That's what Newton said to Leibniz.

3.14159265358... or something like that. That could be wrong. But my memory is usually worth "Good Enough" engineering.

And I think it's a lot harder to remember ... What the hell do I do with this shotgun again?

Look the other way here, please. California is a key source for organ donations.

As the Chinese like to say, "Don't break your brother's rice bowl."

And doesn't the fact that no data exists where we do know there were fairly fast variations historically naturally mean that we don't have enough data to make a positive conclusion and must with humility admit that there's just some things we just don't know? Because we do know that past ice ages and climate changes happened very fast.

But, oh no, if you're a climate scientist, you damn well better conclude something...

And so they do.

That's great. You've found a range that you think matters. Now let's do this over 10,000 years. Is there something you want to call normal in that set? Or even something that is consistant over a long range of time? Oh, things change constantly in that time frame, don't they? So is change unacceptable in this one?

Anyone who lived through all of the 70's and into today knows this intrinsically. Read up: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/e...

And therefor, a well armed populace is the best final defense of freedom.

Out of 26 years only 1 is "normal"? At what point should we just conclude that your definition of normal is the issue?

The world is less polluted today than it was 30 years ago. And far far less than it was 100 years ago. So isn't that a shrinking pollution problem, not a growing one?

We can always fund more research. But I'm sure that fact hasn't influenced the previous findings of those researchers.

Getting back to the actual topic, Timothy and you both implied that the budget of topic here originated with the House. It didn't. It originated with Barack Obama. That's all I'm saying.

Hey, now! Corporations are people too.

Thank you for that question. I'm glad you asked.

The concern here is for the financial well-being of our country. Once a majority population of a Democracy has figured out that they can just vote themsleves gifts from the coffers of the country, that country will certainly head down a swift path to financial ruin. That's why we don't have Democracy.

The founders of the United States fortunately were aware of this history, so they slowed this phenomonon down by deciding upon a Republic. By voting only for Representatives, the direct control of the coffers is taken away from the voters in favor of stability. But even a Republic's financial solvency can be threatened by a majority of politicians out-promising each other over how many gifts they will give people in order to get elected.

The fiscally conservative side of the voting block is very concerned that a number like 70% receiving direct payments could be the tipping point to create the phenomenon I've described above. That may or may not be the case, as many direct payments are for direct goods and services (e.g. Farm subsidies, federal payroll, etc.) But it is a concern that is something we as a country should watch closely and discuss.

The political ignorance of you and timothy is, I am affraid to say, embarrassing. Let me explain what has happened here.

The POTUS has made a budget that he suggests to the House of Representatives. You can find and explanation of this on Wikipedia.

You can also know more about this if you would just RTFB that was posted today.

"Calls on the Congress to enact bipartisan commonsense, comprehensive immigration reform consistent with the President’s principles and that builds on the bipartisan legislation that has already passed the Senate, which the Congressional Budget Office has found would reduce the deficit by almost $1 trillion and increase the economy by $1.4 trillion over the next twenty years."

Timothy. You claimed that the House originated President Obama's budget proposal. Citation needed please.