked hard enough for X years to get a degree. Don't confuse that with what someone did post-degree, or with their intelligence. If he's a brilliant physicist, he would be recognized as such by his peers. And is he? Well? No. Who recognizes his "brilliance"? People like you. (1) Jesus Warner is not a QB in the NFL, in case you want to do the "pompous" dance again.

Here I thought Kurt was playing the role of Debbie in the [insert various] threads.

Don't answer my questions RE the Bible. No matter. Although your love of Kurt "Jesus helps me win" Warner makes sense in the context of this thread. He's such a holier than thou pr1ck. Jay Schroeder was always a joke. He still is. And in case this is news to you, because it seems to be, getting a PhD doesn't overly qualify you for d1ck. I have advanced degrees, but only an intellectual lightweight would rely on a degree- even from MIT- to defend an argument. Someone intelligent would actually try to have a discourse on the subject at hand. Ever met e dumb PhD? Ever met a smart HS graduate? Once again, your reliance on Jay's credentials adds nothing to yours or his credibility. I feel like I'm tortoring a captured squirrel talking to you. And yet I keep doing it.

Kurt: you're clearly way out of your league, and want to believe Jay Schroeder's theories (I always wondered where he went) about the universe for some reason. Let me ask you: do you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God? Is that why you believe Mr. Schroeder? Because it's pretty clear he doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on.

I mentioned the Planck time qbove, but no matter, I'm not an MIT professor. Another friend of mine referred to the prof at Northwestern (Butz) who wrote the book that the Holocaust was a hoax. Another thing I should believe I guess. Wait- the Unibomber was a professor. I need to grab his Manifesto and study up.

Because you can't understand the proofs, you choose based on credentials. Sound reasoning. I don't know what problem Tom has with you... but is it that you're a senseless ninny? Did you see those articles last week about the professor who likened the people who died in the WTC to Nazis? Based on your (absurd) rationale that professors are to be believed, I should believe the WTC/Nazi guy. He's a PhD. He's a professor. He's studied history and sociology. QED. The victims of the WTC are like Nazis. How could I have missed it? Anyone care to revive the thread where we discussed why our kids are failing in science? Google your boy and "redshift", "age", and "universe." I feel bad that sensible people have been drawn into this debate, but they have. He's retrofitting data for his convenience, and has no scientific credibility. None.

Don't overcredit me. I'm millimeters from calling you names. I'm quite willing to call Schroeder all kinds of names. This is my point- that 24 hours (at center of BB) = 15 million (earth) years based on redshift constants is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but when you use the right numbers, the age of the universe, by HIS dubious method, comes out to 72 billion years. If you consider the Planck time, it's on the order of 10^30. I'm not arguing that the universe is 72 billion years old (or older). I'm just saying that if you are willing to follow his arbitrary physics, you don't even get his numbers. Schroeder is a fraud. Sorry- 130 stuck in my head for a different reason. Adam fathered Seth at 130. LOL. I'm sure Schroeder has an explanation for that one too, as well as the flood, the different stories RE the birth of Jesus, and the holes in the firmament. Don't get me wrong. I like the Bible. But it aint science, and this pseudoscience thing that shucksters like Schroeder sell is disgusting.

Please tell me you don't teach physics anywhere. This "explanation" is as much a leap of faith as saying that Jesus is the son of god. Schroeder's assertion boils down to this. 1) The univese is 15 billion years old. 2) Genisis says the world was created in 6 24 periods. 3) 6 24 periods for someone at the center of the BBang correspond to 15 billion years. Who said what? Huh? That's some wacky ipse dixit logic. Now help me out on this question, which just might cause a problem. The Bible says Adam lives 130 years... does that mean Adam lived for 130*365*15/6 earth years? Never mind- that's all just Biblical time shifting, right? Pre-Adam, we go off this center of the Big Bang watch...post, we go off an earth watch. There's no scientific proof for this- or against it. If God chose to use two watches, he did... but there's no proving one or the other. The 6 24 periods=15billion years is TOTALLY arbitrary, cealrly forced logic to reach his conclusion. If that's the case, how do you explain that humans are 40K years old, but according to Bible, no mare than 6,000. Stick to Earth years. Never mind. I know you can't do it, and neither can he. He also can't explain away the fact that using his calculations, if he choses the right numbers for the redshift factor, the universe is 72 billions years old.... or as much as 10^30 years old. This guy is a fraud, and not worthy of serious discourse among scientists.

I have a friend in Santa Barbara. It's beautiful. They just bought a 2 BR ranch (new construction) that backs up to a highway (one of those concrete barriers in the backyard). The property is former commercial property, so there are some environmental concerns. Price: 600,000$.

Patriots Fans= Yankee Fans.

I deleted the TiVo SB, but I know the announcers said there was no one back. When I saw it though, I saw Westbrook back- he let it sail over his head. Again, I know the announcers said no one was back, but I think that was wrong. Maybe someone can confirm.

That 81 billion is not included in the budget. It's a friggin' crime that the pres. will send this budget up on the same day that he's schilling for 81 billion dollars not identified in the budget. Who can do this? I make a budget where my salary is consumed by my expenditures. But oh wait, I need to spend more money. Rather than build it into my budget, I'll just spend it. Woohoo. Fiscal responsibility, thy name is Republican. Damn... and I started this thread saying this was a small step in the right direction. To quote Al Swearingen (back in 4 weeks), Bush is a "slimey c---sucker."

Again, considering her POV, I think she's saying that she can't bear to pay taxes in the USA because she disagrees with where those taxes are going. I don't for one second think that she believes her taxes will be less. Of course, how should I know what she thinks. "Vote with your feet." Singapore, here I come.

I would hazard a guess that her bigger concern is where her money is going.

It's not perfect, but it's a baby step in the right direction. I wonder what it will look like when Congress gets through with it. Bush's Budget Summary

You worry about the slippery slope. That's Gavin and SDS's concern too. All I can say to that is: the current topic is two adults in love who want certain benefits (not dogs, incest, or pedophilia). Just look at death benefits. In most states, the law presumes that an estate passes to spouse and then relatives. When a gay life partner dies, the estate of the deceased should follow that traditional pattern. It should go to the spouse or spouse-equivalent. Others bemoan the burden on the system for additional healthcare and the like (you didn't mention this). But what's stopping the 95% of straight people from marrying for benefits? Straight people don't marry for convenience, for the most part, because marriage is a serious contract. Why would the minority of gay people do anything different?

This coming form a guy whose avatar is a couple guys frolicking under a rainbow?

Prohibiting someone from 1) having death benefits, 2) committing to a relationship (marriage), 3) sharing health benefits with their chosen spouse, 4) (and on) amounts to discrimination against someone just because of the sex of the person they fall in love with. It's an extension of the government into the love/sex life of adults. It bugs me more than you, I guess. Heterosexuals can support gay marriage or not. Be active or not. There are plenty of anti-gay marriage heteros who think this issue is of paramount import. Why? I have no idea. You have your big issue: smoking in private places. I'm with you- it's absurd that the government tells private businesses to follow rules RE smoking- but I don't care a whole lot about it. You do. We all have our priorities. As an early poster in this thread said: who cares? I agree- Iraq, Russia, tax cuts, shrinking the size of the federal government- these are bigger issues. This one gets my dander up. If it doesn't do it for you, then so be it: go back to your smoking campaign.