For general discussion and debate.
|
|
home blogs about forum contact search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Open Thread | |
Comments Policy
George McGovern finally makes sense AGAIN
March 10, 2008 - 09:52 ET by sarcasmoHere. (Someone help me liberate that previous WSJ editorial he references!!) If only he could have run then from the perspective he now writes, he might have won. And deserved it...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Blind Squirrel
March 10, 2008 - 10:15 ET by TinianBlind squirrel, nut...Yawn.
Times Square RE-Action over the weekend
March 10, 2008 - 10:07 ET by JayTeeI think this made the local NY News on TIME SQUARE but not the National news.
I especially like the Poster / Sign Below from the GOE
HIPPIE FREAKS AND
OTHER HYGIENICALLY
CHALLENGED
STOP BOMBING
US MILITARY RECRUITERS
THEY ARE NOT THE ENEMY
National Geographic special
March 10, 2008 - 10:07 ET by Prester JohnAnyone see that horrible Natl Geo special last night about what would happen to the earth if all of humanity suddenly disappeared?
Talk about being coopted by the enviromentalist whacko crowd--every cliche you'd want to hear about global warming, nuclear power, the destructiveness of man etc.
It was embarassing.
John, That's about a
March 10, 2008 - 10:29 ET by LeonJohn,
That's about a month old.
And there was minimal talk about the destructiveness of man.
In fact, they never named a cause for the fictional disappearance. Instead, they focused solely on how animals and nature would respond should that happen.
The only talk about the destructiveness of man came when they visited Chernobyl, which resulted from...the destructiveness of man.
Ha. Man you Newsbusters are getting so sensitive. Relax. It was an interesting special that had nothing to do with politics/global warming/tin foil hats.
Leon, You dident listen
March 10, 2008 - 10:48 ET by bassndudeLeon, You dident listen very well. It was all about man and what man has done to destroy and change the planet, harm the animals and whales, how the fish grow bigger now without "the trawlers" and whales can now hear other whales because there are no ships "making noise". It was full of anti man, anti progress, anti fishing, anti hunting, anti logging nonsense. And did you catch the part that without humans, the planet started cooling? More snow and ice? Leon, did you even watch it? Likely not. And if you did, you should of turned the volume so you could hear. Anyone that sayes this was not a environmental statement, is just inane.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, I watched it. And
March 10, 2008 - 10:52 ET by LeonBass,
I watched it. And those things you mention aren't anti-man. They're true.
Fish would grow bigger with trawlers. Whales would hear better without ship noise.
That's not anti-man, that's just the truth. You must be kidding.
It's sad when you can find bias in reality. Wah, everyone's against us. Sheesh, whine whine whine.
Leon
March 10, 2008 - 10:57 ET by bassndudeIf it wasent anti-man, why did they keep bringing it up? And how do you know fish would grow bigger? Cod would triple in size?? This is just supposition and conjecture. There is nothing to indicate that these fish would triple in size. Nothing. No science in that statement. That was a Ted Danson line. And I guess you missed the part that said, without humans, it will get colder. The planet will cool. There will be more snow, and ice.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Leon always has to defend
March 10, 2008 - 11:22 ET by ahusserLeon always has to defend the indefensible. That is his assignment. Keep jerking those knees Leon. I watched the NGC channel "Naked Science" about the geology of North America. The last 10 minutes was a man made global warming diatribe about how we at last can change the environment replete with large panoramic views of traffic, urban settings and smokestacks. I watched "Naked Science" show called "Solar Force" which basically stated that the sun is the cause of climate. Until the narrator broke in and did a little diatribe about man-made global as a given proven fact. (I wish I had the quote) the agenda of the NGC for whatever reason is decidedly eco-nut, anti-man and pro global warming. But 90 per cent of each show is entertaining until the AGW propaganda kicks in.
At some point...
March 10, 2008 - 12:06 ET by Syriusahusser,
At some point in this debate about Global Warming, Climate Change, and any other term for what's going on with the climate on Earth, the truth is about the continuance of our species on this planet. The Earth will exist with or without us. The Earth does not need us. We need the Earth for our survival. We have created our own problems such as pollution. If you don't believe in pollution, travel to LA in the summer or go to Beijing for the Olympics and take a deep breath, hold it in if you can...The people you call alarmists are the ones pointing out our existence and survival on this planet is in jeopardy. It might not be right now, but sometime in the near future not distant. It's not about you as an individual but the future generations' quality of life. We were given this life by our ancestors. We should insure the same, if not better, life for our children and their future offspring. What's wrong with that picture?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Nuances are
March 10, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Clear thinkerNuances are tricky.
Polution? Absolutely, do whatever we can to minimize polution.
Global Warming? Absolutely, do whatever we can to educate people that Global Warming is something we have NO control over.
Why is it that "the sky is falling" crowd have given up on polution?
"Abstain from McCain"
Global Warming has nothing to do with Pollution or Smog
March 10, 2008 - 20:35 ET by PopularTechIt never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people are on the global warming debate. CO2 is NOT pollution and has nothing to do with smog.
"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."
- Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology MIT
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Your car's catalytic converter removes about 95% of these pollutants.
Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)
- Water Pollution is already regulated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Amended: Clean Water Act of 1977, Water Quality Act of 1987)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT -- dittos Apparently
March 10, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Jack BauerPT -- dittos
Apparently the Warm Eathers are unaware that Carbon Dioxide (Dry Ice) is a colorless, odorless gas essential for the healthy growth of plants and crops. Dry Ice is not a pollutant, of course.
Carbon Monoxide, a noxious expelation from gasoline powered cars is, of course, an unpleasant gas that is very injurious to air-breathers.
As far as I know, plants do not grow more lusher and healthier with exposure to Carbon Monoxide. Whereas they do with incresed Carbon Dioxide.
This is what I despise more than anything about the Warm Earthers. They have to lie and use junk science. They continually lie that CO2 is the pollutant. It is not.
It makes you wonder EXACTLY WHY such a grossy disproportionate emphasis was given to the essential for life gas, Carbon Dioxide?
For Propaganda Reasons
March 10, 2008 - 21:20 ET by PopularTechThis way everyone who paid attention in high school science classes or actually studied science in college can be accused of being pro-pollution if they are against AGW. It is simply propaganda designed to shut the ignorant up. The constantly get Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide confused. I had no idea how bad it was until the hysteria started. Talk to any of these idiots and they will really be against smog and think Kyoto does something about it - it really is this insane.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
If it wasent anti-man, why
March 10, 2008 - 12:25 ET by balboaIf it wasent anti-man, why did they keep bringing it up? And how do you know fish would grow bigger? Cod would triple in size??
Because us disappearing was the point of the show? Because they're scientists and can figure those things out?
I watched, and I didn't think it was anti-man at all. It was an interesting look at what would happen, like when they took a look at the town in Russia deserted because of Chernobyl. I thought it was fascinating.
bal, they were blaming it
March 10, 2008 - 12:36 ET by bassndudebal, they were blaming it all on man. Even the size of the fish. The weather. The earth will cool? This is all supposition. Make belive, if you will. You cannot prove any of it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
But it's a show about what
March 10, 2008 - 12:53 ET by balboaBut it's a show about what would happen if man disappeared. So, in essence, yeah everything they're going to talk about wouldn't happen if we were still around, right?
It's supposition, but that's the fun of the show. What would happen? Here's what a few people think.
Bal,
March 10, 2008 - 13:07 ET by AgnosticDidn't see the show but sounds interesting. In the view of the narrator, director, etc..., what got worse because man was not around? If in their opinion is more than man is a cancer on mother earth than certainly some things have no become better by our demise. Or is the entire world just one big happy Walt Disney flick wih the animals all talking together?
Haha, no not a Disney film.
March 10, 2008 - 13:11 ET by balboaHaha, no not a Disney film. They actually talked about pets, esp. cats and dogs, and how they'd be screwed, most dying. They said some would resort to natrual instincts and start scavenging.
Also, the show said rodents would suffer huge at first, because they rely on us for so much food.
feeders
March 10, 2008 - 13:25 ET by AgnosticGood to know we are at least good for keeping the rodents fed. Of course the roach will live and thrive.
And nature came back and
March 10, 2008 - 13:10 ET by bassndudeAnd nature came back and reclaimed the land, everything but cell phones and plastic was recalimed by nature. You missed the dig about the cell phones lasting for centuries longer? The view of it in the rain, as litter?? Come on bal.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Sorry, I didn't see that as
March 10, 2008 - 13:13 ET by balboaSorry, I didn't see that as a dig; just a fact.
Can't remember if it was on this show or not, but someone said that bacteria will eventually find a way to eat away at plastic.
bal, you cant deny that the
March 10, 2008 - 13:19 ET by bassndudebal, you cant deny that the show was a tree huggers dream. NYC was again a forrest, California was again a desert, and the Colorado River was again flowing full after breaking down the dams, and fish were swimming up stream. Just exactly what the tree huggers have been saying for years now. All the show did was say, "look how much better things would be without humans."
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, it's not like I'll be
March 10, 2008 - 13:55 ET by balboaBass, it's not like I'll be able to convince you otherwise. I simply disagree that it was an anti-man show. I thought it was an interesting idea.
Sure, environmentalists probably enjoyed certain points, but then they are searching for a way for nature and man to coexist, not for man to go away completely. And let's not act like man hasn't done some pretty rotten things to nature.
Several years ago I read a
March 10, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Hero SquadSeveral years ago I read a book called "Fatherland" that supposed what would've happened had Germany won World War II. Interesting conjecture, and no doubt the world the author created was based on many factual findings. Even so, there is no way to accurately portray a future that does not or cannot exist, because too many factors and variables can alter the course of human and natural events.
This is why I believe the global warming alarmists are either misguided or disingenuous. They have bought into a dire future based solely on conjecture and speculation.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Leon, Have any scientific
March 10, 2008 - 13:18 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
Have any scientific proof that backs up your statement "And those things that you mentioned aren't anti-man. They're true."
Care to back this statement up?
The show as anti-man, it was speculative at best and SCIENCE FICTION at worst. Nothing based on reality. The show did blame all the ills to the animals and nature on man. As someone said, the show didn't botther to talk about what ills would be brought upon nature and animals for the disapperance of humanity. Well, other than showing the poor little dogs being killed by the bigger bad ones.
Like when they spoke about cows, the narrator went something like, "the 1.2 billions of cows that go to the slaugher on a yearly basis would be spared...". Or the end, when he talks about plastic and stainless steel being around Earth for centuries to come long after we are gone.
Leon, it was anti-human. I am sure that anyone that saw it couldn't help, but think....so, animals and nature would be better off it humanity was wiped out. Obviously, left wing propaganda!
Leon,
March 10, 2008 - 13:46 ET by MassConservThere have been two different documentaries recently. I believe you're thinking of the History Channel's Life Without People which didn't go into how humans might have disappeared, but simply assumed they were "gone" and went on from there.
National Geographic just showed another one called [EDIT: title] Aftermath:Population Zero which sounds like the one Prester John was talking about, though I didn't watch the NatGeo doc myself.
Of course, that doesn't stop you from assuming that we're all just overly sensative to AGW propaganda.
Chernobyl was the result of the failure of Communism
March 10, 2008 - 21:16 ET by PopularTechChernobyl - Chernobyl and Communism’s Revenge (Intellectual Conservative)
"Chernobyl," meaning the reactor, its operation, the accident and the management of the aftermath, has driven a nail into Soviet Socialism’s coffin: the event's components were descriptive of the system which created them. As with most Soviet products, her reactors were made on the cheap by
reducing safety features. "Tinny" projects were badly executed. This was a consequence of the pressure to "overfulfill" the (irrational) norms set by central planning. The related "ideology of tons" meaning countable quantity and not subtle quality, decided whether the worker has fulfilled his duty of Socialist toil. Typically, reactor 4 went on line — again the arbitrary production quantity plays a role – before the sloppily finished questionable design could be completed. Then came the safety test to be performed without interrupting the unit's delivery. The rest of the accident is, without being fully accidental, history. While the term "accident" is being questioned, the management of the calamity also demonstrates typically "Soviet" traits. At first there was (bureaucratic) inaction, then Communist denial...
Even still the accident is extensively exaggerated.
Chernobyl - Chernobyl life 'back to normal' within a decade (Environmental Data Interactive, UK)
Chernobyl - Chernobyl Incident Had Fewer Long-Term Health Impacts Than Expected (Science Daily)
Chernobyl - Chernobyl toll may be less than feared (USA Today)
Chernobyl - Danger from radiation is exaggerated, say scientists (The Times, UK)
Chernobyl - No Detectable Health Risk Is Found Outside Chernobyl Vicinity (The New York Times)
Chernobyl - The Myths of Chernobyl (Australasian Radiation Protection Society)
Chernobyl - UN Report says 56 killed so far due to Chernobyl nuclear accident (CBC News)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Chernobyl
March 10, 2008 - 21:21 ET by balboaSo when are the first people expected to move back to Chernobyl?
Over 600 live in Chernobyl now and you can take a Tour
March 10, 2008 - 21:39 ET by PopularTechChernobyl - Tourists flock to the dead zone of Chernobyl (The Daily Telegraph)
"About 600 people have returned to live inside the dead zone. Maria Dika, 42, leaning from a balcony in Chernobyl town, said she had suffered no long-term ill effects after three months of treatment for acute radiation sickness. She was working as a security guard at Reactor Four on the night of the disaster.
"We're fine," she joked. "No health problems. The radiation has got used to us." Tatiana Khrushch, 66, agreed. "The air's clean, the water's lovely and the mushrooms are great," she said. "This is a fine place."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Eek. Wow. Not sure I want to
March 10, 2008 - 21:44 ET by balboaEek. Wow. Not sure I want to undergo three months of treatment for acute radiation sickness.
But nice to know that things are turning around.
That's nice, except you would not have to...
March 10, 2008 - 21:53 ET by PopularTech"Tour agents say that there is no health risk from taking the trips. Areas of high radioactivity are marked off with triangular yellow signs. The journey involves passing through a series of military roadblocks. Last week, officials from the nuclear plant led a group of foreign journalists and aid workers on a tour of the disaster zone."
But then again it helps to be educated about radiation as I am sure many are not considering their confusion over CO2.
Nuclear - Is Atomic Radiation as Dangerous as We Thought? (Spiegel Online, Germany)
Oh and just incase you did not know...
- 104 commercial Nuclear Reactors are operating in the United States (EIA)
- France Generates 80% of it's Electricity from Nuclear Power (BBC)
- China plans to build 30 more Nuclear Reactors by 2020 (USA Today)
- Russia plans to build 4 more Nuclear Reactors in India (RIA Novosti)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"said she had suffered no
March 10, 2008 - 21:58 ET by balboa"said she had suffered no long-term ill effects after three months of treatment for acute radiation sickness."
How come she had to, then?
Treatment from the original accident!
March 10, 2008 - 22:05 ET by PopularTechThat was treatment from the original accident not since she has been back living there.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT, I saw a "documentary"
March 10, 2008 - 21:48 ET by JerryPT, I saw a "documentary" on Chernobyl just the other day, and they were trying to explain why animal life was thriving light years ahead of schedule in a "dead" zone. They said that the absense of MAN was SO beneficial, it offset the deadly affects of radiation. They didn't say "we think..." or "could it be...", they stated it as if it were FACT.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I am not surprised
March 10, 2008 - 22:04 ET by PopularTechChernobyl is the environmentalist's poster child for why nuclear energy is bad when in reality is the poster child for why communist run nuclear energy is bad. Even when all the facts come out and it is shown only 56 people have died from Chernobyl, ask anyone and they think it is "millions". I use that question anytime anyone acts like nuclear power is so dangerous and follow it up with the fact that 104 nuclear reactors are online right now in the US. So obviously any recovery of an area that is propagandized as an "atomic wasteland" must have an alternate anti-man reason.
It is pretty telling that depending on the documentary you watch on it the various spin you get. I watched one claiming tens of thousands of deaths and untold thousands more, yet not ONE substantiated fact to back it up - typical propaganda.
No one is claiming Chernobyl was a good thing but to lie about it is simply dishonest as the environmentalists like to do. They especially love to avoid the real cause which was communism since they secretly and sometimes openly idolize it
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Well I'm a creationist....I
March 10, 2008 - 10:32 ET by motherbeltWell I'm a creationist....I don't believe the earth is only 10,000 years old or whatever, but I do believe God created it and I can't understand, without man, why He would bother. Actually sometimes I don't know why He would bother with man either.. ;-) but you know what I mean....
actually this natlgeo
March 10, 2008 - 11:48 ET by TruthMongeractually this natlgeo "special" fits right in with Adam and Eve - tree of knowledge - bringing sin into the world...
it would be much better if we all lived like the Amish - the original organic hippie communes:)
without the gay sex and bong parties tho
that's where we always lose the democrats:(
The other day I saw an
March 10, 2008 - 13:14 ET by Hero SquadThe other day I saw an Amish man barrelling down a hallway in a motorized wheelchair. I'm still trying to figure that one out, though I don't expect to see that again anytime soon.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
i'd say
March 10, 2008 - 14:28 ET by TruthMongeri'd say "Amish-lite"
probably has a fridge too
heretic
He's on the Rascal to hell,
March 10, 2008 - 16:17 ET by Hero SquadHe's on the Rascal to hell, I tell ya!
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
I'm glad to see you questioning things.
March 10, 2008 - 11:49 ET by SyriusMB,
Your statement...
I do believe God created it and I can't understand, without man, why He would bother.
Pretty arrogant to believe in an anthrocentric way of thinking on why life exists, don't you think? Plus, I must point out...you just questioned your God.
I'm glad to see a spark of enlightenment- question everything.
Always seek to be learning something new.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
»→ Syrius
March 10, 2008 - 11:56 ET by Cool ArrowThere's lots of planets out there. Likely some of them are home to beings that have no cognizance of a God. I choose to believe we are here, to a great extent, to appreciate God's creation.
♣ a seal
questioning is exactly how
March 10, 2008 - 11:59 ET by TruthMongerquestioning is exactly how I became a fundie
and how I stay that way:)
syrius should try it alot more
»→ A fundie?
March 10, 2008 - 12:05 ET by Cool ArrowIs that "fundie" or "fumunda" or "fundee"?
♣ a seal
i'm not particular on the
March 10, 2008 - 12:56 ET by TruthMongeri'm not particular on the spelling - run with it
Your way is called never changing.
March 10, 2008 - 12:22 ET by SyriusTruthMonger,
Test all things- always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
Is that what you mean?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
correct - that's how I
March 10, 2008 - 12:55 ET by TruthMongercorrect - that's how I became a fundie:)
Once again...
March 10, 2008 - 12:19 ET by SyriusCoolA,
Anthropocentric arrogance. Why would God create other beings if he already has us to worship him? Why would he wait for the other beings to become aware of him? Why wouldn't he show himself to the other beings he created? He did to us, right?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
»→ He's got lots to do
March 10, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Cool ArrowHe can do anything he wants. I believe He already has shown His presence to other beings as indicated by the hard to describe beings in Heaven in the Book of Revelation.
I'm pretty certain we're not even the first population iteration on this Earth. But again, He can do whatever he wants without my permission. He's God.
♣ a seal
Truly you jest...
March 10, 2008 - 12:54 ET by SyriusCoolA,
He's probably way too busy in trying to control everthing? Sounds like our current leader in the White House...
Just because it is written, you will follow blindly? WOW?!?
Question everything. Question those who have written what you believe to be factual document.
Your statement...
I believe He already has shown His presence to other beings as
indicated by the hard to describe beings in Heaven in the Book of
Revelation.
Why wouldn't you, a thinking human being, question what a "hard to describe" being actually could be? Is it too hard to think critically and resign to the "It's God's will, so be it."? What an easy life never to question and just let it happen as God's will.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
it is an easy life - as God
March 10, 2008 - 13:01 ET by TruthMongerit is an easy life - as God intended
but we still have a purpose, we have things to do
faith is about believing in the hard-to-believe
like walking on water
Like walking on water? That's it?
March 10, 2008 - 15:28 ET by SyriusTruthmonger,
My imagination runs wild when I try to think of how you could possibly in your mind grasp the idea of 'walking on water' in a literal sense. This should be good for those who have problems with their faith, just believe in 'walking on water', it is written in the bible so it must be true.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
»→ Syrius
March 10, 2008 - 13:01 ET by Cool ArrowAnd just because it is written, you reject it? WOW.
How is life easier because I try to follow God's law? How is yours more difficult believing there is no sin or immorality? Am I making a broad assumption of your outlook? Are you making one of mine?
♣ a seal
Syrus, not everything that
March 10, 2008 - 13:02 ET by bassndudeSyrus, not everything that happens is Gods will. God gave man dominion over the Earth, and the animals. What man does with it is up to man. God dosent interfear much in the dealing of man any more. He sent his Son to Earth to give man his message, and we killed him. God knew it was going to happen, but I do not think that is will at the beginning was to create man, so we could murder his Son.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Syrius, You claim to
March 10, 2008 - 13:59 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
You claim to question everthing, yet you have ZERO problem following the left wing agenda against President Bush.
When's the last time that you questioned left wingers and whether or not they were wrong on their stance against the war? Never once, have I seen you post on Newsbusters anything resembling you questioning left wingers and their stance against the war.
When's the last time you questioned your beliefs regarding God? Once again, not once have I seen you post anything on Newsbusters that resemblance a questioning of your beliefs.
Why don't you lead by example and show us all how you question your beliefs, eh?
Individuals like you seem to love to question God, Republicans, Conservatives, Christianity, but seem more than content not questioning left wing beliefs, science, atheists, agnostics, etc.
I have often found that those that claim that we should question everything, are some of the most conformists individuals who flock to the masses in seconds WITH OUT QUESTION!
I have often found that those that claim that we should question evertying love to flock to anti-God books, anti-Christian books without questioning the credibility of the author.
I have often found that those that claim we should question everything love to attach themselves and make themselves part of the latest fads, whether they are in clothing fads, political fads, religious fads.
It is a fact, that under the current political and anti-religious climate that we live under, those that believe in God, those that practice their religion those that question Global Warming is man made, those that question big government is good, those that question science are the non-conformists.
Incorrect in so many ways...
March 10, 2008 - 15:53 ET by SyriusFutboil,
You claim to question everthing, yet you have ZERO problem following the left wing agenda against President Bush.-Not only the left are dissatisified with Bush.
When's the last time that you questioned left wingers and whether or
not they were wrong on their stance against the war? Never once, have
I seen you post on Newsbusters anything resembling you questioning left
wingers and their stance against the war.-Many on the left continue to pounce on the problems leading up to the IRAQ war. Most agree on the war in Afganistan and the hunt for Bin Laden.
When's the last time you questioned your beliefs regarding God?
Once again, not once have I seen you post anything on Newsbusters that
resemblance a questioning of your beliefs.-I questioned the Authority of the Catholic Church when I became an adult. I do not need to question my beliefs, I understand them to be intact until I've been proven wrong as in science.
Why don't you lead by example and show us all how you question your beliefs, eh?-that's like asking Bush a 'hypothetical'. By the way, it's not a belief as you keep stating it's more in line with scholarship.
Individuals like you seem to love to question God, Republicans,
Conservatives, Christianity, but seem more than content not questioning
left wing beliefs, science, atheists, agnostics, etc.-broad generalizations from you on how I seem to be. What you're a clairvoyant now.
I have often found that those that claim that we should question
everything, are some of the most conformists individuals who flock to
the masses in seconds WITH OUT QUESTION!-pssst, you just described most of the religious types on this site.
I have often found that those that claim that we should question
evertying love to flock to anti-God books, anti-Christian books without
questioning the credibility of the author.-you should always explore as many sides of an issue to fully be understanding of each side of the debate. It's called scholarship and seeking out evidence to support or refute a stance or view is to be commended.
I have often found that those that claim we should question
everything love to attach themselves and make themselves part of the
latest fads, whether they are in clothing fads, political fads,
religious fads.-pssst, it's called change. Don't tell me, you're wearing Crocs like the President? That's so yesteryear.
It is a fact, that under the current political and anti-religious
climate that we live under, those that believe in God, those that
practice their religion those that question Global Warming is man made,
those that question big government is good, those that question science
are the non-conformists.-rant, rant, rant...I love non-conformists, they all speak & look the same! Oh, by the way...Bush continues to deficit spend and expand the government. and you support him?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
I think the arrogance lies
March 10, 2008 - 12:42 ET by dvdaughtryI think the arrogance lies in two spots:
1). the belief that we can destroy this planet
2.) the belief there is no God
Well, to answer the easy one...
March 10, 2008 - 13:16 ET by Syriusdvd,
1. The fact is we can destroy our existence on the planet. The planet will continue to exist until the Sun expands and annihilates the planet in the way, way distant future.
2. For sake of argument, it's more improbable God exists whereas it's more probable for non-existence. Science, God, Truth- Pick Two.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
No need to pick just two...
March 10, 2008 - 13:21 ET by vrwc13God is Truth, God created all, thus God created science!
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
No one created...
March 10, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Syriusvrwc,
...microbiology.
Man created gods to explain what they did not know of the world and nature. Man created science to explain what the gods could not. Science proves things to be wrong. The beauty of science is the never ending questions of experts & the critical thinking behind each theory. The ugliness of religion is the silence of the faithful and its "never question authority" mindthink.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Science proves things to be
March 10, 2008 - 14:39 ET by dvdaughtryScience proves things to be wrong.
That is the most piss poor outlook on science I have EVER heard.
If anything, it proves MAN cannot comprehend an all mighty and all powerful God.
The ugliness of religion is the silence of the faithful and its "never question authority" mindthink.
There is only One authority that should never be questioned. Other than Him, everyone is fair game.
Serious question: Where did your disdain for God come from?
No one expects the Spanish
March 10, 2008 - 14:40 ET by balboaNo one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
»→ Inquisition
March 10, 2008 - 14:45 ET by Cool ArrowOf course not, the Holy inquisition was renamed ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’ in 1908.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, You really
March 10, 2008 - 14:58 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
You really don't like the Roman Catholic Church, do you? why?
The Inquistion was nothing compared to what secular authorities did to those that disagree with them during the same time period.
Just look at what Henry V did to his best friend, Thomas Moore for not going along with the creation of the Anglican Church.
Look at how England murdered William Wallace.
Secular authorities did 100 times worse than the Inquistion ever could. It doesn't justify it, but I am always shocked when people use the Inquisition as a horrible thing, yet they don't have a problem with the secular powers/authorites of the same time.
»→ Not anymore futbol
March 10, 2008 - 15:04 ET by Cool ArrowBut it doesn't have anything to do with renameing the Holy Inquisition in 1908.
♣ a seal
Not sure what you mean
March 10, 2008 - 14:52 ET by dvdaughtryNot sure what you mean here.
It's true ask a scientist.
March 10, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Syriusdvd,
The truth of the matter is science is not about making you feel good about yourself or your outlook. You could say if it makes you feel better that it's cold and heartless. The wonderful application of scientific method to prove things wrong allows us to explore and free our minds. It's about being curious; that's the beauty. It's not a political debate though many times it's discussed like one. Once you start running the numbers, so to speak, you may find the probability of the existence of a God to be nil. That's not to say life ends as you know it. Science will allow you to explore what's out there without any consequences as a human. When you start to try imposing your religious beliefs on others is when I start having a real problem about fairy tales, ghosts, and goblins.
How can you disdain that which does not exist?
You keep saying "him", Why? Someone told you God is a he or you just believe God is male?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius, You keep on
March 10, 2008 - 15:13 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
You keep on talking about science as your religion. You keep on referring to the lack of existance of God as a fact. How do you know? have you died and come back?
If we run the numbers the probability of the God existing is nil? wow....where did you get this from?
In fact, as of late, science has actually proven that many of the stories in the Bible are correct.
Furthermore, how is it that some of the greatest scientific minds end up believing in God? are you smarter than them?
I would urge you to look into the person that led the Human Genome program, he started as an atheist, by the time he had ended the project, he was a true believer of one God. I doubt that your IQ or mine would even come close to his.
Syrius, from your postings.....
Science is your religion
Scientists your priests
Science books your Bible.
When's the last time you question the scientific authorities that have brainwashed you into believing Global Warming, Evolution, etc? (just using your own language).
It seems that you only question the existance of God and any authority that dares tell you that there is a God, but you embrace any authority that tells you there is no God and religious folks are freaks.
do you not see this?
If you are going to demand the questiong of authority, make sure that you question ALL authority, not just the one that you disagree with.
3 And God said, "Let there
March 10, 2008 - 15:18 ET by dvdaughtry3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
There is more, but this is why I call Him, "He".
Would you argue with this scientist as much as you argue here?
Syrius, Once again with
March 10, 2008 - 14:50 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
Once again with the whole, "question authority" thing.
You seem to demand that others question authority that you disagree with, but you don't seem to question left wing based authority.
Honestly Syrius, that is so typical of left wingers. You demand that you question authority, but you will not question authority when you agree with it. How is that different than what you are claiming religious people do?
fut, he has got to be an
March 10, 2008 - 14:54 ET by bassndudefut, he has got to be an old hippie. That or that young ape Charlton Heston told to "keep em flying", meaning "the flags of discontent" in planet of the apes.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bassndude, You are
March 10, 2008 - 15:06 ET by futbolisgreat1Bassndude,
You are probably correct.
the funny thing is that Syrius honestly believes that he questions authority and that he is cutting edge.
Has he been to Europe lately, has he heard the Democrat party, the Liberals in his party?
They all sound like him. Not sure how he considers questioning authority agreeing with so many left wingers.
I guess Syrius hasn't been to a college class in decades. I am doing my Master's degree right now. I am taking a marketing course in which for whatever reason the Soul of a human came into question. When I defended the existance of the Soul, about 99% of the class made fun of me. This is no different than what friends of mine have told me has happened to them, when they speak of religion and God. 99% of the class along with the professor make fun of them.
If Syrius is honest about questioning authority and established norms, why isn't he questioning the scientific authorities that have claimed and established Global Warming as a fact, Evolution as a fact? He seems to grab unto these two hypotesis with his dear life and he doesn't question them. So much for questioning authority.
As I said in another post, those that follow a religion and know that there is a God are the ones going counter culture, going against the current trends of society, are the ones questioning authority. Those that question Global Warming, those that question Evolution are the ones that are questioning authority.
Syrius reminds me of
March 10, 2008 - 15:25 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius reminds me of revolutionaries like Casto, Che Guevarra, etc, who demand that others question authority, who claim that those that question authority are smart and the good people....But God help us all if we dare question the authority of these so called revolutionaries.
You can question, as long as you questions do not challenge their believes, other wise, you are toast.
Syrius, I think people would take you a lot more serious if you said, "Question religion, question God." "Agree with scientific authority because if you dare question science, you are uneducated buffoon." This has NOTHING to do with questioning authority. It has more to do with people agreeing with you and you believing that religion is a hoax and religious people being blind, mass followers, correct?
stop with the pretty words and the pretty speeches and say what you truly mean.
While it is true that science...