Of course time travel, in the fourth dimension, is possible. In fact you are traveling through time right now. And if by time travel you mean that you can control how you travel through time, you can do that too. Just go at 99.9% the speed of light. Actually, theoretically, (from special relativity and Stephen Hawking's books) you can travel into the future, but it is theoretically impossible to travel back in time.

If you think about it, assuming that you know some of the principles of relativity, since everyone is traveling at different speeds and velocity in the first 3 dimensions relates to speed in the fourth dimension, time, everyone is a time traveler and everyone travels through time at different speeds.

What is the basis for your argument? You can't simplify the issue of taxes in one line like you did. Taxes are extremely complicated so stop rambling on about an issue that you clearly have no idea of how it works. At least read an economics book and then post something useful.

Where did the concept of how tax cuts pays for itself originate? It originated with the Reagan administration's policy of "supply-side economics." Reagan believed that tax cuts would raise revenue, an idea that came from economics Arthur Laffer, who propoesed the supply curve. What happened? Tax revenues did not increase; in fact it actually decreased, and is in part one of the causes of our huge deficit.

So how do tax cuts work? According to the Laffer curve, a decrease in taxes increases revenue to a certain point, at which the reverse becomes true, thus forming a parabolic relationship between taxes and revenue. Different taxes for different goods also have different Laffer curves. Luxuries including private yachts, huge beach mansions, and Lamborghini Murcielagos have extremely inelastic demand and supply curves. This means that the deadweight loss that comes from taxes is proportionally lower as taxes rise. Thus, a tax cut would result in a decrease in revenue. If you didn't fully grasp what I just said...again, go read an economics book.

Basically, since the market for luxuries is inelastic and the market for necessities is elastic, tax cuts for rich people would not be as effective as a tax cut for poor people. Therefore, according to one of the basic principles of economics, a tax cut for poor people, if taxes are high enough, will stimulate the economy (also raise tax revenue) and a tax cut for rich people, if taxes are not high enough, will not stimulate the economy (also lower tax revenue).

My explaination of how taxes work is even still a very gross oversimplification of the issue but its the basic idea that most experts agree on.

How is spending bad? It is 17% of GDP. By the way GDP=C+I+G+nX where G is government spending. This means that the higher government spending is, the higher GDP will be (up to a certain point). However the fact remains that 17% of GDP is made up of government spending. Reducing that percentage will result in a loss of GDP and thus a loss in the economy

Well then how did the great depression end? Was it not because of programs under FDR such as the CCC? What you are arguing is that Hoover's decision to leave the economy alone would yield better results than FDR's New Deal. Well, historically, that is extremely incorrect, since Hoover himself admitted his mistake and though fiscally conservative, enacted changes that led to the U.S. government spending money to ease suffering in the Great Depression

Yes, in some ways it works, but in other ways, it can't work. Read a microeconomics book.

The economy is good when everything is efficient.

Three things increases inefficiency: market power, externalities, and government intervention

Market Power: An example of this is when the robber barons kept wages extremely low and monopolized the economy. A way to reduce market power is through government intervention, hence the existence of minimum wage laws and anti-trust laws.

Externalities: This includes pollution emitted by energy companies and pollution from pesticides. Externalities reduce the efficiency of other markets as well as the welfare of individuals. This is also why the government has banned some pesticides and reduced carbon emissions.

Government intervention: An example of this is taxes in which both the consumer surplus and producer surplus are lowered. Another example is price floors and price ceilings which cause shortages and surpluses, thus reducing the efficiency of the market by moving it away from equilibrium.

God sends no one to hell. People like you choose to go there and he lets them.

WAIT! didn't God create ALL of us???? So why did he create such imperfect sinners...in other words, why didn't he just create docile people who worshiped him without question? Was he drunk when he built Adam and Eve from clay or what???

God created humans. God is perfect. Imperfect humans go to hell. Sounds very contradictory to me. Your answer might be that God intentionally created imperfect humans, so therefore, God sends people to Hell.

yes, I heard about that too. Google is developing cars that can self-drive, and already tested them in the San Francisco area. There is a huge difference between driving by humans and driving by autonomous machines. The machines are not replacing us as drivers; they are improving us. Machines are much more accurate than humans. Think about how much pedestrians and other drivers autonomous cars could save. If google's new technology could be improved and installed everywhere, we would practically eliminate the need for transportation laws and create a super efficient transportation system (no more traffic :).

Also, next time, do use spellcheck

I agree that they do create a form of fear TO THE OTHER COUNTRIES So what happens when OTHER COUNTRIES have nuclear weapons (something that you are proposing in this debate "states should have nukes")? Then everyone will have fear. Back to the cold war of weapons buildup again. Just so you know how close we actually were to apocalypse: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/67/nuclear-weapons. That was extremely close as a matter of fact, yet that is the world that you are dreaming of, a world filled with fear and the huge possibility of apocalypse.

By your calculations of how much nukes cost (which I seriously, seriously doubt since you didn't give me the exact source), if we build one nuke, then it is equivalent to taking apart 5500 of them. So, according to you, we could spend money on building only 6 nukes, thus increasing the chances of apocalypse, or using that money to take apart ALL of them, thus reducing substantially the chances of apocalypse.

their purpose is to prevent another World War......Yes, they can obviously prevent a world war by causing a nuclear winter, which will wipe out 90% of humans, thus taking from them the ability to wage war...if that's what you mean. Nukes=death without consent...murder=death without consent...thus I do think that murder is a valid reason for the purpose of nuclear weapons.

Ways to detect nukes: google it! basically nukes emit radiation and radiography is a process that detects radiation. Satellite imaging is another way. New ways are constantly being developed, including muon detectors. Nuclear materials aren't exactly commonplace and are constantly tracked by international organizations.

Your argument for the proliferation of nukes depend on one thing to keep the world from destroying itself: they cannot explode. What if they did? Your proposed world will cease to exist.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/72691

First, don't countries reserve the right to protect their citizens? What do nuclear weapons do? they blow cities and humans up. Nukes are not shields that can protect citizens of a country, it can only be used to attack, intimidate and inspire fear.

Example: cold war. How did the nuclear stockpiles of the U.S. and USSR grow so big (32000 warheads combined at their peaks)? It's because when the U.S. began to build nukes, the soviets got scared, so they started building nukes. When the U.S. realized it had competition, it became scared and increased its stockpile. In response, the USSR increased its stockpile even more. If every nuke is built in defense of another nuke, the increase of a nuclear stockpile will be indefinite. Then its only a matter of time that one or two, or all of them will explode.

Second, why should we waste the trillions of dollars we spent on these weapons by just taking them apart, costing us another billion or so? Nuclear weapons cost, depending on the amount of uranium used, 2 million each to produce, excluding the enrichment process and the building of factories. What is the cost of nuclear weapons blowing up? hundreds of thousands of deaths? probably. The sole purpose of nuclear weapons is murder on an unimaginable scale (duh, that's why they're called "WMD's").

Finally, is there an actual, verifiable way to make sure that other countries have abolished their weapons Yes there are actually many ways to detect an atomic weapon. The testing of atomic weapons can be easily detected, and most nuclear material necessary to build a nuke are tracked internationally.

The beginning of the 21st century is not the time of cavemen, when humans feared wild animals, or the time of Rome, when humans feared barbarian invasions. No, globalization is at its peak and shows no sign of breaking down. A person in the U.S. can talk to someone on the other side of the Earth in China in less than a second. There is no domination of one nation to another, no survival of the fittest. History has shown that war causes nothing but suffering. Thus, nuclear weapons will one day disappear, as will many other weapons of war.