The downfall of Bush

[KLSuddeth]

hiya Sis! How are you this am?

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by ajwps


KL really intelligent people do not need to brag about accomplishments or their own perceived IQ. Einstein himself admitted that he was not any more intelligent than anyone else but simply had an extraordinary amount of curiosity.

KL is the field of quantum metaphysics anything like the following definition?

What do YOU know about intelligence? (shrug). I'd wager you are one of the least 'smart' persons I've 'met' online.


Head-up-arse mean much to ya?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by ajwps

KL really intelligent people do not need to brag about accomplishments or their own perceived IQ. Einstein himself admitted that he was not any more intelligent than anyone else but simply had an extraordinary amount of curiosity.

KL is the field of quantum metaphysics anything like the following definition?

While really intelligent people don't need to brag, it's a necessary evil to explain to the really dumb ones what we intelligent ones have accomplished. Thats to give you an up front notice that you're about to get slammed if you wish to question the knowledge you've been given.

provide a link that gives the definition you posted.

 

[KLSuddeth]

provide a link that gives the definition you posted.

eh, I dont give a blankety-blank where he got his definition.

Hell, I can find a definition for nearly anything somewhere myself - seems thats what mr dr man did.

Im still soooooo hurt - I shall never recover

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

While really intelligent people don't need to brag, it's a necessary evil to explain to the really dumb ones what we intelligent ones have accomplished. Thats to give you an up front notice that you're about to get slammed if you wish to question the knowledge you've been given. provide a link that gives the definition you posted.

Here is your link oh wise ones:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

Although mysticism is said to exist in the writings of many of the early century's prominent physicists (Wilber 1984), the current fad of mystical physics began in earnest with the publication in 1975 of Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics (Capra 1975). There Capra asserted that quantum theory has confirmed the traditional teaching of Eastern mystics: that human consciousness and the universe form an interconnected, irreducible whole. An example:

To the enlightened man . . . whose consciousness embraces the universe, to him the universe becomes his "body," while the physical body becomes a manifestation of the Universal Mind, his inner vision an expression of the highest reality, and his speech an expression of eternal truth and mantric power

Lama Anagarika
Govinda Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism

Quote: I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.

Author: Albert Einstein
Source: The Quotable Einstein
-----------------------------
" An inflated consciousness is always egocentric and conscious of nothing but its own existence. It is incapable of learning from the past, incapable of understanding contemporary events, and incapable of drawing right conclusions about the future. It is hypnotized by itself and therefore cannot be argued with. It inevitably dooms itself to calamities that must strike it dead. "

ATTRIBUTION: Carl Jung (1875–1961),

 

[DKSuddeth]

so you use a website built and supported by the mindless to try to debunk the mindful so they feel less threatened by their inability to think? nice try. perhaps you should read a little deeper into einsteins theories and suppositions before you misrepresent his beliefs.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

so you use a website built and supported by the mindless to try to debunk the mindful so they feel less threatened by their inability think? nice try. perhaps you should read a little deeper into einsteins theories and suppositions before you misrepresent his beliefs.

Or a website built to support the mindful who are mindless of a perceived superior intellect.

Actually I have read the works of Albert Einstein for many years. Have found that he could think 'out of the box' instead of proclaiming his 'friggin intellect.' I don't think you will ever now the truth for as yet no one has an understanding of everything.

Except for a very few of us.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
IF you were regarding your 'intimation' towards DK, let me stop you right there.

His IQ is right along with mine and Im a friggin genius. I was skipped several grades in school, graduated HS at 16 (and in my sr. year I completed freshman AND sophomore college courses). I graduated my 4 year college before 18. I completed a doctorate in a very intense field (quantum metaphysics WITH a double minor in theology and theosophy). For me to be with someone that cannot at least match (preferably surpass) my intelligence and intellect would be like pulling my brain out of my ear. I couldnt do it.

Make sure you know of what you speak before you do so.
You dont to get on my bad side. Trust me.

SHITTTT! I'll get on your bad side maam, what you got for me? Come here and get your tender vittles you sweet little pussycat : j/k I can't hep misself missy!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by ajwps
Or a website built to support the mindful who are mindless of a perceived superior intellect.

Actually I have read the works of Albert Einstein for many years. Have found that he could think 'out of the box' instead of proclaiming his 'friggin intellect.' I don't think you will ever now the truth for as yet no one has an understanding of everything.

Except for a very few of us.

If thats your understanding of einstein then you not only missed his point, you missed the whole damn school bus.

what do you think 'out of the box' means?

nobody knows everything, including you and I, and one of the first steps to obtaining an even greater knowledge of the inner workings of our universe is to know and understand that very concept.

I do invite you to try and show that quantum metaphysics is just a minor rant when compared to your true science and knowledge by participating in a show of knowledgable debate and inellect within the religion/ethics forum. My wife has been looking forward to add another person who can think 'out of the box' for some really deep discussion on the subject.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

If thats your understanding of einstein then you not only missed his point, you missed the whole damn school bus. what do you think 'out of the box' means?

Einstein a rather small introverted humble man early on understood that what was real and what science considered concrete thinking were not so much at odds but simply a part of a greater complexity.

The term metaphysics aside from the world of the quanta is defined as:

Popular metaphysics relates to two traditionally contrasted, if not completely separable, areas, (1) mysticism, referring to experiences of unity with the ultimate, commonly interpreted as the God who is love, and (2) occultism, referring to the extension of knowing (extrasensory perception, including telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, retrocognition, and mediumship) and doing (psychokinesis) beyond the usually recognized fields of human activity. The academic study of the occult (literally hidden) has been known as psychical research and, more recently, parapsychology. Both New Age and New Thought emphasize mysticism and its practical, pragmatic application in daily living, but New Thought discourages involvement in occultism.

The terms metaphysics and metaphysical in a popular sense have been used in connection with New Thought, Christian Science, Theosophy, and Spiritualism, as in J. Stillson Judah, The History and Philosophy of the Metaphysical Movements in America (The Westminster Press, 1967), as well the New Age movement, and in the name of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religion (see below). Some of the varying understandings of metaphysics held by some founders of New Thought and Christian Science are given in the opening pages of Contrasting Strains of Metaphysical Idealism Contributing to New Thought.

PURE AND APPLIED METAPHYSICS

Cutting across the division of the academic and the popular, there is another way of dividing metaphysics: theoretical and applied. This distinction is like the division between science and technology; one describes; the other applies the description to practical problems, putting knowledge to work. Gathering knowledge (or alleged knowledge, critics of metaphysics would say) in metaphysics traditionally is by rational thought; in a more popular understanding, knowledge gathering may be either mystical or occult; in either case the pure (?) knowledge is to be distinguished from the practical application of it.

nobody knows everything, including you and I, and one of the first steps to obtaining an even greater knowledge of the inner workings of our universe is to know and understand that very concept.

Brilliant deduction. No matter how brilliant one is, the fact remains that ultimate knowledge of the inner workings of this universe (?) can never be totally understood. In my humble opinion, we do not exist in a fixed universe with shape or borders but simply assume it and we exist in our mind's-eye (consciousness). That the physics of the quanta, gravitation, energy, light, mass, velocity have no reality and do not believe in mystical concoctions of body/mind reality in a fixed place.

But this is only my personal opinion and even Einstein was working within fixed parameters of a sub-atomic universe with laws and structure in which we he believed was real.

I do invite you to try and show that quantum metaphysics is just a minor rant when compared to your true science and knowledge by participating in a show of knowledgable debate and inellect within the religion/ethics forum. My wife has been looking forward to add another person who can think 'out of the box' for some really deep discussion on the subject.

I would prefer to stay away from both religion or ethics forums as there is so much more than could be imagined even stepping out of the box. I'm sure that your wife also has some insight into this subject.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by -=d=-
Strongest growing economy in a decade? Unemployment rates dropping? A 'safer' world than 4 years ago? Pay Raises for Government employees? What's not to like?



This country has it right - a Bush and a Dick...just like God intended.

:

Sure the economy is strong. But that is in spite of Bush, not because of him. He has increased government spending and regulations which even according to Bush himself is bad for the economy. Just imagine if we voted for a candidate that truly meant it when he said he wanted to reduce government spending and regulations!

So to answer your question what is not to like, my answer begins with 'the largest spending increases in the federal government in my lifetime'. I could of course go on by sayiing, 'presidential support of the assualt weapons ban.' I thought republicans were supposed to be in favor of the 2nd amendment. Why do they vote for and cheer for a president that not only is not pushing to elliminate gun regulations but is actually supporting them?

Travis

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

Sure the economy is strong. But that is in spite of Bush, not because of him.

Brilliant statement... How ever did you conjure up an economic event that happened in spite of the President having anything to do with upswing in economy and jobs.

Bush got an extra 87 billion from Congress to spend on Iraq war and now wants tens of billions to go to Mars.

Do you think that the billions spent on Iraq and Afghanastan war was spent in either of these two vacation spots. Or were these billions spent on American industry that creates jets, tanks, weapons or American companies that use American workers to rebuild the country destroyed in 21 days?

Job creation and money spent on American industry instead of spending government coffer money on new tile floors in the toilets of the Congress or giving themselves taxpayer raises at 2:00 a.m.

A rising tide raises ALL SHIPS. Clinton created the largest tax increase in history. The money earned by the working people were sent to Washington were the wise ones squandered and wasted this largess on pork-barreling. No one had money to spend for their children and jobs were lost on a wave that landed on the doorstep of George Bush in 2001.

And now you say the economy is recovering in spite of Bush instead of his policies.

You have to be the smartest poster on this site.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by ajwps
Brilliant statement... How ever did you conjure up an economic event that happened in spite of the President having anything to do with upswing in economy and jobs.

how many times during the 'recession' did we hear that presidents have little to do with the economy?

Bush got an extra 87 billion from Congress to spend on Iraq war and now wants tens of billions to go to Mars.

Do you think that the billions spent on Iraq and Afghanastan war was spent in either of these two vacation spots. Or were these billions spent on American industry that creates jets, tanks, weapons or American companies that use American workers to rebuild the country destroyed in 21 days?

so the military industrial complex also rules over the US economy, eh?

Job creation and money spent on American industry instead of spending government coffer money on new tile floors in the toilets of the Congress or giving themselves taxpayer raises at 2:00 a.m.

you did notice that a republican majority house ALSO voted in a pay raise in 2003, right?

A rising tide raises ALL SHIPS. Clinton created the largest tax increase in history. The money earned by the working people were sent to Washington were the wise ones squandered and wasted this largess on pork-barreling. No one had money to spend for their children and jobs were lost on a wave that landed on the doorstep of George Bush in 2001.

did you see the amount of pork in this last budget that the house and senate passed? it exceeds even the clinton era.

 

[freeandfun1]

how many times during the 'recession' did we hear that presidents have little to do with the economy?

It depends. The economy during the early part of Bush's term could not be blamed on Bush. His policies had not even taken affect. Now that his policies have taken affect, he should get credit for it. There is always a lag between the policies of one term and the realities that occur once those policies take affect.

so the military industrial complex also rules over the US economy, eh?

Frankly, in many ways yes. The "boom" of the 90's was driven by technologies created in the 80's for the military. Furthermore, the rebuilding of Iraq does have an affect on our economy just as the rebuilding of Germany and Japan led to economic booms in the USA during the 50's and 60's. I would much rather see the government hire private industry to create jobs than to tax us, take the money and pay it out in unemployment, etc.

you did notice that a republican majority house ALSO voted in a pay raise in 2003, right?

When it comes to pay, they are all greedy!

did you see the amount of pork in this last budget that the house and senate passed? it exceeds even the clinton era.

Sometimes you have to compromise to get what you want.

Clinton's second term drove the economy south. Knowing that is another debate for another time, let's just leave that alone. It is very obvious now though that Bush's early tax cuts have led to an economic recovery. It is not as pretty as we would like, but in reality, it is pretty damn good. The "boom" of the 90's that was driven by technology spoiled us. How easily we all forget what the economy was like in the late 70's early 80's.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
And now you say the economy is recovering in spite of Bush instead of his policies.

What policies do you think effect the economy in a positive way?

Travis

 

[Merlin1047]

Holy mackerel, this thread has deteriorated.

All you really smart people used to give me an inferiority complex. Then I discovered I could just smack you in the mouth and win any damn argument I wanted!

I may not be the brightest bulb in the fixture, but I'm obnoxious enough to compensate.




:gross2:

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by tpahl
What policies do you think effect the economy in a positive way?

Travis

Bush's tax cuts. It put money into the economy and that is what was needed. It was the kick in the butt we needed to get people to spend. Since most people that received it viewed it as "unexpected" money, they spent it on "things" instead of just putting it in the bank.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Bush's tax cuts. It put money into the economy and that is what was needed. It was the kick in the butt we needed to get people to spend. Since most people that received it viewed it as "unexpected" money, they spent it on "things" instead of just putting it in the bank.

not too bright of them, was it?

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
It is very obvious now though that Bush's early tax cuts have led to an economic recovery. It is not as pretty as we would like, but in reality, it is pretty damn good.

Bushes Tax cuts were very small when compared to the total tax burden. IN addition they are phased in slowly over ten years. To give ANY recovery in the economy to Bush is very dishonest. The recovery in the economy is in spite of the Bush and the federal government just as the good economy in the 90s was in spite of Clinton and the federal government.

If you want to really see a good economy how about REAL tax cuts instead of the very minor ones bush did. How about REALLY cutting spending instead of the large increases Bush has given us.

Travis pahl

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Bush's tax cuts. It put money into the economy and that is what was needed. It was the kick in the butt we needed to get people to spend. Since most people that received it viewed it as "unexpected" money, they spent it on "things" instead of just putting it in the bank.

Bushes Tax cut was very small and is phased in over a 10 year period. It was a VERY small step in the right direction that was all countered by a HUGE step in the wrong direction by some of the largest INCREASES in federal spending in american history.

If tax cuts are what you are looking for, we could see much more and much larger ones if we elected a president that would drastically reduce spending rather than increasing it as Bush has done.

Travis