The Ad They Don't Want You to See

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
GimpFace wrote:
Can someone explain to a dumb Englishman what the fuck is with the Obama = Muslim stuff?

I have very little access to US culture (other than the TV shows) and have only visited 4 states, but is the problem that he is of mixed race?

I mean, no-one really thinks OMG - terrorist.

Do they?

Again, I dont know a great deal about the mans policies (what I do know sounds a little, well - different, with all the service talk) but everything I see so far just seems to focus on his name (which after someone called Bush seems a little weird).

Not being snarky, just interested…

Because Americans are dumb?

Yes. There’s people out there that insisted Obama was Muslim because of his name. There were people that believed said idiots because they will believe whatever they have to in order to keep a black man from being president.[/quote]

Obama was Muslim because his father was Muslim. That is the way it works according to Islamic law. I don’t understand how this is can be denied.

142

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Speaking of -

I haven’t seen 100M around here is quite some time. I guess Hilary missing out on the nomination took it out of him.

He was one that was actually fun to fight with.

Weirdly, he was - he was one of the only left-of-center folks around here that could actually take a position on given policies: taxes, judges, the environment, etc.

Entheogens is good, too. He should post more often.

The rest of the time we get refried Bush Derangement Syndrome:

“I think [Democratic nominee/favored position/policy approach] doesn’t make good sense.”

“Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah…like Chimpy McHitler ever made sense in, like, his whole life??? Like Bush did it right??? Oh yeah, because Bush really, like, ever…”

In fact, I think there is a Bush Derangement Reply Generator somewhere, and it serves as shorthand here in PWI.[/quote]

Entheogens is good because he thinks and discusses. 100m regurgitates.

143

[quote]bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.
[/quote]

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

144

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.[/quote]

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

145

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

[/quote]

I’m sorry, but as I Christian I have to ask, why? Why does Creationism HAVE to be taught at a public school? What is the emergency?

146

[quote]Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

I’m sorry, but as I Christian I have to ask, why? Why does Creationism HAVE to be taught at a public school? What is the emergency?[/quote]

No emergency, but why only present one side? What are the opponents so afraid of?

Are you telling me we can’t teach kids about the Declaration of Independence? Do we skip over the part “endowed by our Creator”?

147

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

I’m sorry, but as I Christian I have to ask, why? Why does Creationism HAVE to be taught at a public school? What is the emergency?

No emergency, but why only present one side? What are the opponents so afraid of?

Are you telling me we can’t teach kids about the Declaration of Independence? Do we skip over the part “endowed by our Creator”?

[/quote]

On what basis do you even teach it? Why not norse creation mythology?

148

[quote]Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

I’m sorry, but as I Christian I have to ask, why? Why does Creationism HAVE to be taught at a public school? What is the emergency?

No emergency, but why only present one side? What are the opponents so afraid of?

Are you telling me we can’t teach kids about the Declaration of Independence? Do we skip over the part “endowed by our Creator”?

On what basis do you even teach it? Why not norse creation mythology?[/quote]

Well, if we follow that logic then why teach evolution?

I am not saying it has to be in depth. But it can certainly be laid out that the idea of creation is one that is widely accepted as to the origin of this universe.

And that generally falls into two categories:

  1. A literal spoken Genesis account / young earth
  2. God used the process of evolution

The history of our nation is not complete without such, as the original framers certainly believed in one of the two.

Just because this is introduced does not mean one has to teach / mention (although I believe it is a good thing for students to at least be aware of the main accepted theories) every single one.

149

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

I’m sorry, but as I Christian I have to ask, why? Why does Creationism HAVE to be taught at a public school? What is the emergency?

No emergency, but why only present one side? What are the opponents so afraid of?

Are you telling me we can’t teach kids about the Declaration of Independence? Do we skip over the part “endowed by our Creator”?

On what basis do you even teach it? Why not norse creation mythology?

Well, if we follow that logic then why teach evolution?

I am not saying it has to be in depth. But it can certainly be laid out that the idea of creation is one that is widely accepted as to the origin of this universe.

And that generally falls into two categories:

  1. A literal spoken Genesis account / young earth
  2. God used the process of evolution

The history of our nation is not complete without such, as the original framers certainly believed in one of the two.

Just because this is introduced does not mean one has to teach / mention (although I believe it is a good thing for students to at least be aware of the main accepted theories) every single one.

[/quote]

Why would you teach about a 6000 year old Earth, when you have dinosaur fossils alone dating waaaaaaaaay back before?

I don’t understand the hang up so many fellow Christians have over this issue. It’s a completely unnecessary distraction from real problems in our schools. Otherwise, take your kid to church, problem solved.

150

[quote]Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

I’m sorry, but as I Christian I have to ask, why? Why does Creationism HAVE to be taught at a public school? What is the emergency?

No emergency, but why only present one side? What are the opponents so afraid of?

Are you telling me we can’t teach kids about the Declaration of Independence? Do we skip over the part “endowed by our Creator”?

On what basis do you even teach it? Why not norse creation mythology?

Well, if we follow that logic then why teach evolution?

I am not saying it has to be in depth. But it can certainly be laid out that the idea of creation is one that is widely accepted as to the origin of this universe.

And that generally falls into two categories:

  1. A literal spoken Genesis account / young earth
  2. God used the process of evolution

The history of our nation is not complete without such, as the original framers certainly believed in one of the two.

Just because this is introduced does not mean one has to teach / mention (although I believe it is a good thing for students to at least be aware of the main accepted theories) every single one.

Why would you teach about a 6000 year old Earth, when you have dinosaur fossils alone dating waaaaaaaaay back before?

I don’t understand the hang up so many fellow Christians have over this issue. It’s a completely unnecessary distraction from real problems in our schools. Otherwise, take your kid to church, problem solved.[/quote]

I don’t know many professionals who are also Christians who believe the world is only 6,000 years old.

How about not stereotyping the beliefs of millions of people as if all people who believe in a higher power all think the same.

I also see nothing at all wrong with informing kids about what others believe. I have no doubts about evolution. That also doesn’t erase the concept of a higher power at all unless you are simply referring to people who take everything in the Bible as a literal translation.

151

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

I’m sorry, but as I Christian I have to ask, why? Why does Creationism HAVE to be taught at a public school? What is the emergency?

No emergency, but why only present one side? What are the opponents so afraid of?

Are you telling me we can’t teach kids about the Declaration of Independence? Do we skip over the part “endowed by our Creator”?

On what basis do you even teach it? Why not norse creation mythology?

Well, if we follow that logic then why teach evolution?

I am not saying it has to be in depth. But it can certainly be laid out that the idea of creation is one that is widely accepted as to the origin of this universe.

And that generally falls into two categories:

  1. A literal spoken Genesis account / young earth
  2. God used the process of evolution

The history of our nation is not complete without such, as the original framers certainly believed in one of the two.

Just because this is introduced does not mean one has to teach / mention (although I believe it is a good thing for students to at least be aware of the main accepted theories) every single one.

Why would you teach about a 6000 year old Earth, when you have dinosaur fossils alone dating waaaaaaaaay back before?

I don’t understand the hang up so many fellow Christians have over this issue. It’s a completely unnecessary distraction from real problems in our schools. Otherwise, take your kid to church, problem solved.

I don’t know many professionals who are also Christians who believe the world is only 6,000 years old.

How about not stereotyping the beliefs of millions of people as if all people who believe in a higher power all think the same.

I also see nothing at all wrong with informing kids about what others believe. I have no doubts about evolution. That also doesn’t erase the concept of a higher power at all unless you are simply referring to people who take everything in the Bible as a literal translation.[/quote]

Obviously I don’t think all Christians believe in young earth creationism. After all, I don’t. So, I’m not sure who I’m stereotyping besides…well, young earth creationists who want it taught in school…

If some elective comparative religion class goes over the various creation beliefs of whatever religions, fine. But, not in a science class. No thanks.

152

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.

Another smartass comment from the fuck that won’t talk to me huh?

Funny that you’re talking about balls when you won’t respond to my posts. Mine are big and brass compared to yours cunt.

Look, I posted a piece on why Creationism should at least be discussed as an alternative view point in schools and you come back with the following:

“I’m putting this down” and,

  1. All religion is irrational and basically for uneducated people
  2. Creationism is myth according to you - implication being that only those who believe in the tooth ferry believe such nonsense.
  3. The founders were basically ignorant men and if they only had the enlightenment of today’s science they would see the error of their ways with respect to believing in God and creation.

How is that a response worthy of debate? And at some point arguing back and forth is pointless.

You come across as a little punk journalist who knows what is best for everyone. Maybe you’re not but that is how you come across.

I’m sorry, but as I Christian I have to ask, why? Why does Creationism HAVE to be taught at a public school? What is the emergency?

No emergency, but why only present one side? What are the opponents so afraid of?

Are you telling me we can’t teach kids about the Declaration of Independence? Do we skip over the part “endowed by our Creator”?

On what basis do you even teach it? Why not norse creation mythology?

Well, if we follow that logic then why teach evolution?

I am not saying it has to be in depth. But it can certainly be laid out that the idea of creation is one that is widely accepted as to the origin of this universe.

And that generally falls into two categories:

  1. A literal spoken Genesis account / young earth
  2. God used the process of evolution

The history of our nation is not complete without such, as the original framers certainly believed in one of the two.

Just because this is introduced does not mean one has to teach / mention (although I believe it is a good thing for students to at least be aware of the main accepted theories) every single one.

Why would you teach about a 6000 year old Earth, when you have dinosaur fossils alone dating waaaaaaaaay back before?

I don’t understand the hang up so many fellow Christians have over this issue. It’s a completely unnecessary distraction from real problems in our schools. Otherwise, take your kid to church, problem solved.

I don’t know many professionals who are also Christians who believe the world is only 6,000 years old.

How about not stereotyping the beliefs of millions of people as if all people who believe in a higher power all think the same.

I also see nothing at all wrong with informing kids about what others believe. I have no doubts about evolution. That also doesn’t erase the concept of a higher power at all unless you are simply referring to people who take everything in the Bible as a literal translation.

Obviously I don’t think all Christians believe in young earth creationism. After all, I don’t. So, I’m not sure who I’m stereotyping besides…well, young earth creationists who want it taught in school…

If some elective comparative religion class goes over the various creation beliefs of whatever religions, fine. But, not in a science class. No thanks.[/quote]

In any other class, it would be called “teaching the actual religion”, as opposed to presenting this info in a science class as an alternative to the “Big Bang Theory”.

I don’t see the issue. I am a scientist. I also believe in a higher power. I do not like organized religion because I believe it lends itself to corruption and the act of appealing to the lowest common denominator.

What I hate more than anything is the obvious belief that God is a belief system only held by idiots.

This often comes from people far less intelligent than they think they are.

153

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What I hate more than anything is the obvious belief that God is a belief system only held by idiots.
[/quote]

And I’m very much in agreement with you there.

156

Religion should not be off the table in schools.

No we should not be teaching religion in schools, that is not their job. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t teach about religion, and the beliefs within.

In other words no problem mentioning the idea of intelligent design. Or allowing the discussion of creation in class.

I am surprised at how nobody has noticed the fact that intelligent design shows that religion is now accepting evolution.

If anything, intelligent design only adds a footnote to evolution.