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

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.

Mike, you and Story are interchangable parts.

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 2:25 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
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.

If someone with nazi views was in my government, I'd probably find out who was running against him and support them. If they tried to pass laws I thought unconstitutional, I'd fight them in court (assuming the ACLU, Justice Department, etc. hadn't gotten there first). However, I'd still defend their right to express their views.

I'm really amazed that folks here don't see the necessity of defending the free speech of folks they don't agree with.

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:12 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

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

Yup. I skimmed it, and even that was too much of a waste of time. Hope you got no further and found something better to do.

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:22 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:
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.

Mike, you and Story are interchangable parts.

If you say so, Riverlove.

"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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
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.

If someone with nazi views was in my government, I'd probably find out who was running against him and support them. If they tried to pass laws I thought unconstitutional, I'd fight them in court (assuming the ACLU, Justice Department, etc. hadn't gotten there first). However, I'd still defend their right to express their views.

I'm really amazed that folks here don't see the necessity of defending the free speech of folks they don't agree with.

And I'm really amazed that you make that leap. I've seen people here disagreeing with his views, but nobody has called for him to be arrested, jailed, or killed for his views, have they?

Once again, you're making shit up that others haven't advocated.

No wonder they call you the King of False Equivalence.

"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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 5:10 AM

1KIKI

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.

"Looks like Kiki is suggesting that he be censored, along with everyone else who works for, or ever did work for, the government."

I dunno - did you or did you not take an oath? And is it asking for censorship to point out that he's breaking his oath, and that you are too; and to point out that free speech never has been 100% free? Do you have a problem with facts?

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 5:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This is STILL going on? Three pages worth? Over a pathetically ignorant representative who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground? Well, no...three pages worth of sniping and schoolyard

Wow...

I repeat: He's pulling your chain...

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:57 AM

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

Mike, you and Story are interchangable parts.

Yeah, blame you errors on someone else.

That'll totally convince people you're NOT senile!

Or, does that mean we can just attribute anything from Rappy or Wulfie say to you, because they're right-wingers, too?

You're fuckin' pathetic.

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA

The Constitution is not a shield, it's a sword.
A sword which only works if someone is willing to swing it.

That said, this cause there's no way imma hunt up and requote all of Mal4's argument, and offering my own in light of my unanimous agreement with hers would be redundant...
Imma just let her flail you till she gets tired of your stupidity and malicious ignorance.

And then try to sell her a flamethrower.

-Frem

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
He's right this guy has a legal right to be an ignoramus, and to be elected for it despite his vacuousness.

If you read the whole thing, how'd you miss that *no one said otherwise*??

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig - still going on about the WMD issue ?

No, you fool I'm using it as an EXAMPLE. I could have just as easily chosen "THE ECONOMY'S ON FIRE!!" or any number of your other fatuous, pointless statements.

Quote:
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 ?

Yes, we knew he had them... we helped sell him the materials to make them. We provided him the intel, the "ground truth", on his use of chemical weapons against Iran because he was our bulwark in the region.

But that was then... a long time ago. What did that have to do with our invasion?

Quote:
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.

Oh, so we invaded on the basis that he did something in the past and he MIGHT do something in the future? If that's our standard for regime change, we'll be invading every nation in the world, sooner or later.

Quote:
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.

And, they were finding nothing.

The problem is, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove what you don't have because there is always some nook, some cranny, that someone hasn't inspected. There is always the possibility that someone missed something important, somewhere.

So on the basis of this.... paranoia... we committed to changing a regime without having a replacement plan, and we destabilized an entire region.

Oh yeah, good plan!

Truth is often messy. Sometimes it can't be wrapped up in one sentence. You have to look at ALL of the facts, not just the ones that send a tingle up your spine. And somewhere along the line, you have to separate facts (Saddam "had" WMD...) from suppositions and fears (...and he might use them on us).

Capice?

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:34 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
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.

If someone with nazi views was in my government, I'd probably find out who was running against him and support them. If they tried to pass laws I thought unconstitutional, I'd fight them in court (assuming the ACLU, Justice Department, etc. hadn't gotten there first). However, I'd still defend their right to express their views.

I'm really amazed that folks here don't see the necessity of defending the free speech of folks they don't agree with.

So you'd criticise them and take action to see that their views would not hold weight in government policy.

Kind of what people are doing here.

The right of free speech means that you can say what you want without fear of persecution. It doesn't mean that you get to be a jerk, hold idiotic views, and a position of authority without people criticising you.
Criticism does not equal persecution.
That is why it is not a free speech issue.

Keep arguing....

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Sig - still going on about the WMD issue ?
No, you fool I'm using it as an EXAMPLE.

Then you should have chosen a better example

Quote:
Yes, we knew he had them... we helped sell him the materials to make them. We provided him the intel, the "ground truth", on his use of chemical weapons against Iran because he was our bulwark in the region.

But that was then... a long time ago. What did that have to do with our invasion?

The part where we KNEW what he had, yet he kept denying ? Hello ?

Quote:
Oh, so we invaded on the basis that he did something in the past and he MIGHT do something in the future? If that's our standard for regime change, we'll be invading every nation in the world, sooner or later.
Umm, I don't see how you come to that conclusion, but yes, we know what he had, who he was, and based on the fact he'd used WDM on his own folks, we decided to do something about that.

Quote:
And, they were finding nothing.

Which is scarier than finding what you'd expect to find, if you think about it.( But, you won't ) And what of those reports coming out of WMD now being in Syria ? Gee, where could they have come from?

Quote:

Truth is often messy. Sometimes it can't be wrapped up in one sentence. You have to look at ALL of the facts, not just the ones that send a tingle up your spine. And somewhere along the line, you have to separate facts (Saddam "had" WMD...) from suppositions and fears (...and he might use them on us).

Capice?

Yes, I capice, but do you ? Don't seem like it.

" 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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:08 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
He's right this guy has a legal right to be an ignoramus, and to be elected for it despite his vacuousness.

If you read the whole thing, how'd you miss that *no one said otherwise*??

I didn't miss it. Just saying we all agree with Geezer on that point.

Hey, trying to be positive here! ;)

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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I'm really amazed that you make that leap. I've seen people here disagreeing with his views, but nobody has called for him to be arrested, jailed, or killed for his views, have they?

Once again, you're making shit up that others haven't advocated.

So you haven't been reading Kiki's comments?

She would deny freedom of speech to anyone who works for, or has worked for, the government.

Looks like you have a case of selective ignoring there.

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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:05 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you'd criticise them and take action to see that their views would not hold weight in government policy.

Kind of what people are doing here.

The right of free speech means that you can say what you want without fear of persecution. It doesn't mean that you get to be a jerk, hold idiotic views, and a position of authority without people criticising you.
Criticism does not equal persecution.
That is why it is not a free speech issue.

Keep arguing....

Why? You restated what I've been saying all along.

It's Kiki who would prevent Rep. Broun from presenting his views, or me from saying it's his right to do so. Argue with her.

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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Sig - still going on about the WMD issue ?
No, you fool I'm using it as an EXAMPLE.

Then you should have chosen a better example

Quote:
Yes, we knew he had them... we helped sell him the materials to make them. We provided him the intel, the "ground truth", on his use of chemical weapons against Iran because he was our bulwark in the region.

But that was then... a long time ago. What did that have to do with our invasion?

The part where we KNEW what he had, yet he kept denying ? Hello ?

So you say we KNEW what he had... why couldn't anyone ever find it?

You've been trying for years to say that "we KNEW", "EVERYBODY KNEW", "Congress KNEW"... and to that I say, "SO WHAT?" If a majority of a group "knows" a thing, does that make it so?

For example, around 97% of scientists believe global climate change is real. Does that make it so? Do you agree with what "everybody KNOWS"?

Or do you think Congress is right more often than science, logic, and reason are?

Quote:
Umm, I don't see how you come to that conclusion, but yes, we know what he had, who he was, and based on the fact he'd used WDM on his own folks, we decided to do something about that.

This sounds quite a bit like you're using the old "but it's for the CHILDREN!" argument to justify the war.

"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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I'm really amazed that you make that leap. I've seen people here disagreeing with his views, but nobody has called for him to be arrested, jailed, or killed for his views, have they?

Once again, you're making shit up that others haven't advocated.

So you haven't been reading Kiki's comments?

She would deny freedom of speech to anyone who works for, or has worked for, the government.

Looks like you have a case of selective ignoring there.

Really? You equate upholding your oath to the Constitution to denying freedom of speech?

Interesting.

"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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:43 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you'd criticise them and take action to see that their views would not hold weight in government policy.

Kind of what people are doing here.

The right of free speech means that you can say what you want without fear of persecution. It doesn't mean that you get to be a jerk, hold idiotic views, and a position of authority without people criticising you.
Criticism does not equal persecution.
That is why it is not a free speech issue.

Keep arguing....

Why? You restated what I've been saying all along.

It's Kiki who would prevent Rep. Broun from presenting his views, or me from saying it's his right to do so. Argue with her.

That's not what you have been saying all along, otherwise you would have been agreeing with people on this thread instead of arguing, quite frankly, for the sake of having an argument.

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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:09 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Kwickie - you're too stupid to even try discuss this with. Your sole intent is to play the role of contrarian, at all costs.

ETA - If we gave Iraq 'X', or know they obtained 'Y' from somewhere else, and then came back and said.. " Yeah, we need to know what you did with X and Y " and then Iraq says " What ? We know not of these things of which you speak. " It's a pretty damn clear indication they're up to no good.

You want to play stupid, and troll for sport, then by all means, have at it. It's clear that is all you're mentally capable of doing anyways.

As for me, sorry. I'm just not interested.

" 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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Kwickie - you're too stupid to even try discuss this with. Your sole intent is to play the role of contrarian, at all costs.

Sorry, not interested.

Translation: Rappy's got nothing.

But great job at ignoring me! You really, really suck at it!

By all means, keep on refusing to discuss anything with me!

"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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:30 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

When you guys are through smacking each other with your foam-rubber light sabres, SOME of you would be welcome in other threads, discussing actual things...if and when you ever get tired of playing with each other, that is.

Meanwhile, rave on Leons...

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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:24 PM

1KIKI

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.

"It's Kiki who would prevent Rep. Broun from presenting his views, or me from saying it's his right to do so. Argue with her."

Quote me.

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

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rappy... chemical weapons may be the poor man's nukes, but they DO have a shelf life. Bioweapons even more so. That's why whatever Saddam "had" as of 30 years ago wasn't of much interest to anyone REALLY interested in security. That, and the fact that he had no delivery weapons that could reach anyone.

And, if you want to know who greatly escalated the whole WMD thing, it was us. Yep, we managed to nuke two whole Japanese cities. The first one was maybe forgivable, the second was just gratuitous. I know you're all burning about those 8000 Kurds, but what about the roughly 250,000 Japanese that we managed to obliterate within the space of a few seconds. Hey, if anyone deserves the stink-eye, it's us. After all, if we were willing to bomb two whole cities to radioactive rubble just to intimidate the eastward-advancing Russian Army, what might we be willing to do NOW??? Invade a dozen nations?? Kill another million people or so to advance our cause? For heaven's sake, what would anyone think THAT???

Sense of proportion. A smidgen of objectivity. Goose sauce = gander sauce. Someday, you'll get it.

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

Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:35 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's Kiki who would prevent Rep. Broun from presenting his views, or me from saying it's his right to do so. Argue with her."

Quote me.

"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."

And would this statement, in your interpretation, deny free speech if, for example, Atty General Holder said he didn't agree with Heller vs. D.C., or some GSA clerk saying she wanted Pres. Obama to run for a third term?

I now expect a lot of, "Oh. I didn't mean it like that".

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

Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:01 AM

Apparently Geezer conveniently skipped the actual words in Kiki's post, in his rush to misrepresent them.

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

Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sense of proportion. A smidgen of objectivity. Goose sauce = gander sauce. Someday, you'll get it

Does your lack of response mean that you've "gotten it"? I hope so.

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

Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Apparently Geezer conveniently skipped the actual words in Kiki's post, in his rush to misrepresent them.

Shocking, isn't it? That hasn't happened here since at least an hour ago!

"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

Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:33 PM

1KIKI

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.

"He exercises his tenuous claim to free speech by breaking his oath."

Is this what you have a problem with?

Perhaps I need to remind you yet again that free speech is not 100% free. There are limits. That is an undeniable fact. I don't know if a lawmaker has free speech rights admitting to and promoting unconstitutional action taken as a lawmaker, which is why I said it was tenuous. But whether or not he does, he's breaking his oath. Do you have a problem with me pointing out that he's breaking his oath? Do you have a problem with me pointing out that you are too?

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 2:46 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"He exercises his tenuous claim to free speech by breaking his oath."

Is this what you have a problem with?

Pretty much.

I have a problem with you determining that he is breaking his oath, and making himself liable to the penalties for doing so, for stating what he believes. I also ask again how what he says is that much different from President Obama saying that his public service is a reflection of his Christian faith.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 3:22 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
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?

You should know that people who enter the military do in fact give up their rights to free speech. Active members of the military can't say certain things in public.

You should also understand that an elected official has the right to state his beliefs, but does not have the right to represent those beliefs as facts. An elected official stating he believes that earth is 9000 years old, or is flat is fine. That same official stating those beliefs as facts when they know there is no proof of that and that there is proof to the contrary is a lie.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 3:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"He exercises his tenuous claim to free speech by breaking his oath."

Is this what you have a problem with?

Pretty much.

I have a problem with you determining that he is breaking his oath, and making himself liable to the penalties for doing so, for stating what he believes. I also ask again how what he says is that much different from President Obama saying that his public service is a reflection of his Christian faith.

If I were a congressperson who stood up in a mosque and proclaimed that the Constitution is flawed and should be thrown out and replaced with Sharia, would you have a problem with my free speech?

What if I were to preach, write, and proselytize against America and in support of al-Qaeda? Would you have a problem with my free speech then?

"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

Friday, October 12, 2012 6:20 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
You should also understand that an elected official has the right to state his beliefs, but does not have the right to represent those beliefs as facts. An elected official stating he believes that earth is 9000 years old, or is flat is fine. That same official stating those beliefs as facts when they know there is no proof of that and that there is proof to the contrary is a lie.

So this is a reading failure on your part?

Quoting Rep. Broun.

"I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

Or are you saying that any politician who lies should be removed from office?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/barack-
obama/romney-abortion-rape-incest/

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 6:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If I were a congressperson who stood up in a mosque and proclaimed that the Constitution is flawed and should be thrown out and replaced with Sharia, would you have a problem with my free speech?

Not a bit.

ETA: However, I wouldn't vote for you.

Quote:
What if I were to preach, write, and proselytize against America and in support of al-Qaeda? Would you have a problem with my free speech then?

If you were acting in support of al Qaeda you might be in violation of Federal law (18 USC § 2339B). I'd let the DOJ make that decision. If they sent a drone after you, I'd disagree with that.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 6:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
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?

You should know that people who enter the military do in fact give up their rights to free speech. Active members of the military can't say certain things in public.

He *should* know, if he really were a veteran - a claim many of us doubt, now.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 6:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
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?

You should know that people who enter the military do in fact give up their rights to free speech. Active members of the military can't say certain things in public.

He *should* know, if he really were a veteran - a claim many of us doubt, now.

I do know that while there are restrictions on what members of the military can and can't say, they don't extend to restrictions on proclaiming belief in a deity.

ETA: Since Rep. Broun isn't a member of the military, it's sort of a moot point anyway, isn't it?

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 6:54 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
You should also understand that an elected official has the right to state his beliefs, but does not have the right to represent those beliefs as facts. An elected official stating he believes that earth is 9000 years old, or is flat is fine. That same official stating those beliefs as facts when they know there is no proof of that and that there is proof to the contrary is a lie.

So this is a reading failure on your part?

Quoting Rep. Broun.

"I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

Or are you saying that any politician who lies should be removed from office?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/barack-
obama/romney-abortion-rape-incest/

Well there is some reading failure here, but it is not on my part.

See I made a statment that really agrees with your argument. A politician who simply states his beliefs has not broken his oath of office, for the most part. Now it is more likley that if they lie about something they could very well break the oath. In those statements Broun did not lie, he simply stated his belief.

Problem is he also said that "There are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young earth" which is a blantant lie. He also says, "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell." which is also a lie.

Should a politician be removed from office because of a lie? That depends on the lie. I think voters should hold them acountable in one way or another.

I think that someone like Broun who holds beliefs contrary to scientific facts should not hold a seat on a science commitee. Frankly they should also be laughed out of office.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:05 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
He *should* know, if he really were a veteran - a claim many of us doubt, now.

I can believe it. The military needs ditch diggers too.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If I were a congressperson who stood up in a mosque and proclaimed that the Constitution is flawed and should be thrown out and replaced with Sharia, would you have a problem with my free speech?

Not a bit.

ETA: However, I wouldn't vote for you.

Quote:
What if I were to preach, write, and proselytize against America and in support of al-Qaeda? Would you have a problem with my free speech then?

If you were acting in support of al Qaeda you might be in violation of Federal law (18 USC § 2339B). I'd let the DOJ make that decision. If they sent a drone after you, I'd disagree with that.

You seem quite comfortable with letting the DOJ decide what is and isn't legal and allowable. Why do you hate due process?

If the DOJ says that Fast-n-Furious was totally legit and nothing happened, would you take their word for it?

"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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
He *should* know, if he really were a veteran - a claim many of us doubt, now.

I can believe it. The military needs ditch diggers too.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Yup, and someone's gotta dig the trench for the latrines and burn off the shit.

"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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
See I made a statment that really agrees with your argument. A politician who simply states his beliefs has not broken his oath of office, for the most part. Now it is more likley that if they lie about something they could very well break the oath. In those statements Broun did not lie, he simply stated his belief.

Problem is he also said that "There are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young earth" which is a blantant lie. He also says, "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell." which is also a lie.

How do you know that he hasn't found data that he thinks, given his Christian bias, do prove what he believes? Although you think (believe, perhaps?) that his assumptions are wrong, based on what you know of science, if he actually believes the earth is 9,000 year old and thinks he has data to back it up, he's not lying - he's merely, in your opinion (and mine, BTW) wrong.

Quote:
Should a politician be removed from office because of a lie? That depends on the lie. I think voters should hold them acountable in one way or another.

And his district has continued to return him to office. Shouldn't they be able to?

Quote:
I think that someone like Broun who holds beliefs contrary to scientific facts should not hold a seat on a science commitee. Frankly they should also be laughed out of office.

Your right to think that. You could move to his district and campaign against him. You could write the House leadership and complain.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You seem quite comfortable with letting the DOJ decide what is and isn't legal and allowable. Why do you hate due process?

If the DOJ says that Fast-n-Furious was totally legit and nothing happened, would you take their word for it?

And off into change-the-subject-land again.

Say goodnight, Mike.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:21 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
He *should* know, if he really were a veteran - a claim many of us doubt, now.

I can believe it. The military needs ditch diggers too.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Yup, and someone's gotta dig the trench for the latrines and burn off the shit.

Say hi to your dad for me, Mike.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You seem quite comfortable with letting the DOJ decide what is and isn't legal and allowable. Why do you hate due process?

If the DOJ says that Fast-n-Furious was totally legit and nothing happened, would you take their word for it?

And off into change-the-subject-land again.

Say goodnight, Mike.

Ah, respond to an on-topic comment, which raises a different, parallel point in order to highlight the initial topic, and then pretend is actually changing topic (even though anyone with decent reading skills can tell this is not the case) so that you can ignore and dismiss it.

Someone's dipping into rappy's playbook.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You seem quite comfortable with letting the DOJ decide what is and isn't legal and allowable. Why do you hate due process?

If the DOJ says that Fast-n-Furious was totally legit and nothing happened, would you take their word for it?

And off into change-the-subject-land again.

Say goodnight, Mike.

I'm changing the subject by responding to something you brought up?

"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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
He *should* know, if he really were a veteran - a claim many of us doubt, now.

I can believe it. The military needs ditch diggers too.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Yup, and someone's gotta dig the trench for the latrines and burn off the shit.

Say hi to your dad for me, Mike.

No can do, him being dead and corpsified and all. But enjoy the view from your shit-trench. You still seem to enjoy it in there.

"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

Friday, October 12, 2012 7:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You guys are having so much fun, you should get a room.

I don't see how there can be any argument that Broun saying the Bible "teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in our society" is dangerous and that anyone who believes that shouldn't be MAKING public policy.

From a devout Christian pastor:

Quote:
Broun said evolution and much else he was taught in college were "lies straight from the pit of hell." These were "lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

I love the Bible. I read it every day. I spend 10 hours a week studying it. It has affected my life in profound ways. I am inspired when I read it. In its pages I find the truths that guide my daily life -- truths that represent my highest ideals and greatest aspirations. I am a follower of Jesus Christ. The Bible is my primary way of knowing him and what it means to follow him. And I am a pastor and I teach and preach the Bible to my congregation every week. But the Bible is not a manufacturer's handbook. Neither is it a science textbook nor a guidebook for public policy.

Looking at the Bible to teach us "how to run public policy and everything in our society" is a frightening notion. Written over a period of more than 1,000 years, the biblical authors include much that today we would suggest was drawn from cultural practices and which does not reflect the "manufacturer's" will. For instance, there are more than 300 references to slavery in the Bible. In nearly every one it is assumed that slavery was acceptable to God. Slave owners were permitted to beat their slaves with rods, provided they did not kill them or permanently maim them. Women were considered worth half the value of a man, were required to marry their rapists if their father insisted, and, in the New Testament, were to remain silent in the church. Homosexuals and disobedient children were to be stoned to death, along with adulterers.

Learning to read the Bible in the light of the times in which it was written is critical. Reading it uncritically, without understanding the cultural and historical setting of the text, leaves us forced to accept scientific and sociological norms of the ancient Near East from 3,000 years ago.

In many ways the Bible can and should act as a guide for Rep. Broun's conscience and decision-making. But it is not as simple as saying, "the Bible says it, that settles it" (he did not say this, but many adopt this view). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hamilton/the-bible-and-congressman-
broun_b_1958689.html

Broun does not belong making public policy and writing LAWS that will affect us. If it were a proper governing body and Republicans were other than they are today, they would consider his words when allowing him to continue on the Science Committee, whether his constituents are stupid enough to put him in office and keep him there or not. His statements should disqualify him from serving on the Science Committee at the very least, and make his decisions on virtually everything suspect.

Nobody says he doesn't have the right to free speech or that he should be censored--indeed, I WANT people like him to speak up, so we know where they stand. But saying science is a "lie" from the pits of hell and that the Bible should determine public policy is just plain wrong.

You may now return to your sniping, arguing about minutae and playground fighting.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 11:32 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
How do you know that he hasn't found data that he thinks, given his Christian bias, do prove what he believes? Although you think (believe, perhaps?) that his assumptions are wrong, based on what you know of science, if he actually believes the earth is 9,000 year old and thinks he has data to back it up, he's not lying - he's merely, in your opinion (and mine, BTW) wrong.

Fooling yourself into believing some horseshit data which falls in line with your beliefs is still a lie.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And his district has continued to return him to office. Shouldn't they be able to?

Never said they shouldn't be able to. I just don't think they should.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Your right to think that. You could move to his district and campaign against him. You could write the House leadership and complain.

...just might do that ;)

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, October 12, 2012 1:11 PM