doG

OK. You've made the claim now let's see you support it.

My initial reply was to the OP and subsequent replies regarded swansont's response to that initial reply and the apparent support of his remarks. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sure. will do. Is this the thread you're referring to?

Define the Universe and it's origin if it even had one. If, for instance, the Universe is cyclical would the beginning of the last cycle be the origin you refer to be THE origin or simply the beginning of the current cycle? And who's claiming they can't be applied? Iknow of no observable evidence that the laws which exist in the Universe as we know it ever breaking down or failing and we have no reason to believe the BB is an exception. Is there any reason at all that we should believe or even speculate that the mass and energy in our Universe came from nothing? IMO the fact that they exist at all is reason to believe they came from something.

Actually the opposite is my belief, that the Universe could not come from nothing according to the laws of physics as we know them. We have no evidence that any mass or energy could come from nothing and we know they had to come from somewhere because the Universe is full of both.

I wonder if he can confirm the concept of something, the Universe, from nothing. That is what my initial point was about, that it violates the laws of physics as we know them and we have no reason to believe they would ever break down, even at the BB.

So the Law of Conservation of Mass/Matter is false then? In a closed system, like the Universe, you can convert back and forth and end up with more than you started with?

Are you saying antimatter=nothing?

IMO it is safe to assume that matter is neither created or destroyed so I believe matter has always existed and time is eternal. I think the Big Bang was an event in time that distributed existing matter into the Universe as we know it. We have no way to detect the state of anything prior to that event or anything beyond the horizon of that event so they are just unknowns to us.

To better understand nature and our Universe. Effectively another vote for physics. Science. Arts are open to creative definition. Math is not, it is itself definitive.

Oh it's blocking his posts just fine for me, it's just not blocking his threads which I would also like to avoid as well

Hmmmm, I've tried adding I-AM-A-GENIUS to my ignore list and yet this thread still appears in my view of recent posts, as well as the other "I will win a nobel for unfounded claim" threads posted by this user. I wonder if there's a bug in the ignore feature.

This one?

The previous status quo? Daily rockets lobbed at Israel while Israel sits on its hands and the Palestinians do nothing to police their own? That's acceptable? Do you really think those Israelis within the range of those rockets think that's the acceptable thing to do?

Now rockets are coming from Lebanon in the North. How many years should Israel allow this to go on before responding since they obviously didn't allow Hamas enough time to avoid the cries that it is defending itself unfairly?

Likely? Is there any doubt as to whether a suicide bomber cares if his/her bomb is nuclear or not? I don't think it would be likely, it would be certain,

So individual members of Hamas can independently lob rockets at Israel, Grads, Qassams, etc.., and they're not a violation of the ceasefire as long as their organization as a whole didn't sanction it? BTW, is Israel currently attacking the general population of Gaza or making targeted attacks at Hamas terrorists that have been lobbing rockets? From the slow trickle of the Palestinian tally it looks like Israel is making an effort to limit its aggression to those that have been attacking it. They could easily have killed 10s of 1000s by now if they just wanted to attack the whole of Gaza.

He wasn't lambasted for this ......... yet. He was genuinely asked if he is presenting this as a valid claim that Hamas did not fire first.

Are you claiming that there were no attacks, rockets, suicide bombers, etc.. from Hamas first? Really. Are you?

Are such Executives excerpted in the 17th Amendment? Might this be one more supporting point for repealing the 17th Amendment?

Just wondering here....does anyone have an idea of how many ceasefires Israel has agreed to with the Palestinians over the years? Is there any sane reason for them to believe that one more is going to make a difference that leads to lasting peace?

Very much so, it seems to be the only thing that works...

You missed this one bascule....

Your own leak doesn't even support your claim: SO it seems WP might have been used by the IDF according to U.N. guidelines for illumination purposes only. Not at all like Tell us, what do you think would stop Hamas from attacking civilians again and again, cease fire after cease fire after cease fire...ad nauseum?

When Arab nations demand Hamas be dismantled completely and immediately then their demands might be worth hearing. Until then let them play switch....

I don't particularly think Article 1 Section 5 is a legal case for exclusion. Burris is/was not technically elected but appointed legally by writ of election as specified in the 17th Amendment. I think the Senate would have to actually show the appointment to be in violation of the 17th Amendment to declare the appointment illegitimate. There are no election returns to judge either and Burris meets the qualifications specified in Article 1 Section 3: As it stands now I don't think anyone can show that any laws were broken in Burris' appointment and I don't think it's the intent of Article 1 Section 5 that the Senate can just reject anyone they don't like. I would think it would require the Senate to actually show in its judgment that some impropriety occurred in the election of a Senator.