So, what is it exactly that you are trying to say? Are you trying to say that: under the fair tax system people who live under the poverty line wont be taxed? or that basic necessities wont be taxed?
Either way, I don't really think that the FTS is that productive.
he's proposing a regressive tax system where rich are taxed a lower percentage of income than the poor. I am no socialist but how is that a fair tax? Plus he contradicted himself because if people get their whole salary how are businesses going to lower costs and thus prices if they still have to pay the same amount but to a different person (the employees). What he said its wrong anyway because not all businesses pass tax costs to consumers, that depends on the products elasticity.
"he's proposing a regressive tax system where rich are taxed a lower percentage of income than the poor. "
Actually all consumption up to the poverty line will be tax free...the FairTax would help poor people greatly.
Also, the wealthy greatly avoid taxes in our current system because of its complexity and loopholes. The FairTax would stop this activity by the wealthy.
260 it's obvious huckabee isn't an economist. the AFFT probably donated a lot of money into his failed campaign. famous economists mill, smith, hayek, friedman, and keynes all supported income taxes (even though they disagreed over whether it should be progressive, negative, or flat).
The unfairtax is not real tax reform because it doesn't address the root issue of runaway government spending. The only reason people get excited about the unfairtax is because it promises to eliminate (rename) the IRS, falsely implying that the 16th amendment will be repealed, and the people can now keep the fruits of their labor. But in reality it's only about trying to make tax collection more efficient. If you want to see real tax reform go look up the liberty amendment.
Most of these accusations against Huckabee been shot down based upon evidence, not political spin. Your sources have flawed information, which shouldn't be suprising to any of us in the midst of political season where lies and spin prevail.
to: gvjuiceman: Have you really researched this Huckabee?!? Don't fall for his folksy charm. He's LIED about so many things and he knowingly says things that he KNOWS can't be done. Get real -- the IRS cannot be completely closed, but could be greatly reduced. HE wants to get rid of taxes?!? Funny, because as gov. of ARk. he raised them 12 times in 10.5 years! Romney NEVER raised taxes once and eliminated a $3 BILLION deficit the liberals left for him. Romney's the true conservative.
who cares if you believe in creationism or evolution...I could sit here and tell you plenty areas to raise doubt about both creationism and evolution but thats not important. Each side believes there right, so please just let it go and focus on the bigger issue at hand.
I agree, I am tired of people attacking canidates on religion. I am not a Romney supporter, but I think it is awful, that he has to explain his religious beliefs in order to gain support. The same goes for Huckabee. These beliefs should have no effect on peoples decision, unless the canidates are saying they will base their entire administration on their beliefs.
The way to judge a candidate is not to argue over one of his PERSONAL or religious beliefs, which are every American's inalienable right, but to measure what he is saying about the issues that are going to affect your daily life - like taxes, or what he wants to be new law, or what old laws he believes should be repealed. Is it even possible to focus on these?
I agree. But the focus on his personal religious belief, like Creationism vs. evolution, is unproductive. I am hoping young people will focus on the more relevent (to today) issues. What he believes foundationally is what makes the man. What he wants to do as President needs to be the focus.
Unless my page is messed up, why are the last comments about evolution? This video was about taxes and Huckabee explained the attacks on his record. He had a democrat legislative majority playing politics. The state also had to balance the budget.
have before you can hold any office. It sounds to me somebody who holds a gun to your head and threatens to blow your brains out if you don't recant your religion, notably Christianity. Please explain to me why you must believe in evolution in order to run a public office.
This isn't a question of religion. It's a question of science. Anyone who can't take his kids to a natural history museum without first advising them to disregard everything they see is scientifically illiterate, and we can't have a scientifically illiterate person in the White House.
And I am sorry if the phrase "scientifically illiterate" offends you. The only thing I'm trying to say is that someone who is in so much denial about such a well-established science deserves to have his rationality called into question.
The Theory of Evolution isn't and established fact. The "venerated" scientific consensus that you esteem so highly won't even upgrade it from a theory. Furthermore, science has barely anyplace in politics.
Why can't all theories with reasonable support be presented so that people can decide for themselves instead of evolutionists forcing crap on us and people feeling like religion is being dictated to them?
Because hypocrites feel as though we are not capable of thinking for ourselves and that they will do the thinking for us. Despite my obvious dislike for the theory of evolution, I feel that people should let other veiwpoints in on the debate. You will never make converts by forcing Ideas down peoples throat.
"Because hypocrites feel as though we are not capable of thinking for ourselves and that they will do the thinking for us."
I don't care what *you* think for yourself, but I care about what is taught in public schools because that influences what kids think. I don't want to see wrong information presented for the sake of "fairness."
"If you are going to teach evolution, you need to teach the other theories as well. It is just fair."
No, it's not fair. Every other theory in science, including Darwinian evolution, has had to fight its way up to gain a consensus in the scientific community BEFORE it got put into textbook and classroom. ID proponents, on the other hand, want to get their stuff into classrooms before it has any significant support in science. That's not fair. That's using the government to cheat for them.
As of right now, evolution is the only scientific theory that explains life's origins, and it does a wonderful job at it. You wouldn't support the theory of intelligent falling alongside gravity, would you?
"That is a lie. The are amny theories that explain lifes origin, including intelligent design."
"Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. Scientific theory does not mean "guess". It means a scientific hypothesis that has actually been tested and proven, such as Darwinian evolution.
Darwinian evolution has never been proven. Its been tested, but never proven. If it had ever been proven, then why is it called the Theory of Evolution rather than an established fact. That is something a 7th grader could figure out. Hint, the scientific process.
As I've tried to explain to you before, the mere fact that life evolves and has evolved is just that - a fact. Yes it is proven, and has been for 150 years. The theory of evolution is much like the germ theory of disease. The fact that germs cause diseases is not in question, it's proven - the theory explains HOW they cause disease. That's what a scientific theory does.
The theoretical part of evolution pertains to the details - did organism X evolve from organism Y or from organism Z? But the mere existence of evolution (including what you call macroevolution) as a force in nature IS established fact, and you putting your hands over your ears and insisting otherwise is not going to reverse that view.
Jesus Christ. I've explained this to you so many times. The occurrance of evolution is not "a theory". The theory of evolution explains evolution. Evolution itself is a factual, demonstrated, observed, documented, filed and catalogued phenomenon. Yes I can prove it, and so can the National Academy of Sciences. It has been proven for a hundred and fifty years. You just haven't been listening.
"Actually, yes it does. It inherently relies on the faith that a living organism came from a nonliving object."
You're just spouting nonsense. I wish you could understand how you sound to someone who actually understands this stuff.
Evolution does not pertain to how the first living systems came about. That's a separate theory called abiogenesis. Evolution only describes the change in hereditary characteristics that have occurred since then.
You have just described abiogenesis, which is both a different issue entirely and is shown to be plausible by current understanding of chemical processes.
Evolution is based on the belief that a living organism comes from a nonliving object. So yea, I pretty much say its more of a faith then real science. Real science builds a theory, then collects evidence to try to prove or disapprove the theory. Evolutionists try only to collect evidence to prove the theory, and ignore evidence that comes into the contrary.
Evolutionists began to try and separate abiogenesis from evolution when they were criticised for it. The type of evolution I have a problem with is transpecies evolution, also called macro evolution. The type of evolution that says that man came from apes, that birds came from reptiles and that life evolved essentially from singled cell organisms.
"Evolutionists began to try and separate abiogenesis from evolution..."
But that's just not true. From the closing lines of The Origin of Species:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Evoluton has never, EVER entailed "life" coming from "non-life". Yes that happened, but it's not a part of evolutionary science and it never has been, even going all the way back to Darwin. The information you've been reading on what evolution entails is just flat-out wrong. The people who are telling you this are demonstrably lying to you, and you're repeating those lies. How can I not react emotionally to this?
Have you even read the controversy of the theory ? Transpecies evolution has to many holes in it to get it to be construed as an established fact ? For instance, there is no credible proof of missing links ever being found. Any evidence that has been found turned out to be hoaxes. And on the subject, can you explain the bombardier beetle ?
I'd be willing to bet that the people who told you no transitional fossils had ever been discovered were the same people who told you the earth was a closed system or that evolution required abiogenesis. In other words, the people who have lied to you, and though you know damned well they're lying to you, you're willing to believe them again.
The truth is that paleontologists have so many transitional forms that the real challenge is figuring out what order to place them in.
The paleontologists had between 50-70 years to come up with a single "transitional form", one that couldn't be proven as a hoax. How can you ever proceed to tell me that evolution is a fact when you evolutionists can't even settle an argument of whether evolution supposedly occurred over a long period of time or that it happened in a "Quantum Leap" ?
Like I said before, details like that - how quickly evolution happened, what forces drove it the most - are the theoretical part, and paleontologists can have their arguments over such details but the fact remains that life evolved.
Regarding evolution's failure to produce "a single transitional form", that's just pure unadulturated bullshit. We have so many transitional forms that the only way you can say that is if you've never bothered to look into them. The fossil museums of the world are filled to the brim with transitional forms. You're just not interested in looking.
That has got to be the biggest lie I have come across. I have been to quite a few natural history museums, and have yet to see a transitional form put on display that wasn't proven an hoax. I now know that you are nothing more than a phony.
I get my information from science journals, libraries, and professors. How would you even know where I get my information from. You don't even know who I am or where I am.
"I get my information from science journals, libraries, and professors."
Name the science journal that told you evolutuon required abiogenesis or the earth was a closed system and I'll believe you. Otherwise I have no choice but to take that as bullshit.
What facts ? What proof is there that life evolved. There has never been conclusive eveidence that life evolved. There has never been a transitional fossil found that hadn't been proven a hoax. You have lost this argument through sheer stupidity. I've found two holes in your argument, and capitalized on them. I give you a dare. Link me to a credible site that proves that life evolved with credible evidence. If you can't, just give up, it's painful to see you make a fool of yourself any longer.
"What facts ? What proof is there that life evolved."
I'm beginning to think it's pointless to even have this kind of discussion with you. You just got through telling me that every transitional fossil in every natural history museum in the world has been "proven to be a hoax". If that's the case, then 1) you're either much more knowledgable about the facts than I am, or 2) you're so far gone that no rational argument is going to change your mind.
You're to far gone ever to consider other positions to your own beliefs. This argument was apparantly a waste of both of our time. However, I got you riled, I wouldn't have done that if you didn't feel that your position wasn't threatened. I am pretty sure that you wouldn't "try" to educate me because your such a nice guy. I doubt we'll meet again after this. Good night.
You got me "riled", yes. Any person who values knowledge should be riled by the display of wanton ignorance that I saw. Your attitude is an insult to the intelligence of every living person in the civilized world. You can't even define evolution, yet you're just so determined that it's wrong, whatever it is, and that every museum in the world that supports is taking part in a vast conspiracy against your religious views... Statements like that do get me riled, yes.
"I've found two holes in your argument, and capitalized on them."
If that's the way you remember it, you're welcome to that interpretation. However I'm still waiting for a retraction of your statement that evolution required abiogenesis and that the distinction is a recent event. If you can't even define a science, you're in big trouble when it comes to debating it.
You react emotionally because you backed yourself in a corner with your statements and youre apparently poor grasp of scientifical laws. You believe what you have heard about evolution at face value without looking up the facts. Oh, and a tip about arguing, once you react with emotion to an argument you have sounded the death kneel for yourself.
"You believe what you have heard about evolution at face value without looking up the facts."
Oh, you mean the way you thought evolution required abiogenesis and that "evolutionists" have only tried to distinguish the two in recent years? Are you going to retract that statement considering the excerpt I JUST SHOWED YOU from Darwin?
"...youre apparently poor grasp of scientifical laws."
Oh, you mean like the way you think the earth qualifies as a CLOSED SYSTEM according to thermodynamics' second law? I'm pretty sure you didn't even know it only applied to closed systems until I told you, and now you're desperately trying to show how the earth is one even though you know perfectly well that it's not. This is a level of absurdity I have honestly never encountered before.
Evolution never has, does not, and never will include the inorganic origin of life. It's a different issue. The research in the area of abiogenesis is good and getting better, but it is not part of evolutionary theory.
More good news in the polls today. It seems that the republicans have finally found their candidate. Support is solidfying around Huckabee. Join the winning team. Donate to the Huckabee campaing, even if all you can give is just a Buck for Huck.
"That would be fine except I support Mike Huckabee, I have known him personally for the past 10 years and I kinda indirectly work for him .... " -RhinoRT
I do not believe in evolution. There is no scientific fact that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, then how could something happen to cause anything to appear...?
"I do not believe in evolution. There is no scientific fact that allows something to evolve from nothing."
You my friend, are an idiot. The idea that something came from nothing is called creationism. Evolution and the big bang (which is what you are actually referring to) act only within naturalistic mechanisms.
thats right I believe that God created everything evolution is NOT scientific fact there are ludicrous dimwits that believe it is but you or any one else can not produce any evidence to the contrary! you can try to give quotes and sources all you want but in the end none will be solid facts
The Founding Fathers said they thought Creationism is SELF-EVIDENT just like the existence of God. This country was founded upon the principles of Christianity, Creationism and God as the grantor of rights as a blessing. Even the most secular among them (Jefferson & Franklin) acknowledged God at least as much as Huckabee.
"Also, the big bang theory runs counter to the 1st law of thermodynamics that state that all energy in the universe is constant."
No, it doesn't. The Big Bang does not involve the creation or destruction of energy. You would know that if you'd bothered to educate yourself. But no, just criticizing something you know nothing about is a lot easier, isn't it?
Really, the only way the Big Bang contradicts thermodynamics is if you have a skewed, totally misinformed impression of what the Big Bang is supposed to have been. Like you've never attempted to understand it in your entire life. It was an expansion of spacetime, not a fucking creation of energy. Jesus Christ... the thoughtlessness it takes to go through your whole life and never actually look into this stuff, it staggers me.
Have you even studied the Big Bang Theory ? It is a waste of my time to argue with someone who hasn't studied the ideas that he has promoting. Farewell, for we will not meet again
"The Founding Fathers said they thought Creationism is SELF-EVIDENT just like the existence of God. This country was founded upon the principles of Christianity..."
Thomas Jefferson: "All religions are alike; founded on fables and myth."
Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity is the most perverted structure that ever shone on man."
It's unfair to cite people who lived and died before evolution was even theorized as having rejected it. They did not even know of it.
You are also forgetting the second law of thermodynamics which, in layman's terms, is: That all matter in the universe is headed for entropy(death, destruction, decay). Evolution is the opposite of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
True science cannot contradict itself. The second law of thermodynamics is wrong or evolution is just a theory. Which one will you have ?
"Evolution is the opposite of the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
You seriously don't know anything about this science, do you? Answers in Genesis includes Thermodynamics on their list of arguments they think creationists should NOT use.
The 2nd Law is quite specific in that it only applies to -closed systems-. Organisms are not closed systems, they derive energy from their environment.
And for that matter, the Earth itself is not a closed system, since it derives energy from the sun. Seriously, it's embarassing to have to argue with you on this. If you had put even the slightest amount of effort into understanding the most basic precepts of the science you're attempting to lecture me on, you would have discovered you were wrong a long time ago. Thermodynamics? Give me a break. You should be ashamed of yourself.
And your claim about evolution having a "1 in 65 million" probability is so patently absurd that it should be humiliating to you to even put it forward. How many planets are there in the universe? Thousands of trillions. One in sixty-five million harbors life? No kidding?
That's even assuming you have any idea how to calculate such probabilities, which you don't. Evolution isn't the least bit unlikely, it's practically guaranteed. Ther eal odds would be 1:1.
Just from your last reply alone I know you are argueing with emotion rather then logic. It would be useless to argue with you anymore based on the absurdity of your "scientific" arguments. You forget that the human body may ingest fuel but produces its energy from fuel.
The earth produces its own energy which is why it revolves around the sun instead of being pulled into it. At least add logic to your argument.
"The earth produces its own energy which is why it revolves around the sun instead of being pulled into it."
*mouth gaping wide open*
It doesn't fall into the sun because it's in ORBIT. An object doesn't need to produce energy in order to remain in orbit.
I react emotionally whenever people demonstrate this level of wanton ignorance, as should anyone who values knowledge. The kinds of things you've been saying should be insulting to the intelligence of anyone in the civilized world.
The earth's magnetic field, combined with its distance from the sun allows it to orbit the sun. I'm pretty sure anybody taking eighth grade science knew that. Magnetism is a form of energy. Do you even know what energy is ? Do I need to break it down for you ?
No... Sorry. You may need to break it down for me, because as I understand it, magnetism has nothing to with the orbit of the Earth or any other planet. I'm sending you a short video explaining how orbits work. It's simply one object caught in another object's gravity.
Besides, the question isn't whether the earth produces energy, it's whether it's a closed system, and it's not. The 2nd Law doesn't apply to the Earth, nor to living organisms.
You are an idiot, the earth orbit's the sun because of GRAVITY. Mars has no significant magnetic field yet it too orbits the sun, or do you think that they all orbit the earth?
"Why is it that when we jump up, we fall back down?"
Gravity, the same force that causes the earth to orbit the sun. Electromagnetic energy does not cause it to get cold at night, energy does not cause it to get colder.
Actually, the earth does produce some forms of energy, for example geothermal energy. And it does have a magnetic field as duzell pointed out. The question isn't whether it produces energy, it's whether it receives any energy from outside. Of course it does. It's called sunlight. Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, i.e. systems that do not receive energy from their environment. It does not apply to the earth.
When I said that the earth does not produce it's own energy what I meant is that it doesn't produce ALL it's own energy, I should have made that clear.
That was a cheap shot sending a kids video at me. If you want try changing my mind, at least have the decency to send me a video designed to talk to adults. I had respect that we could at least argue as adults before you did that. We will not meet again.
Well, my apologies but it was the first video I found. I would love to have an adult argument with you, but you haven't been very adult in your research.
The problem with that layman's explanation is that it is wrong. The second law only applies to close systems and entropy is not the same as death/destruction/decay, it means less usable energy.
I'd be more inclined to hear from frellthat than from you. You argue from an emotional standpoint. Not to mnention that you support a certifiable lunatic to the White House, something me and a lot of people can agree on.
I am really not going to argue with you anymore. Goodbye
Entropy does not apply to evolution because the earth is not a closed system, if entropy didn't allow organisms to go from simple to complex then a zygote could note become baby.
Entropy does not mean loss of energy in the sense that you're equating it with - death, decay, and so forth. Entropy is energy. It's energy that is leaked into the environment, generally in the form of heat (hence the name THERMOdynamics). That's why the second law only applies to systems that do not receive energy from their environment. But organisms do and so does the ecosystem, so the second law does not apply to evolution at all.
You forgot to mention that the planet itself is a closed system, life on it is not. Hear is a question. Is the universe eternal or headed for destruction ?
For the last time, the planet is NOT a closed system. Haven't you ever heard of photosynthesis? All life on Earth's surface derives its energy first and foremost from sunlight, which is converted by plants and plantlike microorganisms into fuel. Other organisms eat those organisms for fuel. But it all starts with the sun imparting energy to Earth FROM THE OUTSIDE. Hence the earth is NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM. Stop repeating such bullshit statements please.
For the last time, I was talking about the Earth and its core, not the life on it. Try thinking of an planet without life on it, like Mercury or Venus.
"For the last time, I was talking about the Earth and its core, not the life on it. Try thinking of an planet without life on it, like Mercury or Venus."
It doesn't matter. Anything that receives energy from the outside is by definition not a closed system. Even without any life on its surface, the earth and all the planets would still receive energy from the sun. This is NOT a controversial statement. The earth is an open system and has always been understood as such.
Sunlight! Radiant energy! Thermal energy! Without the sun, Earth's atmosphere would be frozen solid. Even the churning of the Earth's core is caused in part by the sun's gravitational influence. ANYthing that receives energy from outside, in any degree or form, is an open system in regards to thermodynamics, and not a closed one.
You dunce, a planet as a whole generates electromagnetic energy to generate a magnetic field. The sun doesn't help a planet generate energy. The planets is still going to be destroyed any when it runs out of fuel to keep the core rotating ala the 3rd law of thermodynamics. This is basic geology and physics. And the sun is the best example of a closed system.
1. The earth's magnetic field has nothing at all to do with what I said. The earth RECEIVES ENERGY from the sun - not electromagnetic energy, radiant and thermal energy - and is therefore NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM. What part of that am I failing to explain to you?
2. The earth doesn't rotate because of its CORE, it rotates because of MOMENTUM and GRAVITY. This is absolute absurdity. Where are you getting this stuff?
I never said that the earth rotates because of its core. I said that the core rotates producing the electromagnetic energy, fueled in part by the materials in its core. Earth is still headed for destruction because it doesn't use any energy from the sun in relation to its core, therefore by definition, it is a closed system.
"Earth is still headed for destruction... therefore by definition, it is a closed system."
This is pointless. That is not the definition of a closed system.
Thermodynamics is the science of energy transfer. A system which receives no energy from its environment is a closed system. A system which receives energy (such as sunlight) from its environment is an open system. Seriously, just look it up. I'm tired of this.
This is all fairly off-topic anyway. Originally you had claimed that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. I then showed you that the second law only applied to closed systems, which organisms are not. It was only then that you backpedalled to talking about the earth. You were wrong, and the whole point of the argument we're having now is you trying to save face. I'm really getting tired of it.
Basically proved my point. I've rarely seen any Ron Paul supporters that respect anybody having a different opinion other than themselves. Oh, and if I am ignorant of middle school science, the you are ignorant of
I could be supporting Ringo Starr in 08' and you would still be just as blatantly unsuccessful in your scientific endeavors. I respect a lot of opinions, I respect both sides of the abortion debate, I respect both sides of the death penalty debate, I respect both sides of the global warming debate (usually). I respect opinions when they can be reasonably supported by some sort of evidence or logical argument. Creationism can't be.
Most of Ron Paul's positions can't be supported by evidence or logical argument. I know he's charismatic and all, but once you get past the surface, the man is a total lunatic. And I mean that in a clinical way, as in suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. That is unless there really is a secret conspiracy to unite the US and Canada under one government by 2010...
Charismatic? If I voted on charisma I would probably be voting for Mitt Romney, the fact of the matter is is that Ron Paul is the only one that makes sense and won't bullshit you.
"That is unless there really is a secret conspiracy to unite the US and Canada under one government by 2010..."
There's a European Union and now they are talking about a North American Union, it's not that big a secret.
However just to preempt where you might be going next, 911 was NOT, I repeat, NOT, an inside job.
You're talking about a trade agreement, not the uniting of Canada and the US under a single government as Ron Paul seems to think it is. The man is delusional.
No, you just use the suffix "ism" to suggest that it is a philosophy or a religious view, like Buddhism. It's clearly a propagandistic term. Don't insult our intelligence by expecting us to believe you're just using it in an innocent conversational way.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I would be very careful at believing what any candidate says--talk is cheap and everyone can make promises. Look at what he has done. The comments from Cato Institute, Americans For Tax Reform, and Club For Growth are very troubling to me.
It is more troubling to me that the C4G took PAC money to spread lies and half truths regarding Huckabee's record.
He faced a 90% Democrat tax hiking majority in the Ark. congress when only 50 % was needed for veto override. Yet he cut taxes 90 times.
Reagan raised taxes by 1 billion in Cali, adjusting for inflation and population growth makes that around 10 billion, and back then their taxes were 6 billion, he went on to define fiscal conservatism.
We must demand that our congressional legislators co-sponsor HR25, bring it to the floor, enact it, and deliver it to Pres. Huckabee - snipurl(dot)com/scrapthecode
....HOWEVER; you get to keep ALL of the taxes taken out of your check. You only pay on what you consume. It's a much better deal than today. You can more clearly see your budget. Nothing is hidden. PS---Neil Boortz IS a brilliant man.
that might look like alot but you will have so much more money in your paycheck after he takes away the income tax that it will more than make up for it
so, if I spend say $500/month on groceries, then I'd have to add another $115/month as tax? Then, if I buy a car at a modest $20k then I add another $4600 in tax? That's on top of the sales, property etc... tax's that we'd still have to pay to the state? Not sure about this new math. I'm sticking with Ron Paul who indicates that he'd abolish fed taxes because the gov has plenty of 'other' revenue and fed taxes only account for about 6% of annual spending...
Last year we paid 15K on taxes, so your scenario is a deal. Remove the food and drug tax though. We should reward for savings. It makes one prioritize; do I need a TV or save the money. Maybe a non-taxed used car is a better choice.
The biggest benefit is business coming to the US because it would be tax friendly; thus, wage and job growth. A lower tax means lower costs of goods. I like Ron Paul's idea more. At least Mike is looking outside the box and putting an idea forward.
He actually got the Fair Tax idea from Stanford and Harvard libertarians. Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about.
Do you even know what a Neo Con is? If you did you would know that Huckabee for better or worse is not one. Neo Cons are anti Nixon free traders, there is much else that separates them within that category.
The flat tax concept and the Fair Tax conept are completely different... one is based still on production and the other on consumption... infinittely different. The FairTax is easier on the lower class and encourages them to reach the next level, the Flat Tax does not.
In a country where say-anything-to-get-elected candidates like Hillary Clinton, Rudy, or Mitt Romney lead the polls, someone who seems this sincere can't win.
That is true... but it is easier to overcome them when you are as clean as Mike is... he has had his gaffes, but they are trivial in comparison with some of the corruption that other candidates have gotten into.
Why, because he won't bullshit you about 911 and blowback? None of the other western countries were attacked (until they joined us), you know why? Because they don't screw around over there. When they started to go over there with us, they got hit. We can't help the middle-east by being over there.
Radical Islam will be a threat to everyone in a much more real way in the next several decades if the issue is not dealt with now... Ron Paul assured that I would never vote for him when he blamed 9/11 on blow back... hope the guy drops out, he is an embarrassment.
"Ron Paul assured that I would never vote for him when he blamed 9/11 on blow back."
He got that from the CIA, he didn't just make it up. You can watch a video of psychologists talking about the motive, they came here because we were there. The truth hurts sometimes, get over it.
Radical Islam would do what they do against us regardless of whether we are in the right or the wrong... our support of our ally Israel against terror is no excuse for Islamists to create a propaganda machine against us and send suicide bombers against us.
Ron Paul proposes the weakest ways in which to combat this threat.
He is an empty suit with no real experience who has shown no abilities that would make him a capable president.
I didn't say in the right or wrong, I said over there. If we leave they won't give two goat's asses about us, they don't call us great satan just for kicks and giggles, there is a reason they don't like us.
"shown no abilities that would make him a capable president."
Have you seen, his voting record? the guy is fiscally amazing, he voted against the iraq war from the onset, he voted against the patriot act, he doesn't even take his pension.
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep up the good video work looking good. When you have time come visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep up the good video work looking good. When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 11 months ago
So, what is it exactly that you are trying to say? Are you trying to say that: under the fair tax system people who live under the poverty line wont be taxed? or that basic necessities wont be taxed?
Either way, I don't really think that the FTS is that productive.
2604263 3 years ago
he's proposing a regressive tax system where rich are taxed a lower percentage of income than the poor. I am no socialist but how is that a fair tax? Plus he contradicted himself because if people get their whole salary how are businesses going to lower costs and thus prices if they still have to pay the same amount but to a different person (the employees). What he said its wrong anyway because not all businesses pass tax costs to consumers, that depends on the products elasticity.
2604263 3 years ago
"he's proposing a regressive tax system where rich are taxed a lower percentage of income than the poor. "
Actually all consumption up to the poverty line will be tax free...the FairTax would help poor people greatly.
Also, the wealthy greatly avoid taxes in our current system because of its complexity and loopholes. The FairTax would stop this activity by the wealthy.
CIDaily 3 years ago
260 it's obvious huckabee isn't an economist. the AFFT probably donated a lot of money into his failed campaign. famous economists mill, smith, hayek, friedman, and keynes all supported income taxes (even though they disagreed over whether it should be progressive, negative, or flat).
freakazoidodo 2 years ago
he's proposing a regressive tax system where rich are taxed a lower percentage of income than the poor. I am no socialist but how is that a fair tax?
2604263 3 years ago
Regressive tax system???
ha ha haha
wow, you get to use your Introduction to macro economics class---you must feel proud.
azintp 2 years ago
The unfairtax is not real tax reform because it doesn't address the root issue of runaway government spending. The only reason people get excited about the unfairtax is because it promises to eliminate (rename) the IRS, falsely implying that the 16th amendment will be repealed, and the people can now keep the fruits of their labor. But in reality it's only about trying to make tax collection more efficient. If you want to see real tax reform go look up the liberty amendment.
ditkuss 3 years ago
"The unfairtax is not real tax reform because it doesn't address the root issue of runaway government spending."
The FairTax is real reform. That said, reducing spending and reforming government outlays is just as important if not more important.
CIDaily 3 years ago
I just wanna make clear I clicked this to test my bandwidth, do not count my view.
Thanks for reading...
neopatriot777 4 years ago
ROn PAUL is the man in best favor of the people, and will keep the founding fathers graves from being destroyed at account of their repeated rolling.
aswightman 4 years ago
Ron Paul is a loser and after the primaries toast.
NEPAConservative 4 years ago
I like this guy...I was gonna vote for romney but these few videos just changed my mind.
gvjuiceman 4 years ago 2
Juiceman...think again! youtube search these:
1.The Story Mike Huckabee Dreads
2.Huckabee Caught Lying About His Tax Hikes
3.Huckabee Pressured Cops Not To Prosecute Son's Dog Murder
4.Mike Huckabee on Illegal Immigration
5.CNN: Don't ask Mike Huckabee this question
This is no man of God!
spitchill 4 years ago
Most of these accusations against Huckabee been shot down based upon evidence, not political spin. Your sources have flawed information, which shouldn't be suprising to any of us in the midst of political season where lies and spin prevail.
mtnhome668 4 years ago 2
I don't belive that all the sources are out to get Huck. These are not my sources but of the general public.
He admited to supporting un state tuition for illegals!
He says he apoligized to rapist DuMond and says he never received letters from victims.
The stories show that @ the very least he has had some very poor judgement.
spitchill 4 years ago
to: gvjuiceman: Have you really researched this Huckabee?!? Don't fall for his folksy charm. He's LIED about so many things and he knowingly says things that he KNOWS can't be done. Get real -- the IRS cannot be completely closed, but could be greatly reduced. HE wants to get rid of taxes?!? Funny, because as gov. of ARk. he raised them 12 times in 10.5 years! Romney NEVER raised taxes once and eliminated a $3 BILLION deficit the liberals left for him. Romney's the true conservative.
aprillh 4 years ago
who cares if you believe in creationism or evolution...I could sit here and tell you plenty areas to raise doubt about both creationism and evolution but thats not important. Each side believes there right, so please just let it go and focus on the bigger issue at hand.
lol...cant we all just get along?
xxlegendatworkxx 4 years ago
I agree, I am tired of people attacking canidates on religion. I am not a Romney supporter, but I think it is awful, that he has to explain his religious beliefs in order to gain support. The same goes for Huckabee. These beliefs should have no effect on peoples decision, unless the canidates are saying they will base their entire administration on their beliefs.
ellislighthouse 4 years ago 3
The way to judge a candidate is not to argue over one of his PERSONAL or religious beliefs, which are every American's inalienable right, but to measure what he is saying about the issues that are going to affect your daily life - like taxes, or what he wants to be new law, or what old laws he believes should be repealed. Is it even possible to focus on these?
GrammaTink 4 years ago
Our overall success as a country will be based on how close we walk in the godly principles which this country was found upon.
Mr. Huckabee is a man of God and that is a very important issue.
I will vote for Mr. Huckabee.
josh42271 4 years ago
I agree. But the focus on his personal religious belief, like Creationism vs. evolution, is unproductive. I am hoping young people will focus on the more relevent (to today) issues. What he believes foundationally is what makes the man. What he wants to do as President needs to be the focus.
GrammaTink 4 years ago
Unless my page is messed up, why are the last comments about evolution? This video was about taxes and Huckabee explained the attacks on his record. He had a democrat legislative majority playing politics. The state also had to balance the budget.
1980PintoMan 4 years ago
Is believing in evolution a required belief to
have before you can hold any office. It sounds to me somebody who holds a gun to your head and threatens to blow your brains out if you don't recant your religion, notably Christianity. Please explain to me why you must believe in evolution in order to run a public office.
duzell3071 4 years ago
This isn't a question of religion. It's a question of science. Anyone who can't take his kids to a natural history museum without first advising them to disregard everything they see is scientifically illiterate, and we can't have a scientifically illiterate person in the White House.
frellthat 4 years ago
And I am sorry if the phrase "scientifically illiterate" offends you. The only thing I'm trying to say is that someone who is in so much denial about such a well-established science deserves to have his rationality called into question.
frellthat 4 years ago
The Theory of Evolution isn't and established fact. The "venerated" scientific consensus that you esteem so highly won't even upgrade it from a theory. Furthermore, science has barely anyplace in politics.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Please explain to me why you must believe in evolution in order to run a public office."
So that you won't let "intelligent design" into schools.
macman13 4 years ago
Both the theory of evolution and intelligent design both deserved to be canned because they both work on a premise of faith.
duzell3071 4 years ago
Why can't all theories with reasonable support be presented so that people can decide for themselves instead of evolutionists forcing crap on us and people feeling like religion is being dictated to them?
acr417 4 years ago
Because hypocrites feel as though we are not capable of thinking for ourselves and that they will do the thinking for us. Despite my obvious dislike for the theory of evolution, I feel that people should let other veiwpoints in on the debate. You will never make converts by forcing Ideas down peoples throat.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Because hypocrites feel as though we are not capable of thinking for ourselves and that they will do the thinking for us."
I don't care what *you* think for yourself, but I care about what is taught in public schools because that influences what kids think. I don't want to see wrong information presented for the sake of "fairness."
macman13 4 years ago
If you are going to teach evolution, you need to teach the other theories as well. It is just fair.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"If you are going to teach evolution, you need to teach the other theories as well. It is just fair."
No, it's not fair. Every other theory in science, including Darwinian evolution, has had to fight its way up to gain a consensus in the scientific community BEFORE it got put into textbook and classroom. ID proponents, on the other hand, want to get their stuff into classrooms before it has any significant support in science. That's not fair. That's using the government to cheat for them.
frellthat 4 years ago
As of right now, evolution is the only scientific theory that explains life's origins, and it does a wonderful job at it. You wouldn't support the theory of intelligent falling alongside gravity, would you?
macman13 4 years ago
"As of right now, evolution is the only scientific theory that explains life's origins."
That is a lie. The are amny theories that explain lifes origin, including intelligent design.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"That is a lie. The are amny theories that explain lifes origin, including intelligent design."
"Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. Scientific theory does not mean "guess". It means a scientific hypothesis that has actually been tested and proven, such as Darwinian evolution.
frellthat 4 years ago
Darwinian evolution has never been proven. Its been tested, but never proven. If it had ever been proven, then why is it called the Theory of Evolution rather than an established fact. That is something a 7th grader could figure out. Hint, the scientific process.
duzell3071 4 years ago
As I've tried to explain to you before, the mere fact that life evolves and has evolved is just that - a fact. Yes it is proven, and has been for 150 years. The theory of evolution is much like the germ theory of disease. The fact that germs cause diseases is not in question, it's proven - the theory explains HOW they cause disease. That's what a scientific theory does.
frellthat 4 years ago
The theoretical part of evolution pertains to the details - did organism X evolve from organism Y or from organism Z? But the mere existence of evolution (including what you call macroevolution) as a force in nature IS established fact, and you putting your hands over your ears and insisting otherwise is not going to reverse that view.
frellthat 4 years ago
It has never been an established fact. That is why it is a theory. Can you come up with proof that macro evolution is a established fact ?
duzell3071 4 years ago
Jesus Christ. I've explained this to you so many times. The occurrance of evolution is not "a theory". The theory of evolution explains evolution. Evolution itself is a factual, demonstrated, observed, documented, filed and catalogued phenomenon. Yes I can prove it, and so can the National Academy of Sciences. It has been proven for a hundred and fifty years. You just haven't been listening.
frellthat 4 years ago
Evolution does not work on the premise of faith, it works on the premise of evidence and the scientific method.
macman13 4 years ago
Actually, yes it does. It inherently relies on the faith that a living organism came from a nonliving object.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Actually, yes it does. It inherently relies on the faith that a living organism came from a nonliving object."
You're just spouting nonsense. I wish you could understand how you sound to someone who actually understands this stuff.
Evolution does not pertain to how the first living systems came about. That's a separate theory called abiogenesis. Evolution only describes the change in hereditary characteristics that have occurred since then.
frellthat 4 years ago
You have just described abiogenesis, which is both a different issue entirely and is shown to be plausible by current understanding of chemical processes.
macman13 4 years ago
Evolution is based on the belief that a living organism comes from a nonliving object. So yea, I pretty much say its more of a faith then real science. Real science builds a theory, then collects evidence to try to prove or disapprove the theory. Evolutionists try only to collect evidence to prove the theory, and ignore evidence that comes into the contrary.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Evolution is based on the belief that a living organism comes from a nonliving object."
No, that's abiogenesis. Again, you don't even know the definition of the science you're attempting to criticize. Evolution is:
1. The change in the heritable characteristics of populations of organisms over successive generations.
How hard is it to avoid calling you ignorant when you keep saying such ignorant things?
frellthat 4 years ago
Evolutionists began to try and separate abiogenesis from evolution when they were criticised for it. The type of evolution I have a problem with is transpecies evolution, also called macro evolution. The type of evolution that says that man came from apes, that birds came from reptiles and that life evolved essentially from singled cell organisms.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Evolutionists began to try and separate abiogenesis from evolution..."
But that's just not true. From the closing lines of The Origin of Species:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
frellthat 4 years ago
Evoluton has never, EVER entailed "life" coming from "non-life". Yes that happened, but it's not a part of evolutionary science and it never has been, even going all the way back to Darwin. The information you've been reading on what evolution entails is just flat-out wrong. The people who are telling you this are demonstrably lying to you, and you're repeating those lies. How can I not react emotionally to this?
frellthat 4 years ago
Have you even read the controversy of the theory ? Transpecies evolution has to many holes in it to get it to be construed as an established fact ? For instance, there is no credible proof of missing links ever being found. Any evidence that has been found turned out to be hoaxes. And on the subject, can you explain the bombardier beetle ?
duzell3071 4 years ago
I'd be willing to bet that the people who told you no transitional fossils had ever been discovered were the same people who told you the earth was a closed system or that evolution required abiogenesis. In other words, the people who have lied to you, and though you know damned well they're lying to you, you're willing to believe them again.
The truth is that paleontologists have so many transitional forms that the real challenge is figuring out what order to place them in.
frellthat 4 years ago
The paleontologists had between 50-70 years to come up with a single "transitional form", one that couldn't be proven as a hoax. How can you ever proceed to tell me that evolution is a fact when you evolutionists can't even settle an argument of whether evolution supposedly occurred over a long period of time or that it happened in a "Quantum Leap" ?
duzell3071 4 years ago
Like I said before, details like that - how quickly evolution happened, what forces drove it the most - are the theoretical part, and paleontologists can have their arguments over such details but the fact remains that life evolved.
frellthat 4 years ago
Regarding evolution's failure to produce "a single transitional form", that's just pure unadulturated bullshit. We have so many transitional forms that the only way you can say that is if you've never bothered to look into them. The fossil museums of the world are filled to the brim with transitional forms. You're just not interested in looking.
frellthat 4 years ago
That has got to be the biggest lie I have come across. I have been to quite a few natural history museums, and have yet to see a transitional form put on display that wasn't proven an hoax. I now know that you are nothing more than a phony.
duzell3071 4 years ago
Yeah, right. Proven to be a hoax by your Chick Tracts and websites that tell you evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing. You are hopeless.
frellthat 4 years ago
I get my information from science journals, libraries, and professors. How would you even know where I get my information from. You don't even know who I am or where I am.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"I get my information from science journals, libraries, and professors."
Name the science journal that told you evolutuon required abiogenesis or the earth was a closed system and I'll believe you. Otherwise I have no choice but to take that as bullshit.
frellthat 4 years ago
What facts ? What proof is there that life evolved. There has never been conclusive eveidence that life evolved. There has never been a transitional fossil found that hadn't been proven a hoax. You have lost this argument through sheer stupidity. I've found two holes in your argument, and capitalized on them. I give you a dare. Link me to a credible site that proves that life evolved with credible evidence. If you can't, just give up, it's painful to see you make a fool of yourself any longer.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"What facts ? What proof is there that life evolved."
I'm beginning to think it's pointless to even have this kind of discussion with you. You just got through telling me that every transitional fossil in every natural history museum in the world has been "proven to be a hoax". If that's the case, then 1) you're either much more knowledgable about the facts than I am, or 2) you're so far gone that no rational argument is going to change your mind.
frellthat 4 years ago
You're to far gone ever to consider other positions to your own beliefs. This argument was apparantly a waste of both of our time. However, I got you riled, I wouldn't have done that if you didn't feel that your position wasn't threatened. I am pretty sure that you wouldn't "try" to educate me because your such a nice guy. I doubt we'll meet again after this. Good night.
duzell3071 4 years ago
You got me "riled", yes. Any person who values knowledge should be riled by the display of wanton ignorance that I saw. Your attitude is an insult to the intelligence of every living person in the civilized world. You can't even define evolution, yet you're just so determined that it's wrong, whatever it is, and that every museum in the world that supports is taking part in a vast conspiracy against your religious views... Statements like that do get me riled, yes.
frellthat 4 years ago
"I've found two holes in your argument, and capitalized on them."
If that's the way you remember it, you're welcome to that interpretation. However I'm still waiting for a retraction of your statement that evolution required abiogenesis and that the distinction is a recent event. If you can't even define a science, you're in big trouble when it comes to debating it.
frellthat 4 years ago
You react emotionally because you backed yourself in a corner with your statements and youre apparently poor grasp of scientifical laws. You believe what you have heard about evolution at face value without looking up the facts. Oh, and a tip about arguing, once you react with emotion to an argument you have sounded the death kneel for yourself.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"You believe what you have heard about evolution at face value without looking up the facts."
Oh, you mean the way you thought evolution required abiogenesis and that "evolutionists" have only tried to distinguish the two in recent years? Are you going to retract that statement considering the excerpt I JUST SHOWED YOU from Darwin?
frellthat 4 years ago
"...youre apparently poor grasp of scientifical laws."
Oh, you mean like the way you think the earth qualifies as a CLOSED SYSTEM according to thermodynamics' second law? I'm pretty sure you didn't even know it only applied to closed systems until I told you, and now you're desperately trying to show how the earth is one even though you know perfectly well that it's not. This is a level of absurdity I have honestly never encountered before.
frellthat 4 years ago
Evolution never has, does not, and never will include the inorganic origin of life. It's a different issue. The research in the area of abiogenesis is good and getting better, but it is not part of evolutionary theory.
macman13 4 years ago
More good news in the polls today. It seems that the republicans have finally found their candidate. Support is solidfying around Huckabee. Join the winning team. Donate to the Huckabee campaing, even if all you can give is just a Buck for Huck.
brianpatrick1975 4 years ago
Huckabee is the best!!!
darsal123 4 years ago
I met Mike Huckabee this weekend. He is just as I thought he was. Genuine, real, kind, articulate and worth voting for! Go Mike
voteMikeHuckabee 4 years ago
Check out Americans for better Immagration web site. Hucks a joke...
14Franky 4 years ago
"That would be fine except I support Mike Huckabee, I have known him personally for the past 10 years and I kinda indirectly work for him .... " -RhinoRT
StellarRay5050 4 years ago 2
today my comment on a conspiracy against huckabee was proven by pat robertson's endorsment of giulianni
darsal123 4 years ago
There is a conspiracy against huckabee, is obvious because they really want hillary to win, huckabee is the only1 who can beat her,
otherwise we will have the jogling presidency
bush clinton bush clinton
darsal123 4 years ago
Bullshit, Ron Paul would beat Hillary head to head HANDS DOWN.
Huckabee was done for me when he said he didn't believe in gravity, I mean evolution.
macman13 4 years ago
I do not believe in evolution. There is no scientific fact that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, then how could something happen to cause anything to appear...?
ANSWER: "GOD CREATED" THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
RhinoRT 4 years ago 2
"I do not believe in evolution. There is no scientific fact that allows something to evolve from nothing."
You my friend, are an idiot. The idea that something came from nothing is called creationism. Evolution and the big bang (which is what you are actually referring to) act only within naturalistic mechanisms.
macman13 4 years ago
thats right I believe that God created everything evolution is NOT scientific fact there are ludicrous dimwits that believe it is but you or any one else can not produce any evidence to the contrary! you can try to give quotes and sources all you want but in the end none will be solid facts
RhinoRT 4 years ago 3
The Founding Fathers said they thought Creationism is SELF-EVIDENT just like the existence of God. This country was founded upon the principles of Christianity, Creationism and God as the grantor of rights as a blessing. Even the most secular among them (Jefferson & Franklin) acknowledged God at least as much as Huckabee.
decay1861 4 years ago
The founding fathers were deists (mainly) and it would have been quite surprising if they had believed in a theory that wasn't published until 1859.
"This country was founded upon the principles of Christianity"
Treaty of Tripoli article 11, read it.
Huckabee is a rube.
macman13 4 years ago
Also, the big bang theory runs counter to the 1st law of thermodynamics that state that all energy in the universe is constant.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Also, the big bang theory runs counter to the 1st law of thermodynamics that state that all energy in the universe is constant."
No, it doesn't. The Big Bang does not involve the creation or destruction of energy. You would know that if you'd bothered to educate yourself. But no, just criticizing something you know nothing about is a lot easier, isn't it?
frellthat 4 years ago
Really, the only way the Big Bang contradicts thermodynamics is if you have a skewed, totally misinformed impression of what the Big Bang is supposed to have been. Like you've never attempted to understand it in your entire life. It was an expansion of spacetime, not a fucking creation of energy. Jesus Christ... the thoughtlessness it takes to go through your whole life and never actually look into this stuff, it staggers me.
frellthat 4 years ago
Have you even studied the Big Bang Theory ? It is a waste of my time to argue with someone who hasn't studied the ideas that he has promoting. Farewell, for we will not meet again
duzell3071 4 years ago
"The Founding Fathers said they thought Creationism is SELF-EVIDENT just like the existence of God. This country was founded upon the principles of Christianity..."
Thomas Jefferson: "All religions are alike; founded on fables and myth."
Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity is the most perverted structure that ever shone on man."
It's unfair to cite people who lived and died before evolution was even theorized as having rejected it. They did not even know of it.
frellthat 4 years ago
Your talking about a process that had a 1 in 65 million chances of happening.
duzell3071 4 years ago
That may explain why it took about 1 billion years for life to arise on earth.
macman13 4 years ago
You are also forgetting the second law of thermodynamics which, in layman's terms, is: That all matter in the universe is headed for entropy(death, destruction, decay). Evolution is the opposite of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
True science cannot contradict itself. The second law of thermodynamics is wrong or evolution is just a theory. Which one will you have ?
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Evolution is the opposite of the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
You seriously don't know anything about this science, do you? Answers in Genesis includes Thermodynamics on their list of arguments they think creationists should NOT use.
The 2nd Law is quite specific in that it only applies to -closed systems-. Organisms are not closed systems, they derive energy from their environment.
frellthat 4 years ago
And for that matter, the Earth itself is not a closed system, since it derives energy from the sun. Seriously, it's embarassing to have to argue with you on this. If you had put even the slightest amount of effort into understanding the most basic precepts of the science you're attempting to lecture me on, you would have discovered you were wrong a long time ago. Thermodynamics? Give me a break. You should be ashamed of yourself.
frellthat 4 years ago
And your claim about evolution having a "1 in 65 million" probability is so patently absurd that it should be humiliating to you to even put it forward. How many planets are there in the universe? Thousands of trillions. One in sixty-five million harbors life? No kidding?
That's even assuming you have any idea how to calculate such probabilities, which you don't. Evolution isn't the least bit unlikely, it's practically guaranteed. Ther eal odds would be 1:1.
frellthat 4 years ago
Just from your last reply alone I know you are argueing with emotion rather then logic. It would be useless to argue with you anymore based on the absurdity of your "scientific" arguments. You forget that the human body may ingest fuel but produces its energy from fuel.
The earth produces its own energy which is why it revolves around the sun instead of being pulled into it. At least add logic to your argument.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"The earth produces its own energy which is why it revolves around the sun instead of being pulled into it."
*mouth gaping wide open*
It doesn't fall into the sun because it's in ORBIT. An object doesn't need to produce energy in order to remain in orbit.
I react emotionally whenever people demonstrate this level of wanton ignorance, as should anyone who values knowledge. The kinds of things you've been saying should be insulting to the intelligence of anyone in the civilized world.
quiIl 4 years ago
The earth's magnetic field, combined with its distance from the sun allows it to orbit the sun. I'm pretty sure anybody taking eighth grade science knew that. Magnetism is a form of energy. Do you even know what energy is ? Do I need to break it down for you ?
duzell3071 4 years ago
No... Sorry. You may need to break it down for me, because as I understand it, magnetism has nothing to with the orbit of the Earth or any other planet. I'm sending you a short video explaining how orbits work. It's simply one object caught in another object's gravity.
Besides, the question isn't whether the earth produces energy, it's whether it's a closed system, and it's not. The 2nd Law doesn't apply to the Earth, nor to living organisms.
frellthat 4 years ago
You are an idiot, the earth orbit's the sun because of GRAVITY. Mars has no significant magnetic field yet it too orbits the sun, or do you think that they all orbit the earth?
macman13 4 years ago
The earth does not produce it's own energy, it gets it from the sun. Ever wonder why it gets cold at night?
macman13 4 years ago
Electromagnetic energy. Why is it that when we jump up, we fall back down ?
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Why is it that when we jump up, we fall back down?"
Gravity, the same force that causes the earth to orbit the sun. Electromagnetic energy does not cause it to get cold at night, energy does not cause it to get colder.
macman13 4 years ago
Electromagnetic energy has nothing at all to do with gravity. Gravity is the curving of space that is caused by an object's mass.
frellthat 4 years ago
Actually, the earth does produce some forms of energy, for example geothermal energy. And it does have a magnetic field as duzell pointed out. The question isn't whether it produces energy, it's whether it receives any energy from outside. Of course it does. It's called sunlight. Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, i.e. systems that do not receive energy from their environment. It does not apply to the earth.
frellthat 4 years ago
When I said that the earth does not produce it's own energy what I meant is that it doesn't produce ALL it's own energy, I should have made that clear.
macman13 4 years ago
That was a cheap shot sending a kids video at me. If you want try changing my mind, at least have the decency to send me a video designed to talk to adults. I had respect that we could at least argue as adults before you did that. We will not meet again.
duzell3071 4 years ago
Well, my apologies but it was the first video I found. I would love to have an adult argument with you, but you haven't been very adult in your research.
frellthat 4 years ago
If you don't want to get videos for kids then try to elevate your level of knowledge past that of the average 6th grader.
macman13 4 years ago
The problem with that layman's explanation is that it is wrong. The second law only applies to close systems and entropy is not the same as death/destruction/decay, it means less usable energy.
macman13 4 years ago
I'd be more inclined to hear from frellthat than from you. You argue from an emotional standpoint. Not to mnention that you support a certifiable lunatic to the White House, something me and a lot of people can agree on.
I am really not going to argue with you anymore. Goodbye
duzell3071 4 years ago
I have no idea how entropy can be argued from an emotional standpoint, but just to take myself out of the equation, here.
talkorigins . org/indexcc/CF/CF001 . html
macman13 4 years ago
That did not even make sense. Clarify or hold your piece.
duzell3071 4 years ago
Entropy does not apply to evolution because the earth is not a closed system, if entropy didn't allow organisms to go from simple to complex then a zygote could note become baby.
macman13 4 years ago
Then explain why an organism inherently perishes than.
duzell3071 4 years ago
Entropy does not mean loss of energy in the sense that you're equating it with - death, decay, and so forth. Entropy is energy. It's energy that is leaked into the environment, generally in the form of heat (hence the name THERMOdynamics). That's why the second law only applies to systems that do not receive energy from their environment. But organisms do and so does the ecosystem, so the second law does not apply to evolution at all.
frellthat 4 years ago
You forgot to mention that the planet itself is a closed system, life on it is not. Hear is a question. Is the universe eternal or headed for destruction ?
duzell3071 4 years ago
For the last time, the planet is NOT a closed system. Haven't you ever heard of photosynthesis? All life on Earth's surface derives its energy first and foremost from sunlight, which is converted by plants and plantlike microorganisms into fuel. Other organisms eat those organisms for fuel. But it all starts with the sun imparting energy to Earth FROM THE OUTSIDE. Hence the earth is NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM. Stop repeating such bullshit statements please.
frellthat 4 years ago
For the last time, I was talking about the Earth and its core, not the life on it. Try thinking of an planet without life on it, like Mercury or Venus.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"For the last time, I was talking about the Earth and its core, not the life on it. Try thinking of an planet without life on it, like Mercury or Venus."
It doesn't matter. Anything that receives energy from the outside is by definition not a closed system. Even without any life on its surface, the earth and all the planets would still receive energy from the sun. This is NOT a controversial statement. The earth is an open system and has always been understood as such.
frellthat 4 years ago
And explain how the planet recieves energy from the sun ?
duzell3071 4 years ago
Sunlight! Radiant energy! Thermal energy! Without the sun, Earth's atmosphere would be frozen solid. Even the churning of the Earth's core is caused in part by the sun's gravitational influence. ANYthing that receives energy from outside, in any degree or form, is an open system in regards to thermodynamics, and not a closed one.
frellthat 4 years ago
You dunce, a planet as a whole generates electromagnetic energy to generate a magnetic field. The sun doesn't help a planet generate energy. The planets is still going to be destroyed any when it runs out of fuel to keep the core rotating ala the 3rd law of thermodynamics. This is basic geology and physics. And the sun is the best example of a closed system.
duzell3071 4 years ago
Oh my fucking god.
1. The earth's magnetic field has nothing at all to do with what I said. The earth RECEIVES ENERGY from the sun - not electromagnetic energy, radiant and thermal energy - and is therefore NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM. What part of that am I failing to explain to you?
2. The earth doesn't rotate because of its CORE, it rotates because of MOMENTUM and GRAVITY. This is absolute absurdity. Where are you getting this stuff?
frellthat 4 years ago
I never said that the earth rotates because of its core. I said that the core rotates producing the electromagnetic energy, fueled in part by the materials in its core. Earth is still headed for destruction because it doesn't use any energy from the sun in relation to its core, therefore by definition, it is a closed system.
duzell3071 4 years ago
"Earth is still headed for destruction... therefore by definition, it is a closed system."
This is pointless. That is not the definition of a closed system.
Thermodynamics is the science of energy transfer. A system which receives no energy from its environment is a closed system. A system which receives energy (such as sunlight) from its environment is an open system. Seriously, just look it up. I'm tired of this.
frellthat 4 years ago
This is all fairly off-topic anyway. Originally you had claimed that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. I then showed you that the second law only applied to closed systems, which organisms are not. It was only then that you backpedalled to talking about the earth. You were wrong, and the whole point of the argument we're having now is you trying to save face. I'm really getting tired of it.
frellthat 4 years ago
So you are another whackjob supporting Ron Paul. You viciously attack anybody supporting any other candidate other than Ron Paul.
duzell3071 4 years ago
I do like Ron Paul, but that has nothing to do with your embarrassing ignorance of middle school science.
macman13 4 years ago
Basically proved my point. I've rarely seen any Ron Paul supporters that respect anybody having a different opinion other than themselves. Oh, and if I am ignorant of middle school science, the you are ignorant of
elementary science.
duzell3071 4 years ago
I could be supporting Ringo Starr in 08' and you would still be just as blatantly unsuccessful in your scientific endeavors. I respect a lot of opinions, I respect both sides of the abortion debate, I respect both sides of the death penalty debate, I respect both sides of the global warming debate (usually). I respect opinions when they can be reasonably supported by some sort of evidence or logical argument. Creationism can't be.
macman13 4 years ago
Most of Ron Paul's positions can't be supported by evidence or logical argument. I know he's charismatic and all, but once you get past the surface, the man is a total lunatic. And I mean that in a clinical way, as in suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. That is unless there really is a secret conspiracy to unite the US and Canada under one government by 2010...
frellthat 4 years ago
Charismatic? If I voted on charisma I would probably be voting for Mitt Romney, the fact of the matter is is that Ron Paul is the only one that makes sense and won't bullshit you.
"That is unless there really is a secret conspiracy to unite the US and Canada under one government by 2010..."
There's a European Union and now they are talking about a North American Union, it's not that big a secret.
However just to preempt where you might be going next, 911 was NOT, I repeat, NOT, an inside job.
macman13 4 years ago
You're talking about a trade agreement, not the uniting of Canada and the US under a single government as Ron Paul seems to think it is. The man is delusional.
frellthat 4 years ago
"You're talking about a trade agreement, not the uniting of Canada and the US under a single government"
All I'm saying is look at the EU.
macman13 4 years ago
Neither is Darwinism, also known as Evolution
duzell3071 4 years ago
Actually Darwinism is a term used by creationists to poison the well when they are talking about evolution.
macman13 4 years ago
Many of the concepts you have derived come from Darwin. So I am pretty justified when I used that term.
duzell3071 4 years ago
No, you just use the suffix "ism" to suggest that it is a philosophy or a religious view, like Buddhism. It's clearly a propagandistic term. Don't insult our intelligence by expecting us to believe you're just using it in an innocent conversational way.
frellthat 4 years ago
Fox News sucks,why ask an evolution question Who would pick a president based on how they answered? Maybe you but not me.
TygaShawty 4 years ago
Hmm, why didn't they ask about WAYNE DUMOND ????
goneresistance 4 years ago
Because it is a NON ISSUE that countless dems have tried and failed to use.
Why beat this old,dead castrated horse all over again?
chukmaty 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would be very careful at believing what any candidate says--talk is cheap and everyone can make promises. Look at what he has done. The comments from Cato Institute, Americans For Tax Reform, and Club For Growth are very troubling to me.
seawabbit 4 years ago
It is more troubling to me that the C4G took PAC money to spread lies and half truths regarding Huckabee's record.
He faced a 90% Democrat tax hiking majority in the Ark. congress when only 50 % was needed for veto override. Yet he cut taxes 90 times.
Reagan raised taxes by 1 billion in Cali, adjusting for inflation and population growth makes that around 10 billion, and back then their taxes were 6 billion, he went on to define fiscal conservatism.
chukmaty 4 years ago
We must demand that our congressional legislators co-sponsor HR25, bring it to the floor, enact it, and deliver it to Pres. Huckabee - snipurl(dot)com/scrapthecode
ih2005 4 years ago 2
....HOWEVER; you get to keep ALL of the taxes taken out of your check. You only pay on what you consume. It's a much better deal than today. You can more clearly see your budget. Nothing is hidden. PS---Neil Boortz IS a brilliant man.
Bchill27 4 years ago 2
If you buy $500 in groceries, then yes, you would pay $115 in taxes; HOWEVER
Bchill27 4 years ago
that might look like alot but you will have so much more money in your paycheck after he takes away the income tax that it will more than make up for it
Orion090 4 years ago
so, if I spend say $500/month on groceries, then I'd have to add another $115/month as tax? Then, if I buy a car at a modest $20k then I add another $4600 in tax? That's on top of the sales, property etc... tax's that we'd still have to pay to the state? Not sure about this new math. I'm sticking with Ron Paul who indicates that he'd abolish fed taxes because the gov has plenty of 'other' revenue and fed taxes only account for about 6% of annual spending...
McMilo500 4 years ago
I forgot to say ... on top of the sales, property etc... tax that I have to pay locally to my state...
McMilo500 4 years ago
Last year we paid 15K on taxes, so your scenario is a deal. Remove the food and drug tax though. We should reward for savings. It makes one prioritize; do I need a TV or save the money. Maybe a non-taxed used car is a better choice.
The biggest benefit is business coming to the US because it would be tax friendly; thus, wage and job growth. A lower tax means lower costs of goods. I like Ron Paul's idea more. At least Mike is looking outside the box and putting an idea forward.
GryphonsClaw 4 years ago 2
Huck you got your fair tax from the flat tax idea.
Your just another CON!
recycledb4 4 years ago
He actually got the Fair Tax idea from Stanford and Harvard libertarians. Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about.
Do you even know what a Neo Con is? If you did you would know that Huckabee for better or worse is not one. Neo Cons are anti Nixon free traders, there is much else that separates them within that category.
chukmaty 4 years ago
"He actually got the Fair Tax idea from Stanford and Harvard libertarians."
Who got it from the flat tax concept.
macman13 4 years ago
The flat tax concept and the Fair Tax conept are completely different... one is based still on production and the other on consumption... infinittely different. The FairTax is easier on the lower class and encourages them to reach the next level, the Flat Tax does not.
They are completely different in the end.
chukmaty 4 years ago
I'll admit I am a little confused here, he wants to get rid of the IRS correct? So then this is a tax on....
macman13 4 years ago
Sales... I would definitely recommend looking into it. It has a couple books dedicated to it... it was, I believe formulated in part by Neil Boortz.
chukmaty 4 years ago
"-So then this is a tax on.... -Sales"
We already have a sales tax, and I'd really like to see it go down. I'll look into that though.
macman13 4 years ago
Huck at his best! youtube. com/watch?v=azLwD89h4xI
freedomman12 4 years ago
what about his views on evolution
wynjones1 4 years ago
I noticed he changed up his views a bit after he caught flak for saying he didn't believe in evolution. You could say his stance has "evolved"!
freedomman12 4 years ago
In a country where say-anything-to-get-elected candidates like Hillary Clinton, Rudy, or Mitt Romney lead the polls, someone who seems this sincere can't win.
somewhatlongdong 4 years ago
oof... hope you are wrong...
chukmaty 4 years ago
so do i, but that just seems to be the way things work. these multi-million dollar campaigns turn into propoganda machines to ruin credible people
somewhatlongdong 4 years ago
That is true... but it is easier to overcome them when you are as clean as Mike is... he has had his gaffes, but they are trivial in comparison with some of the corruption that other candidates have gotten into.
chukmaty 4 years ago
Gingrich/Huckabee 2008!!!!!
Shewib 4 years ago
Listen peoples, if you want lower taxes, vote Paul, not Huckabee. Look it up, the guy's for real.
macman13 4 years ago
I would, but I would NEVER trust Ron Paul on National Security.
Max8Jizzy 4 years ago 2
Why, because he won't bullshit you about 911 and blowback? None of the other western countries were attacked (until they joined us), you know why? Because they don't screw around over there. When they started to go over there with us, they got hit. We can't help the middle-east by being over there.
macman13 4 years ago
Radical Islam will be a threat to everyone in a much more real way in the next several decades if the issue is not dealt with now... Ron Paul assured that I would never vote for him when he blamed 9/11 on blow back... hope the guy drops out, he is an embarrassment.
chukmaty 4 years ago 2
"Ron Paul assured that I would never vote for him when he blamed 9/11 on blow back."
He got that from the CIA, he didn't just make it up. You can watch a video of psychologists talking about the motive, they came here because we were there. The truth hurts sometimes, get over it.
macman13 4 years ago
Radical Islam would do what they do against us regardless of whether we are in the right or the wrong... our support of our ally Israel against terror is no excuse for Islamists to create a propaganda machine against us and send suicide bombers against us.
Ron Paul proposes the weakest ways in which to combat this threat.
He is an empty suit with no real experience who has shown no abilities that would make him a capable president.
chukmaty 4 years ago 2
I didn't say in the right or wrong, I said over there. If we leave they won't give two goat's asses about us, they don't call us great satan just for kicks and giggles, there is a reason they don't like us.
"shown no abilities that would make him a capable president."
Have you seen, his voting record? the guy is fiscally amazing, he voted against the iraq war from the onset, he voted against the patriot act, he doesn't even take his pension.
macman13 4 years ago
It is rather easy being Doctor No when you have no executive responsibilities...
chukmaty 4 years ago 3