William Charles Schneider

old Creed bratton here, tweetin from my perch, quality assured (not creed Bratton, took his identity after he stole from me)
If my parents see this, I am toast!

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

All maga are retards.

Do you support the free market or not? TVA has been 100% self funded for 30 years. It competes with massive public companies and supplies power to over 150 local utilities.

For better or worse, this is a competitive incentive based contract for an executive running a power company this size.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

The TVA has been 100% self funded for over 25 years. It is a nonprofit that receives no taxpayer funding and competes with major public power companies. It operates with a board of governors but with no share holders. It powers over 150 local utilities. The going rate for a company executive this size is much higher than any incentive bonuses paid to a TVA executive.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

Youre just being sensationalist liars now.

The graphic is showing a 7% corporate tax rate increase, that is ridiculously small. It shows a return to pre-Trump capital gains tax cuts, removing the damage done by corrupt incompetence. And it shows a new tax on unrealized gains for the 10,000 people with net worth over $100million.

This new tax only affects gains and the law would result in a tax credit in down years. The new tax featured a yearly marked point and was not a tax on the entire portfolio. On 25 cents on the dollar on gains that year.

The purpose is to close the loophole of buy, borrow, die. This is clearly unfair to even the most moronic maga.

It helps alleviate the tax burden of the middle class and lower who are actually paying taxes by treating the 0.01%s exploits on the same basis, tax-wise, as w2 earners.

When these affected by the tax are doing well, so will the tax revenue.

If you are confused about what this proposal was, you know in your heart and mind that the current system is not fair. With a little education at all about the tax proposal, you can see the lies that opponents are telling about something that 99.99% of people would benefit from.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

No again. Selecting upwards action for self-profit, limiting risk, balancing resources are not evidence of intelligence. The survival status of a living body (biological, legal, reified, etc.) depends on meeting baseline requirements of their environment.

A body, intelligent or not, can not turn off the requirements or they would cease to exist. They either meet them and survive or do not and die. Like 99% of species and 99% of businesses. No one created the game that is life (born, consumes, reproduce) and no one created the game of capitalism (born, produce, grow)

You really can only to cling to desperation in your argument because it requires all the current life we see to have been dropped into place in the current state we found them by design and we are surrounded by proof that things have been changing for millions of years.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

Lets say you are a practicing Christian (way too losely defined term but we will continue).

You observe another practicing Christian engage in more robust rituals of praise and worship of Jesus/God.

Would you then adopt their same rituals? If you dont, are you no longer Christian because you are not following every rule?

If you do, were you not a true Christian before?

None of you people can even agree on terms of reality, much less when you add all the mysticism and supernatural features to the story. You have no respect for evidence or proof. Its all man-made anyway so picking and choosing whats makes you a Christian or not is the modus operandi of the all followers of this myth. You are outside of the bounds of reason if you claim other people's religion is not as strong as your own, but perfectly within the scope of practicing belief in myths as truth.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

Why is there anything and not nothing?

Logically we can establish:
That "nothing" cannot serve as an ontological baseline. The moment "nothing" is designated, defined, or embedded, it assumes identity and boundary conditions, collapsing into a mode of "something."

The premise that transitioning from "nothing" to "something" cannot be temporal or causal is logically robust. Time and causality are internal properties of an existing universe.

Positing a temporal bridge prior to existence introduces a circular dependency (using time to explain the inception of time).

Treating "nothing" as a state that can be "achieved" or that requires a "container" creates a category error. If "nothing" requires a space or container to sit in, it is not nothing. It is an empty spatial manifold (a physical vacuum, which is "something").

Pure ontological nothingness is the complete absence of properties, rules, and geometry.

The answer to the problem is this: everything possible combination if things could exist and it wouldn't matter, you exist in the only observed reality that you find yourself in. You are only able to ask "Why?" because you are and because reality is.

The philosophical answer to "Why?" is meaningless. The chain of natural events connecting the "How?" is what gives our natural existence, the universe, to answer "Why?" anyway it wishes.

From our perspective, that manifests in humanity longing for meaning while it computes the universe's answer.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

@DeusVult_Sol @archie_lochie Well no, of course I dont.

The phoros of my analogy is that both evolution and capitalism are emergent properties of natural phenomena.

The free hand is. Natural selection is.

Nobody turns them on or off.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

@causalknowledge @darwintojesus @MentallyNathan Excellent rejection of the OP on this subject. Thank you.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

@DeusVult_Sol @archie_lochie Do you accept the logic of capitalism?
Without accepting that unplanned progress (evolution) can naturally occur in the market, you dont really accept capitalism.

Why is that idea so hard to engage with?

The free hand is to capitalism, as natural selection is to evolution.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

@NotEvolution1 If you can prove god is real, that would imply the bible is actually propaganda and lucifer's grievances are perfectly valid.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

You completely misunderstand time.

For any argument relating pre-time, time, and the natural origin of the universe you need to have firm understanding of how time is an emergent property existing due to the relationships between physical objects in space. This is what we call general relativity, and it was demystified by Albert Einstein in 1915.

General relativity is not the end-all-be-all solution but it uncovered a path to the greatest current understandings we have of the existence and reality of nature.

Without lending ANY supporting evidence to a creator, the idea of pre-time is getting into the frontiers of modern physics and I don't have the answer for you.

I do challenge your view of logic and reject any effort you make to prove a creator is required for anything, even the most mysterious of phenomenon.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

Why are so you obsessed with the idea that the natural universe cannot have a natural origin?

Its THE only possible answer to observed reality.

Its not a requirement to disprove a "timeless creator," in order to provide reasoning FOR a natural origin.

In fact, the lack of falsifiability and untestable nature of god(not to mention unlimited variation of claims from Christians, much less all monotheist religions) really makes it meaningless to the science of origin research and discussion.

Could there be a omnipotent and omnitemporal being? Sure. But you cant bring logic into your claim without evidence or by only using a bible.

However, I could also claim to have an invisible dragon in my garage that doesnt make any sound or prevent me from parking a car inside and you SHOULD believe it based on your conclusions of unseen and untestable claims.

Who says the universe is "uncaused"? Rejection of a creator does not infer rejection of chains of cause and effect.
To make your argument even lesser, the belief in a creator would reject a sound chain of cause and effect. Why would the creator not themselves have a creator? If the creator does not need one, then why should the observed reality of the universe?

Quite simply, you a pleading a special case: with no evidence for this basis, you claim that the observed natural reality must have a creator, but the never observed and unfalsifiable creator may be without creation themselves.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

@Jmacdog7 @NotEvolution1

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

@Jmacdog7 @NotEvolution1 @NotTheBaptizer A natural origin to the natural universe makes more sense than a supernatural, which has never once been observed or affected reality at all

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

There is only evidence for my view or a variation of it and zero evidence for a resurrection.

You are looking at the world as if any of the miracles or mysticism of the story is possible. It is not.

I am looking at the story itself as the world truly works (since we do have sources for the Jewish legal systems along with contemporary examples) and from what little we can correlate from multiple reliable sources about the time. Nothing leans in your favor here.

With zero evidence for resurrection being true and centuries of evidence of christian doctrine lying about or making up any possible, but always illogical, reason to believe; it only follows thats its likely the origin of the story is as much a lie then as today.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

The burden of proof is not on the romans. They, like us today, can safely reject assertions of truth that are made without supporting evidence.

There was no christianity for decades after the secondary sources place the time of the crucifixion. So nothing for the romans to objectively disprove.

Since Jesus of Nazareth likely rotted on cross and was never actually buried, any claims of resurrection to ANYONE not in jesus' cult, would have been laughable. There is no secondary record of a burial.

Plus, the nail in your coffin. According the the bible, the disciples did not publicly claim resurrection until 10 days after Jesus conveniently left and 50 days after the crucifixion. If everything else wasn't already laughable, the premise that the Romans should have gone and retrieved Jesus of Nazareths corpse to disprove a loose group of people preaching the end of the humanity certainly is.

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

@CathrineBeylev @ArkEncounter Don't forget about Adam's cuck, Jeff

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

@kevemerson @GividenRic78614 @Aikens_Josh

[William Charles Schneider @CreedBrattonQA]

By letting the elderly and disabled MAGA retards fend for themselves, they can show us how easy it is to get by without. Once they start thriving, when free from the boot of a social safety net, the rest of the country will wake up and cast away their entitlement checks.

Or even better, they will all die before the midterms or next presidential election.