House Science Member Says Earth is 9,000 years old by Niki2

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Das Kapital (have you read it?) is an economic theory which attempts to analyze the flow of money under capitalism. But there is no god in it, and no appeal to the supernatural. If people choose to "believe" in it... as some "believe" in Ayn Rand... that doesn't make it a "belief system".

Confucianism
Then what is a "belief system" if it's not a system in which people believe? Confucianism is a belief system without a god. Marx and Rand both have followers who treat their words as man-created, as opposed to god-revealed, revelation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:21 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

(of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass, but it's a good idea for most other folks).

Homophobe much? Hey, at least now we know why you hate Story so much...

Hey, if Story wants to be gay, I have no problem with it. It's the sexual assault that's problematical.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:23 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Treat folks the way you want to be treated (of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass,

And this, is Geezer.

I point out that he continually dodges a question, he calls me gay.

Yep. But you took it as an insult, so who's the homophobe now?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Treat folks the way you want to be treated (of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass,

And this, is Geezer.

I point out that he continually dodges a question, he calls me gay.

Yep. But you took it as an insult, so who's the homophobe now?

Where did I say I was insulted?

Im just pointing out another in a long, loooong list of dodges from a piece of shit who hides behind a picture of a man in uniform.

And this was yet another. Maybe one day, you'll actually learn to read, and respond to the actual statement you read. Maybe. But based on your general level of discourse - I kinda doubt it.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:27 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So free-market capitalism is a religion?

Probably to some people. Some people apparently worship by juggling baby ducks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Treat folks the way you want to be treated (of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass,

And this, is Geezer.

I point out that he continually dodges a question, he calls me gay.

Yep. But you took it as an insult, so who's the homophobe now?

Where did I say I was insulted?

When you thought that calling you gay made me a homophobe. It might have been a complement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:31 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Can't believe anyone is defending this person?????????????????????????

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:31 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And this, is Geezer.

I point out that he continually dodges a question, he calls me gay.

BTW, I did answer the question (questions, actually).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Can't believe anyone is defending this person?????????????????????????

Ever hear "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:36 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"All three are belief systems."

But only one is a religion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Treat folks the way you want to be treated (of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass,

And this, is Geezer.

I point out that he continually dodges a question, he calls me gay.

Yep. But you took it as an insult, so who's the homophobe now?

Where did I say I was insulted?

When you thought that calling you gay made me a homophobe. It might have been a complement.

As, so you're making an ASSumption again. Once again - learn to read, dumbfuck.

It was the allusion toward sexual assault, and your eternal cowardice and constant dodges that I find offensive.

I think you knew that, though. And your perpetual attempts to frame it as something else are just more evidence that you're a shit smear that dishonors that picture.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:38 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Don't murder, steal, lie, covet, cheat on your spouse. Take care of your parents. Feed the poor. Help the sick. Treat folks the way you want to be treated

Do you really need a 2000 year old collection of fables to tell you all this?

No. Does that invalidate them as good ideas?

Nice dodge. The issue here is not whether these are good ideas, it's whether the bible is in any way necessary.

The fact that these are blatantly obvious good ideas invalidates any need to rely on the bible as a source of moral codes or laws. You say you aren't personally advocating that, but a helluva lot of right wingers are being very upfront about wanting to do that very thing: base the American government on the Bible. They are not trying to hide their agenda about this in any way.

Bible thumping nuts can believe and say what they want, but as soon as they start making laws to remove my right to control my own body and my own life, damned right I'm going to speak up. Or do you not support my voice? Because it seems that you're all eager to support this GOTP politician and his book of fables, and not at all eager to let all us little people on this thread voice our disagreement with him.

As far as sitting back complacently relying on the Constitution to stop any untoward laws from being enacted - have you been paying attention lately? Ever? How do you think the Constitution got to be there in the first place? People SPEAKING UP when they didn't like what the folks in charge were up to.

So, of you want to ever be taken seriously on these boards, quit talking the talk and walk the walk. SHOW us how you're for the free and open expression of opinions and beliefs by supporting it from BOTH sides. Cause you sure as hell aren't doing that on this thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"All three are belief systems."

But only one is a religion.

Which he well knows, but won't have the balls to aknowledge, since he's already dug in.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:41 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Can't believe anyone is defending this person?????????????????????????

Ever hear "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

You will defend to the death my right to disagree with a Bible thumping asshat politician and say that I think he wants to act against the Constitution?

All right! Thanks!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:45 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Well, Geezer got dog poop on his shoe, now he's trying to tap dance it off.

The history so far - Geezer thinks that an elected official claiming that RELIGION should guide HIS EFFORTS IN PUBLIC POLICY is an effort protected by the constitution. Then Geezer claims that economic theory like Das Kapital is a RELIGION JUST LIKE CHRISTIANITY, and so both are entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection.

Did I miss anything, or did I get all the stupidity in its glory?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
You will defend to the death my right to disagree with a Bible thumping asshat politician and say that I think he wants to act against the Constitution?

Yep. At the same time I defend his right to say what he will about religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:50 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

But as a public servants sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, he should neither be bringing his religion into public policy, nor should you be defending him doing it.

"But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that."

THAT'S what you're defending. OOPS.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, Geezer got dog poop on his shoe, now he's trying to tap dance it off.

The history so far - Geezer thinks that an elected official claiming that RELIGION should guide HIS EFFORTS IN PUBLIC POLICY is an effort protected by the constitution. Then Geezer claims that economic theory like Das Kapital is a RELIGION JUST LIKE CHRISTIANITY, and so both are entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection.

Did I miss anything, or did I get all the stupidity in its glory?

No Kiki, you had the stupidity from the get-go.

Rep. Broun has the right to say what he wants about religion in public policy. That is free speech, protected by the Constitution. You seem to find this protection puzzling.

When he trys to implement religion in public policy, YOU are protected from that by the self-same Constitution, a fact of which you seem unaware.

A wonderful thing, that Constitution.

Where you got that I claim that the theories in either Das Kapital or Christianity have Constitutional protection, I have no idea. I surely didn't propose that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:04 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... YOU are protected from that by the self-same Constitution ..."

How am I protected from it when religious nutcase says that's the way he votes? Does the constitution rise up and smite him? Does it magically invalidate his vote? Pray tell, how does this magic constitution ward off his religiosity on its own?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:06 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Can't believe anyone is defending this person?????????????????????????

Ever hear "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

This is not about views, but governance. If someone with nazi views was in your government, would you support them as you have supported this Representative or would you do, what others have done here, express alarm and incredulity that someone with such views could be elected?

This is not a freedom of speech issue, no matter how you try to frame it that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:06 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

(of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass, but it's a good idea for most other folks).

Homophobe much? Hey, at least now we know why you hate Story so much...

Hey, if Story wants to be gay, I have no problem with it. It's the sexual assault that's problematical.

Why do you think all gay people are rapists?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But as a public servants (sic) sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, he should neither be bringing his religion into public policy, nor should you be defending him doing it.

Kiki. The Constitution gives him the right of free speech. In the statement above, you are taking that right away from him, and everyone else in government or military service. You're also taking away my right to speak freely. Is that really what you want to do?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Treat folks the way you want to be treated (of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass,

And this, is Geezer.

I point out that he continually dodges a question, he calls me gay.

Yep. But you took it as an insult, so who's the homophobe now?

Do you have any evidence or cites to support that claim? Why do you think Story took it as an insult? Aren't you reading your own meaning into his comments?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why do you think all gay people are rapists?

Only you, Story.

It really started with your "Suck a dick, asshole" type comments. I wasn't sure if that was supposed to be an insult, or if you were just looking for a date.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:10 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you have any evidence or cites to support that claim? Why do you think Story took it as an insult? Aren't you reading your own meaning into his comments?

See my reply to Story, above.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
You will defend to the death my right to disagree with a Bible thumping asshat politician and say that I think he wants to act against the Constitution?

Yep. At the same time I defend his right to say what he will about religion.

Well... as long as he doesn't preach anything against America from a foreign country. Or as long as his father doesn't do so...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:13 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Rep. Broun has the right to say what he wants about religion in public policy. That is free speech, protected by the Constitution. You seem to find this protection puzzling.

When he trys to implement religion in public policy, YOU are protected from that by the self-same Constitution, a fact of which you seem unaware.

Hello! Earth to geezer. Are you there?

Implementing religion in public policy is EXACTLY what these people are out to do. Limits on woman's rights, gay rights - all based on the Bible. And this yahoo today, talking about how there should be laws about death penalties for children who don't listen to their parents, which he supported with a reference to the bible. See? Laws based on religion. They are trying it. There are very real legislative goals that these morons are trying to meet because they hold the bible above the Constitution.

Sitting in your lazyboy holding up the Constitution like it's a golden shield is lame. And lazy. We've had this document for over 200 years and it hasn't stopped horrible rights abuses being law of the land. This is a living document, it must be actively defended or it will be abused. And so will the people.

Of course, I'll be looking to see if you make this same argument when the right wing starts yelling again about how a re-elected Obama would destroy America. I'm sure you'll just sit back and smile and say: "Don't worry. We have the Constitution to protect us so four more years with him is just fine." Right? You'll say that, right Geezer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Where you got that I claim that the theories in either Das Kapital or Christianity have Constitutional protection, I have no idea. I surely didn't propose that.

So you don't think the Constitution protects someone's right to be a christian or a communist?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why do you think all gay people are rapists?

Only you, Story.

It really started with your "Suck a dick, asshole" type comments. I wasn't sure if that was supposed to be an insult, or if you were just looking for a date.

Looks like you stepped in shit yet again.

Last time I checked, I'm not Story, and Story's not me.

You're accusing me of things I never said, and I think you owe me an apology for casting aspersions on my character.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:20 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

But as a public servants (sic) sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, he should neither be bringing his religion into public policy, nor should you be defending him doing it.

I wrote 'public servantS' plural because in the past you CLAIM to have been one. Did you lie? Should I remove the plural?

"The Constitution gives him the right of free speech."

Not entirely. There is no free speech for, among other things promoting breaking the law. And as a PUBLIC SERVANT he has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the constitution, as do you (if you are what you claim, but that now appears questionable). He exercises his tenuous claim to free speech by breaking his oath.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 12:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Then what is a "belief system" if it's not a system in which people believe?

Wow, I thought that was simple: A "belief system" is a system which requires belief. In other words... when push comes to shove... the rubber hits to road... or whatever metaphor you choose.... if the system requires you to stop asking questions and just accept its precepts, then it is a "belief system".

That doesn't include hypotheses, conjecture, analysis, or opinion, because those are subject debate.

As far as "free speech" is concerned... every person as an individual has the right to free speech and personal opinions and beliefs (with certain exceptions of course: I am not free to incite violence, promote the overthrow of the government, advertise falsely, engage in fraud, sacrifice humans, and so forth.) However, as a public servant I personally am NOT free to say whatever I want in an official capacity. We even have a policy about that at work.

My dividing line is pretty clear: As John Q Citizen, I'm free to opine. As John Q Representative, I am NOT free to push policies of questionable Constitutionality. Now, I know we have the courts to ultimately shit-screen our laws, but I would hope that our Congresspersons have at least SOME idea of the foundations on which our system of government is built. But apparently not.

But I think Kiki said it all pretty clearly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 12:20 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
A Georgia right-wing tea-bagger conservative believes crazy, disproven whacked-out bullshit?

Say it ain't so!

And a Texas Left-wing marxists librul believers crazy, ridiculous,whacked-out bullshit like the Apollo mission left a flag on MARS. None other than Ms Sheila Jackson Lee.

Or a NY Left-wing , race baiting nut job who thinks so many slaves were tossed over board during the trip from Africa to the new world, it literally changed the feeding pattern of sharks

Say it ain't so !

GOP, Democrat, does it really matter ? We got bat-shit crazy, dirt stupid folks up in D.C., living like monarchs and doling out goodies to their " little people ", who keep voting them back in.

And let us not forget, MY former Congresswoman, Cynthia " Much ado about a hair-do " McKinney.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 12:22 PM

MRSAX

Cry Baby Cry. Make Your Mama Sigh.

Odd that someone with a supposed science background, would prefer to believe in superstition and miracles over facts, or the process of proving theories wrong with more facts. Wonder if he has an agenda of promoting his beliefs vs. fostering knowledge. Reminds me of the court scene from the original Planet of the Apes, with the 3 apes striking the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 12:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We got bat-shit crazy, dirt stupid folks up in D.C.

Yeah, we even have our own fact-proof idiots here on this very board! My god, they're everywhere!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:14 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
We got bat-shit crazy, dirt stupid folks up in D.C.
Yeah, we even have our own fact-proof idiots here on this very board! My god, they're everywhere!

You repeat a lie often enough, it becomes your reality.

You not liking my facts doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you're a stubborn, small minded coward.

But we already KNEW that!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:20 PM

I love that to push his "both sides are JUST as bad" equivocation.... in order to combat the multiple current cases of GOP batshittery, rappy trots out a 17 year old clip.

Awesome.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You repeat a lie often enough, it becomes your reality.

While we realize this is how you manage to believe what you do, most of us avoid the kind of self delusion you truck in.

(By the way, still wondering if you think Mitt "didn't lie" when he said his 47% comment was "absolutely true" or "completely wrong"?)

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:47 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I think that if we ever reach the point where the COUNTRY doesn't allow him to believe or say things like that, or allow the folks in his district to elect him

Just to be clear, was anyone here arguing this? Was anyone here suggesting that Rep. Broun should be stripped of his office, or censored, or arrested, or anything?

?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 2:31 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You repeat a lie often enough, it becomes your reality.

While we realize this is how you manage to believe what you do, most of us avoid the kind of self delusion you truck in.

(By the way, still wondering if you think Mitt "didn't lie" when he said his 47% comment was "absolutely true" or "completely wrong"?)

The question you're asking is inane. Yes, Mitt was 100% accurate, when referring to the 47% of those who don't pay federal income taxes. Was it reported and received in the manner which he meant ? Nope. Could he have phrased it better ? Yes. He could have.

What's funny, is you talking about others believing their own lies, when your own sig is a complete and total fabrication , on this b.s. of 'Frothy' Santorum.

You know it was gay rights activist Dan Savage who phonied up this 'definition' in a childish, vile and petty attempt to attack then Senator Santorum.

But because you hate Santorum, and what he stands for, it's perfectly acceptable for you to perpetuate this lie. Ends justifies the means, huh?

There is having zero credibility, and then, well below that, there's you.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
I think that if we ever reach the point where the COUNTRY doesn't allow him to believe or say things like that, or allow the folks in his district to elect him

Just to be clear, was anyone here arguing this? Was anyone here suggesting that Rep. Broun should be stripped of his office, or censored, or arrested, or anything?

?

It's not personal. It's just war.

I believe the implied - not even stated - argument is that he should be voted out of office next month.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You repeat a lie often enough, it becomes your reality.

While we realize this is how you manage to believe what you do, most of us avoid the kind of self delusion you truck in.

(By the way, still wondering if you think Mitt "didn't lie" when he said his 47% comment was "absolutely true" or "completely wrong"?)

The question you're asking is inane. Yes, Mitt was 100% accurate, when referring to the 47% of those who don't pay federal income taxes. Was it reported and received in the manner which he meant ? Nope. Could he have phrased it better ? Yes. He could have.

Then why does he now say he was "completely wrong"?

You can't be "100% accurate" and "completely wrong" at the same time, can you?

Quote:

There is having zero credibility, and then, well below that...

... there's Rappy.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 2:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You repeat a lie often enough, it becomes your reality.

While we realize this is how you manage to believe what you do, most of us avoid the kind of self delusion you truck in.

(By the way, still wondering if you think Mitt "didn't lie" when he said his 47% comment was "absolutely true" or "completely wrong"?)

The question you're asking is inane. Yes, Mitt was 100% accurate, when referring to the 47% of those who don't pay federal income taxes. Was it reported and received in the manner which he meant ? Nope. Could he have phrased it better ? Yes. He could have.

Spin spin spin.

Quote:
What's funny, is you talking about others believing their own lies, when your own sig is a complete and total fabrication , on this b.s. of 'Frothy' Santorum.

You know it was gay rights activist Dan Savage who phonied up this 'definition' in a childish, vile and petty attempt to attack then Senator Santorum.

But because you hate Santorum, and what he stands for, it's perfectly acceptable for you to perpetuate this lie. Ends justifies the means, huh?

...Yes, I know where it's from, I don't think it's his actual name, fuckwit. Mainly, I just think its funny because it irks dipshits like yourself.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 2:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You not liking my facts...

YOUR facts? Since when did facts change ownership? They're either facts ... which apply to everyone... or they're beliefs.

Every time you post, I become more and more certain you have no idea what facts are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 3:07 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
You not liking my facts...
YOUR facts? Since when did facts change ownership? They're either facts ... which apply to everyone... or they're beliefs.

Every time you post, I become more and more certain you have no idea what facts are.

Facts are facts. Facts I post is what I meant, but of course, you'd have to hyper over react, and not get my meaning.

It's clear to me that you're searching, hard and feverishly, to find the tiniest flaw in anything i say, just as to have an excuse to go ape feces throwing crazy, instead of trying to have any semblance of rational, reasonable discussion. I can think of the reasons why, but I really don't care. It's a YOU problem, not mine.

And yes, I should have said this before, but it takes a true idiot to think the world is only a few thousands, or 10's of thousands of years old. I spent a better part of a decade debating Christian funDUHmentalists, on this very point, to no avail. To be good God™ believers, many feel they MUST buy into a young Earth, bible based view of creation.

TEA party views or not, I fully support open and public mockery of any elected official who is a young Earth creationist. ( Sorry Riona. No personal offense meant. I just don't think anyone on a SCIENCE committee need apply if they're beholden to such fairy tales )

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

TEA party views or not, I fully support open and public mockery of any elected official who is a young Earth creationist. ( Sorry Riona. No personal offense meant. I just don't think anyone on a SCIENCE committee need apply if they're beholden to such fairy tales )

Funny thing is, you'll still vote for them.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:06 PM

CANTTAKESKY

I can't believe I scrolled to the end of this thread. Time to get a life.

But before I go, I think everyone should lay off Geezer. He's right this guy has a legal right to be an ignoramus, and to be elected for it despite his vacuousness.

And we're right to sneer and discourage a citizenry who would vote for someone like this.

---
Folks don't like to have somebody around knowin' more than they do. It aggravates 'em. You're not gonna change any of them by talkin' right, they've got to want to learn themselves, and when they don't want to learn there's nothing you can do but keep our mouth shut or talk their language. -- Harper Lee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OK, rappy, for roughly the 2000th time....

The reason why you keep running intro trouble with your "facts" and your "logic" is because you don't think. Your statements are driven by emotion, not reason. Let me give you an example. You may think I'm harping on a point, but I hope that if I repeat the same message often enough in different ways, one of them will sink in.

"SADDAM HAD WMD"

In a narrow sense, it was true: Saddam "had" WMD. To be precise, he had a few hundred bits and pieces of old chemical warheads and a few barrels of stuff buried in abandoned/ lost bunkers. Jars of spoiled goo, some centrifuge pieces buried in a rose garden... given the shelf life of most bio- and chemical warfare agents, I would be surprised if there was more than a hundred pounds of anything potent, anywhere.

TO cling to the idea that he still "had" bits of his WMD program from the 1980's and that was enough to justify spending almost a trillion dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, distracting us from the real threat is insane. Particularly as Hans Blix and his team were in Iraq precisely to answer the question as to whether Hussein presented an actual threat to surrounding nations, and it was OUR bombing campaign which drove the inspection team out of Iraq when they were within a few weeks... months, at most, of certifying Iraq one way or the other.

So Saddam "had" WMD. You can repeat that fact in isolation all you want and use it to justify the complete clusterf*ck that was our invasion, but the reality is that all of the other facts show that Saddam was not a threat to anyone except the Kurds and Shiites. And since the Shiites are batshit-crazy Iran-loving mother-effers, maybe we could have tackled Saddam a different way. Once which wouldn't give Iran a big toehold in southern Iraq.

Your explanations should deal with MORE of the facts, not just the one or two that seem to occupy the entirety of your thoughts. Once you realize that, then you will be well on your way to being able to think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:47 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

TEA party views or not, I fully support open and public mockery of any elected official who is a young Earth creationist. ( Sorry Riona. No personal offense meant. I just don't think anyone on a SCIENCE committee need apply if they're beholden to such fairy tales )

Funny thing is, you'll still vote for them.

Guess that shows that I'm not quite the religious bigot that others have accuse me of being, huh? But to the point, I put the proper function of govt, and the running of it, ahead of the periphery of issues, like which public official believes in what sky fairy , or mythology.
Hell, I'd even vote for a non-violent, fiscally conservative Muslim, over a tax and spend Socialist Christian, if given the chance.

See? I'm all about inclusion.

Sig - still going on about the WMD issue ? Clearly, it's you who is running on emotion, and not logic or reason. How many 1000's of Kurds died from the result of Saddam's Chemical weapons attacks ? We KNEW he had them, sure enough. And we KNEW what he had, and what he was capable of doing with them. He failed to come clean and offer up intel on what he had, where he had disposed of the 'old' WMD, and so much more, that you're intentionally feigning stupidity on this matter, it's not even funny.

Chem weapons are relatively easy to reproduce. That's why they're called the poor man's nukes. Saddam had more than enough means and ability to expand on what we KNEW he already had, and failed to report to the UN a long list of things we've since found, which was exactly what Iraq was SUPPOSE to do. The UN, inspectors ( not just from the US ) were NEVER meant to go on a country wide easter egg hunt, and yet, that's exactly what Saddam and company lead us on, for 10 years.

Were they put in a rough spot, with the no-fly zones, and embargoes ? Hell yes they were. And they could have made it all go away, had they just cooperated. They chose to play hard ball, and it ended up costing them, in the end.

There's so much that the public will never hear, be it because the govt doesn't want us to know, or the MSM would rather not go into all that much detail, but on this matter, you're playing the role of lovable, gullible dupe. And you're gonna have to do much better than this to make your case, if you even HAVE one to make.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 2:08 AM