Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 21, 2008, 11:36:37 PM
-
Now where have I heard this kind of arrogant attitude before?
Maher: 'I Don't Trust Americans...They're Just Too F***ing Dumb!'
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 20, 2008 - 01:23 ET
HBO's Bill Maher was spewing some extraordinary hatred for his fellow countrymen again Friday night, this time claiming that he doesn't "trust Americans to do the right thing or make the right choices" because "[t]hey're just too f***ing dumb."
Why does he feel this way?
Because not everyone is going to vote for Barack Obama.
Yes, folks, if you don't vote for the Messiah, it has nothing to do with the issues, or whether the junior senator from Illinois isn't qualified, or even because you think John McCain is a better candidate.
According to Maher, if you don't vote for Obama, you're "just too f***ing dumb." At least that's what he told The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan who fervently made the case on Friday's "Real Time" for folks to vote for the Democrat ticket in November (video available here courtesy our friend MsUnderestimated):
ILL MAHER, HOST: I don't trust Americans quite frankly...
ANDREW SULLIVAN, THE ATLANTIC: I do trust Americans.
MAHER: Well, 'cause you're not American. If you lived here as long as I have...
SULLIVAN: I lived here 25 years.
MAHER: I know, I'm kidding. But I, I honestly do not trust Americans to do the right thing or make the right choices. They're just too fucking dumb. I'm sorry. I know I'm a bad guy for saying that.
SULLIVAN: Churchill got it right. Churchill said, "Americans always do the right thing after they've exhaused every other alternative." And, and, and they will.
MAHER: And that's when, back when Americans were smarter than they are now. I, I mean, I do not trust, I don't know how, I certainly can understand why some people in this country now are saying, "Well, McCain could win," and they are making preparations, and when I say preparations, I mean for leaving the country.
That's fine, Bill. Your ilk has been threatening this since 2000. Why don't you just do it and make the country a much better place?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086442/posts
-
It is blind ignorant racism which will prevent Obama being voted in. Mind you, it is only recently that apartheid was abolished is the USA, they weren't far ahead of South Africa in that respect. I suppose you can't blame your typical American for looking at Blacks as a sub human class of people, I mean even in the 1960's Cassius Clay had to eat in the Black section of the restraunts. The though of a black man being president must be making most mullet wearing stars and stripes wavers choke on their sister's titties.
-
maher is a zionist.
-
Jimmy, that is a very limited perspective and incorrect in the vast majority of cases. Its just not the case with young and middle aged Americans. If I remember correctly, your a bit older than most of us here, right?
Obama is far to the left of his party and is proposing changing the US to a more socialist state, that is the issue many of us independents have with him. Plus, he campaigned as a new politician that could bring people together, he certainly is not.
-
It is blind ignorant racism which will prevent Obama being voted in. Mind you, it is only recently that apartheid was abolished is the USA, they weren't far ahead of South Africa in that respect. I suppose you can't blame your typical American for looking at Blacks as a sub human class of people, I mean even in the 1960's Cassius Clay had to eat in the Black section of the restraunts. The though of a black man being president must be making most mullet wearing stars and stripes wavers choke on their sister's titties.
Well, we've all seen the 180 degree affect it had on youandme. ;D
-
Now where have I heard this kind of arrogant attitude before?
Maher: 'I Don't Trust Americans...They're Just Too F***ing Dumb!'
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 20, 2008 - 01:23 ET
HBO's Bill Maher was spewing some extraordinary hatred for his fellow countrymen again Friday night, this time claiming that he doesn't "trust Americans to do the right thing or make the right choices" because "[t]hey're just too f***ing dumb."
The world was whispering it in 2000. They printed it in 2004, and now they're yelling it from the rooftops in 2008
-
No, it's primarily people like Maher who believe they are smarter than everyone who disagrees with them.
-
No, it's primarily people like Maher who believe they are smarter than everyone who disagrees with them.
sounds like Maher touched a nerve
-
People who vote for McCain because he's a war hero or Palin because she's hockey mom are dumb
-
I've asked this in another thread... but does anyone have a link to a clip of Maher actually saying this?
I watch his show regularly on YouTube but i don't remember watching this.
The Luke
-
America's mean IQ = 92
is it possible Maher's correct ?
Bush did get re-elected didn't he ? ;)
NT
Not possible at all.
-
sounds like Maher touched a nerve
Not at all.
-
Not possible at all.
why not?
-
why not?
Why are Americans not "just too f-ing dumb"? A variety of reasons, including our system of government, our private businesses, our plethora of educational institutions, our advances in medicine and science, our growing population of people with college degrees and trade school/professional certifications, the numerous smart people (educated and uneducated) I encounter from all walks of life from all over the country, etc., etc.
-
I like Maher, He is right, you are a fucking bafoon if you vote for McCain. He will be worse than Bush, he has been caught in 20+ bold face lies, hes ran the nastiest campaign in the history of our country, and he picked a religious nut as his running mate he met just 1 time. Who let me remind you has a nasty scandal going on in her home state, her and her husband think they are above the law m.
Hes right AMERICANS ARE DUMB. Just look at things coach says... I rest case...
-
Palin has said Iraq is a mission from god.
I'm a little scared of leaders who send men to die in holy wars.
-
Why are Americans not "just too f-ing dumb"? A variety of reasons, including our system of government, our private businesses, our plethora of educational institutions, our advances in medicine and science, our growing population of people with college degrees and trade school/professional certifications, the numerous smart people (educated and uneducated) I encounter from all walks of life from all over the country, etc., etc.
our system of government and our private businesses are not an indication of over all intelligence. Our schools are decent but far from the best in the world (I'm talking about secondary education), advances in science and medicine made my individuals does not make the population smarter.
Anyway, you know all this .
The dumb fucks Maher is talking about are people who think that Obama is a secret muslim or that we were attacked by Iraq, or that we found WMD's in Iraq, or that if you make 40k a year Obama will raise your taxes, etc.....
You know what he's talking about
-
our system of government and our private businesses are not an indication of over all intelligence. Our schools are decent but far from the best in the world (I'm talking about secondary education), advances in science and medicine made my individuals does not make the population smarter.
Anyway, you know all this .
The dumb fucks Maher is talking about are people who think that Obama is a secret muslim or that we were attacked by Iraq, or that we found WMD's in Iraq, or that if you make 40k a year Obama will raise your taxes, etc.....
You know what he's talking about
I won't address the issues I raised regarding why I think Americans are not "too f-ing dumb," because it is just my opinion.
I know what Maher is talking about. He's talking about everyone who is voting for McCain:
"MAHER: I know, I'm kidding. But I, I honestly do not trust Americans to do the right thing or make the right choices. They're just too fucking dumb. I'm sorry. I know I'm a bad guy for saying that."
And the issue for me isn't really Maher, who I think is an idiot, but the "I'm smarter than you" mindset. Decker has pretty much said the same thing. Others on the board have said the same thing. I don't share that view at all. As I said the start, pretty arrogant.
-
I won't address the issues I raised regarding why I think Americans are not "too f-ing dumb," because it is just my opinion.
I know what Maher is talking about. He's talking about everyone who is voting for McCain:
"MAHER: I know, I'm kidding. But I, I honestly do not trust Americans to do the right thing or make the right choices. They're just too fucking dumb. I'm sorry. I know I'm a bad guy for saying that."
And the issue for isn't really Maher, who I think is an idiot, but the "I'm smarter than you" mindset. Decker has pretty much said the same thing. Others on the board have said the same thing. I don't share that view at all. As I said the start, pretty arrogant.
I'm glad you respect the reptilian emotive operative consciousness of the average american voter.
No reasoning or reflective thinking. NOpe. That's for liberals. The good old american voter trusts his gut and whether he could have a beer with his presidential candidate. There's something almost noble of your respect for the dull normal IQ (98) of the american public....in a condescending sort of way.
The sad reality of the moron vote keeps McCain in the running just as it has handed Bush two terms as president.
Intelligence should be scorned. Thinking is for eggheads b/c they overthink things and that's bad.
All you really need to understand politics is Common Sense. That requires no education or over-thinking.
The choice is common sense:
With McCain you get a washington insider implicated in the Keating 5 scandal running as a political maverick who goes his own way--the right way--except when he's voting with his party at a 95% clip which has put this country into a moral and economic pit. McCain the Insider's Outsider.
Thinking people might vomit at the smell of that fantasyland bullshit. Not the average american voter. Nope. They smell flowers of leadership and thank god that there is a sane alternative to Obama's radical socialism.
There is no prejudicial lie or piece of flattery this crowd won't absorb.
-
our system of government and our private businesses are not an indication of over all intelligence. Our schools are decent but far from the best in the world (I'm talking about secondary education), advances in science and medicine made my individuals does not make the population smarter.
Anyway, you know all this .
The dumb fucks Maher is talking about are people who think that Obama is a secret muslim or that we were attacked by Iraq, or that we found WMD's in Iraq, or that if you make 40k a year Obama will raise your taxes, etc.....
You know what he's talking about
Not to mention a lot of these advances are made by foreign nationals who happens to be working in the US. There's a major concern of reverse migration amongst the sciences, in which foreigners are getting educated at the graduate level and going back to their home countries to start up ventures in what they've learned. This is becoming more and more common among Indians and the Chinese.
-
I'm glad you respect the reptilian emotive operative consciousness of the average american voter.
No reasoning or reflective thinking. NOpe. That's for liberals. The good old american voter trusts his gut and whether he could have a beer with his presidential candidate. There's something almost noble of your respect for the dull normal IQ (98) of the american public....in a condescending sort of way.
The sad reality of the moron vote keeps McCain in the running just as it has handed Bush two terms as president.
Intelligence should be scorned. Thinking is for eggheads b/c they overthink things and that's bad.
All you really need to understand politics is Common Sense. That requires no education or over-thinking.
The choice is common sense:
With McCain you get a washington insider implicated in the Keating 5 scandal running as a political maverick who goes his own way--the right way--except when he's voting with his party at a 95% clip which has put this country into a moral and economic pit. McCain the Insider's Outsider.
Thinking people might vomit at the smell of that fantasyland bullshit. Not the average american voter. Nope. They smell flowers of leadership and thank god that there is a sane alternative to Obama's radical socialism.
There is no prejudicial lie or piece of flattery this crowd won't absorb.
It's much simpler than that. I have a higher opinion of the "average american voter" than you.
-
It's much simpler than that. I have a higher opinion of the "average american voter" than you.
...explain?
The Luke
-
It's much simpler than that. I have a higher opinion of the "average american voter" than you.
That's because you have a low standard.
-
It's much simpler than that. I have a higher opinion of the "average american voter" than you.
On what do you base your conclusion?
I have pointed out with numerous examples why a vote for McCain is an exercise in stupidity.
-
Palin has said Iraq is a mission from god.
I'm a little scared of leaders who send men to die in holy wars.
How many times are you going to misquote Palin?
Give it a rest already. If you hate her views or experience, harp on that.
Not crap you and Matt Damon got off of some left-wing website.
-
And the issue for me isn't really Maher, who I think is an idiot, but the "I'm smarter than you" mindset. Decker has pretty much said the same thing. Others on the board have said the same thing. I don't share that view at all. As I said the start, pretty arrogant.
Who's to say he's not smarter than you? (I'm not saying he IS, but let's be honest... It is quite possible that he is in fact smarter than you or even me, or perhaps 1/2 of America.
I've often found that people get the most defensive about another person when in fact, the other person is simply saying something truthful... The truth hurts a lot more than fiction.
I've often said that America, and society as a whole is dictated by the "average". The exceptional are often seen as blowhards and "know it alls", but the reality is that people see them that way because they are in fact more correct than the "average" person.
Society doesn't like exceptional, they like average... They like the guy that they can have a beer with.
I have no problem with people not voting for Obama... I get it... It's his tax policy that people don't like... Fine... but please just admit it... Admit just once and for all that the thing you don't like is either:
A) The taxes
B) The social programs
or
C) The fact he's black.
The reality is that if you look at it as far as Obama is concerned:
A) Doesn't really affect more than 3 percent of the country.
B) Some people don't want a socialist country, but yet those people don't seem to be bitching when the Government just told you how you're allowed to sell your own property (Banning short term selling of stocks) which is fucking socialism at the most BASIC level.
or
C) You're a bigot.
So I have to ask, which one of those issues do those McCain voters truly have an issue with?
The fact that this guy goes along with 90% of Bush's policies is truly a big reason to not vote for the guy in any way, don't you think?
-
...explain?
The Luke
I think people who take the time to vote are typically more informed than people who don't vote. Those people probably care about their country more than those who don't vote. They are taking part in the one of the greatest parts of our system. I only wish more people would go vote.
I don't believe that a person is "dumb" simply because they support a different candidate.
-
How many times are you going to misquote Palin?
Give it a rest already. If you hate her views or experience, harp on that.
Not crap you and Matt Damon got off of some left-wing website.
I saw the video... She said it was God's will or some other such religious nutball crap... You deny she said it?
-
On what do you base your conclusion?
I have pointed out with numerous examples why a vote for McCain is an exercise in stupidity.
I base my conclusion that I have a higher opinion of the average voter than you because you have called all McCain voters stupid and I don't share the same viewpoint about voters, including those voting for Obama.
I could give you my opinion (again) about why I will not vote for Obama and why some others will not vote for Obama, but will that matter? You’re still going to think you’re smarter than the average American voter.
-
Who's to say he's not smarter than you? (I'm not saying he IS, but let's be honest... It is quite possible that he is in fact smarter than you or even me, or perhaps 1/2 of America.
I've often found that people get the most defensive about another person when in fact, the other person is simply saying something truthful... The truth hurts a lot more than fiction.
I've often said that America, and society as a whole is dictated by the "average". The exceptional are often seen as blowhards and "know it alls", but the reality is that people see them that way because they are in fact more correct than the "average" person.
Society doesn't like exceptional, they like average... They like the guy that they can have a beer with.
I have no problem with people not voting for Obama... I get it... It's his tax policy that people don't like... Fine... but please just admit it... Admit just once and for all that the thing you don't like is either:
A) The taxes
B) The social programs
or
C) The fact he's black.
The reality is that if you look at it as far as Obama is concerned:
A) Doesn't really affect more than 3 percent of the country.
B) Some people don't want a socialist country, but yet those people don't seem to be bitching when the Government just told you how you're allowed to sell your own property (Banning short term selling of stocks) which is fucking socialism at the most BASIC level.
or
C) You're a bigot.
So I have to ask, which one of those issues do those McCain voters truly have an issue with?
The fact that this guy goes along with 90% of Bush's policies is truly a big reason to not vote for the guy in any way, don't you think?
I wasn't comparing myself to Maher. I don't think he's the sharpest pencil in the box, but he's a stand-up comic. I have his opinions in perspective. I quoted him because he illustrates a mindset I have heard and read before, which is often associated with liberals.
I'm sure there are many people who will not vote for Obama because he is half black. I'm sure there are many people who will not vote for Obama because of his views on the economy, class warfare, socialized healthcare, his alarming lack of experience, his lack of military experience, his poor judgment, his stubbornness, his views on abortion, his views on homosexuality and homosexual marriage, and a number of other issues.
I don't really care how many "policies" Bush and McCain have in common. What I care about is whether McCain is qualified to be president, whether I agree with him on taxes and defense, whether I trust him to lead the armed forces with two ongoing wars, whether I think he has the right mindset, and whether he has the right judgment to be president. I have heard the "90 percent" figure tossed around quite a bit. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I think it's a pretty useless figure.
-
I saw the video... She said it was God's will or some other such religious nutball crap... You deny she said it?
she said they had to make sure it was Gods will...as in make sure we are doing the right thing not ALLAHALLHAHAH lets go cut some heads of some bitches like 240 likes to SPIN...
-
Who's to say he's not smarter than you? (I'm not saying he IS, but let's be honest... It is quite possible that he is in fact smarter than you or even me, or perhaps 1/2 of America.
I've often found that people get the most defensive about another person when in fact, the other person is simply saying something truthful... The truth hurts a lot more than fiction.
I've often said that America, and society as a whole is dictated by the "average". The exceptional are often seen as blowhards and "know it alls", but the reality is that people see them that way because they are in fact more correct than the "average" person.
Society doesn't like exceptional, they like average... They like the guy that they can have a beer with.
I have no problem with people not voting for Obama... I get it... It's his tax policy that people don't like... Fine... but please just admit it... Admit just once and for all that the thing you don't like is either:
A) The taxes
B) The social programs
or
C) The fact he's black.
The reality is that if you look at it as far as Obama is concerned:
A) Doesn't really affect more than 3 percent of the country.
B) Some people don't want a socialist country, but yet those people don't seem to be bitching when the Government just told you how you're allowed to sell your own property (Banning short term selling of stocks) which is fucking socialism at the most BASIC level.
or
C) You're a bigot.
So I have to ask, which one of those issues do those McCain voters truly have an issue with?
The fact that this guy goes along with 90% of Bush's policies is truly a big reason to not vote for the guy in any way, don't you think?
His utopian views, his lack of experience, his gun grabbing ways, his two faced personality, his laughable idea of cutting taxes, the fact that his is one of the most liberal voters...There are so many things to dislike about this guy that i would be suprised if anybody ever got to his race... ::)
-
I saw the video... She said it was God's will or some other such religious nutball crap... You deny she said it?
Palin’s exact quote that Gibson was referring to was as follows:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Now I am not religious at all so maybe you can help me. It sounds more like she is praying for guidance and not really asking for a holy war. Obama has done the same thing and I don't fault him for that.
-
Palin’s exact quote that Gibson was referring to was as follows:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Now I am not religious at all so maybe you can help me. It sounds more like she is praying for guidance and not really asking for a holy war. Obama has done the same thing and I don't fault him for that.
exactly...240 is a jackass in all honesty im sure he knows what he is doing when he spins shit.
-
exactly...240 is a jackass in all honesty im sure he knows what he is doing when he spins shit.
I think he hates women :-\
-
mccain said palin is the most qualified person to be his VP.
Do you believe him? yes or no? Simple answer, please.
-
I wasn't comparing myself to Maher. I don't think he's the sharpest pencil in the box, but he's a stand-up comic. I have his opinions in perspective. I quoted him because he illustrates a mindset I have heard and read before, which is often associated with liberals.
I'm sure there are many people who will not vote for Obama because he is half black. I'm sure there are many people who will not vote for Obama because of his views on the economy, class warfare, socialized healthcare, his alarming lack of experience, his lack of military experience, his poor judgment, his stubbornness, his views on abortion, his views on homosexuality and homosexual marriage, and a number of other issues.
I don't really care how many "policies" Bush and McCain have in common. What I care about is whether McCain is qualified to be president, whether I agree with him on taxes and defense, whether I trust him to lead the armed forces with two ongoing wars, whether I think he has the right mindset, and whether he has the right judgment to be president. I have heard the "90 percent" figure tossed around quite a bit. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I think it's a pretty useless figure.
I'm voting for Obama specifically for his views on taxes, social issues, the hopeful prospect of critical thinking and sound judgement and the direct contrast between him and McBush
It's probably one of the easiest decisions of my life.
To put it in perspective, it's an easier decision that what I'm going to have for dinner tonight
-
mccain said palin is the most qualified person to be his VP.
Do you believe him? yes or no? Simple answer, please.
when compared to who? i need the full quote in context as i know you like to spin shit.
Who do you believe is more qualified to be pres mccain or obama?
-
when compared to who? i need the full quote in context as i know you like to spin shit.
Who do you believe is more qualified to be pres mccain or obama?
IMO - Obama is FAR more qualified to deal with the challenges that we're facing due to the actions of the last 30 years of McCain and his ilk
-
Palin’s exact quote that Gibson was referring to was as follows:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Now I am not religious at all so maybe you can help me. It sounds more like she is praying for guidance and not really asking for a holy war. Obama has done the same thing and I don't fault him for that.
Correct. Obama has made similar comments:
He has talked about being called by God:
"The questions I had did not magically disappear," Obama wrote in his recent book, titled "The Audacity of Hope" after Wright's turn of phrase, of the day four years later when he made a formal commitment of Christian faith. "But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.html
He has talked about doing God's will:
Explaining what it meant to him to be a Christian, the Democratic senator from Illinois talked of "walking humbly with our God": "I know that I don't walk alone, and I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-saddleback-obama-mccainaug17,0,4760268.story
-
when compared to who? i need the full quote in context as i know you like to spin shit.
Who do you believe is more qualified to be pres mccain or obama?
anyone have the quote?
mccain said he selected palin because she was the most qualified person to be VP.
Im' asking if people here agree - is she the most qualified? More than Mitt, pawlenty, Rudy, etc?
or is mccain bullshittin us? (and she was a lesser qualified, but higher ratings pick)
-
Now I am not religious at all so maybe you can help me. It sounds more like she is praying for guidance and not really asking for a holy war. Obama has done the same thing and I don't fault him for that.
She should have kept her religious views to herself. Let the Religious leaders ask for guidance. As politicians none of them should be asking for guidance from God publicly.
She's pandering God. Butter em up even more :-X
-
anyone have the quote?
mccain said he selected palin because she was the most qualified person to be VP.
Im' asking if people here agree - is she the most qualified? More than Mitt, pawlenty, Rudy, etc?
or is mccain bullshittin us? (and she was a lesser qualified, but higher ratings pick)
without a doubt there are more qualified ppl than her to be VP, and WITHOUT A DOUBT there are more qualified ppl than obama to be pres. If you think he wasnt a ratings pick your an ignorant fuk if he was white you would be pro hillary right now.
-
anyone have the quote?
mccain said he selected palin because she was the most qualified person to be VP.
Im' asking if people here agree - is she the most qualified? More than Mitt, pawlenty, Rudy, etc?
or is mccain bullshittin us? (and she was a lesser qualified, but higher ratings pick)
McCain is LYING
Of course he can't exactly be honest and say he chose Palin solely for the purpose of appealing to the Jesus crowd.
That would be putting party before country and that would contradict those "country first" signs you see at his rally.
-
IMO - Obama is FAR more qualified to deal with the challenges that we're facing due to the actions of the last 30 years of McCain and his ilk
I can respect your opinion but let me ask you why you feel that way?
-
without a doubt there are more qualified ppl than her to be VP, and WITHOUT A DOUBT there are more qualified ppl than obama to be pres. If you think he wasnt a ratings pick your an ignorant fuk if he was white you would be pro hillary right now.
how was Obama a ratings pick?
who was doing the picking?
I thought he won the primary.
-
Obama won the nomination because he won more delegates.
Biden was picked because of his experience and very strong foreign relations experience.
I wish someone could find the quote - CBS, I think.
-
how was Obama a ratings pick?
who was doing the picking?
I thought he won the primary.
yes but why did he win? In all honesty you believe he was the most qualified dem to get the nod? Again if this man was a white male politician he wouldnt have even been in the race. I know thats a harsh thing to say but in all reality its probably true. Hilary was much more qualified and much more electable than obama if she had gotten the nod this wouldnt be much of a race and if obama had chose her as VP like his dumb ass should have this would be a landslide.
-
Obama won the nomination because he won more delegates.
Biden was picked because of his experience and very strong foreign relations experience.
I wish someone could find the quote - CBS, I think.
you didnt answer my question you think if he was a white politician he would have won?
-
I can respect your opinion but let me ask you why you feel that way?
simple - I have two basic choices:
McCAin: clueless old man who has sold out everything he's claimed to believe in order to win the nomination. A man who is more of the problem than the solution. A man who has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't even understand the challenges we are facing as a nation, much less how to solve them. A man who will pander to people he once called agents of intolerance. A man who will lie repeatedly and attempt to insult my intelligence on a daily basis (i.e. the fundamentals = the American worker), etc.....
or
Obama: A guy who I think is really smart, basically sincere in his beliefs and in his attempt to express those beliefs to the American People and a person who I am in agreement with on many social, economic and geo-political topics.
-
yes but why did he win? In all honesty you believe he was the most qualified dem to get the nod? Again if this man was a white male politician he wouldnt have even been in the race. I know thats a harsh thing to say but in all reality its probably true. Hilary was much more qualified and much more electable than obama if she had gotten the nod this wouldnt be much of a race and if obama had chose her as VP like his dumb ass should have this would be a landslide.
Since when do the voters choose the "most qualified"?
He is the candidate because he won the most delegates - period.
Theories about his race (i.e. he won BECAUSe he was black) are ridiculous (no offense)
If qualifications were the issue then we would just develop a test and the person with the highest score would win (and it would probably still be Obama)
He is the candidate because the majority of voters decided he appeared to be the best of the group to lead our country.
-
you didnt answer my question you think if he was a white politician he would have won?
that's something that has been debated. I don't know. He and john edwards had remarkably smiliar records, positions, etc.
There were a LOT of people - who admitted on CNN even - that refused to vote obama because he was black. That appalacian strip.
-
simple - I have two basic choices:
McCAin: clueless old man who has sold out everything he's claimed to believe in order to win the nomination. A man who is more of the problem than the solution. A man who has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't even understand the challenges we are facing as a nation, much less how to solve them. A man who will pander to people he once called agents of intolerance. A man who will lie repeatedly and attempt to insult my intelligence on a daily basis (i.e. the fundamentals = the American worker), etc.....
or
Obama: A guy who I think is really smart, basically sincere in his beliefs and in his attempt to express those beliefs to the American People and a person who I am in agreement with on many social, economic and geo-political topics.
LOL wow ok so obama wont pander to the left? obama hasnt insulted americans? obama understands the economy? and threats against national security?
Both these guys smell like shit to me i think its more of who you believe will serve your best intrest imho.
-
Since when to voters choose the "most qualified"?
He is the candidate because he won the most delegates - period.
Theories about his race (i.e. he won BECAUSe he was black) are ridiculous (no offense)
If qualifications were the issue then we would just develop a test and the person with the highest score would win (and it would probably still be Obama)
He is the candidate because the majority of voters decided he appeared to be the best of the group to lead our country.
I can agree on that but you should get your palin hating buddies to slack off then.that's something that has been debated. I don't know. He and john edwards had remarkably smiliar records, positions, etc.
There were a LOT of people - who admitted on CNN even - that refused to vote obama because he was black. That appalacian strip.
LOL well you can dance around the answer all you want you know what it is and im sure the same can be said about ppl and mccain b/c he is white.
-
LOL wow ok so obama wont pander to the left? obama hasnt insulted americans? obama understands the economy? and threats against national security?
Both these guys smell like shit to me i think its more of who you believe will serve your best intrest imho.
to answer your questions:
1. maybe a bit but probably not enough to bother me
2. No
3. Better than my other choice
4. Better than my other choice
-
I bet you over 50% of Americans wouldn't be able to name the Federal Reserve chairman.
Enough said.
yes but why did he win? In all honesty you believe he was the most qualified dem to get the nod? Again if this man was a white male politician he wouldnt have even been in the race. I know thats a harsh thing to say but in all reality its probably true. Hilary was much more qualified and much more electable than obama if she had gotten the nod this wouldnt be much of a race and if obama had chose her as VP like his dumb ass should have this would be a landslide.
He earned the nomination by going through a grueling political battle with Hillary. And how do you know that if he were white he wouldn't have been in the race? LOL He could have been white and campaigned just as brilliantly. He could have still had the same great academic credentials, experience in different fields as he does as a black guy. Of course the fact that he's black weighs as a factor, but so does the being a success story because he was raised in a single family household, and that's a perfectly fair strength to seek in any person, let alone candidate.
-
I can agree on that but you should get your palin hating buddies to slack off then.
what exactly do you suggest I do. BTW - I can't stand Palin either but I try not to pollute the board with most of my real feelings about her
LOL well you can dance around the answer all you want you know what it is and im sure the same can be said about ppl and mccain b/c he is white.
Anyone who votes solely on race is stupid
I couldn't give a rats ass about the race of either candidate
-
LOL wow ok so obama wont pander to the left? obama hasnt insulted americans? obama understands the economy? and threats against national security?
Both these guys smell like shit to me i think its more of who you believe will serve your best intrest imho.
The objective is to choose between the lesser of the two evils.. That's politics for you.
-
what exactly do you suggest I do. BTW - I can't stand Palin either but I try not to pollute the board my most of my thoughts
Anyone who votes solely on race is stupid
I couldn't give a rats ass about the race of either candidate
it was a joke bro calm down...
i agree but you know as well as i do there are ppl out there black and white that do this.
-
well you can dance around the answer all you want you know what it is and im sure the same can be said about ppl and mccain b/c he is white.
I'm not dancing. If he looked like John Edwards, and spoke like Obama... holy shit, he would have destoryed hilary, wouldn't he have?
-
I'm not dancing. If he looked like John Edwards, and spoke like Obama... holy shit, he would have destoryed hilary, wouldn't he have?
probably so i never really like john edwards he always seemed fake to me more so than the normal politician. Hilary was the choice that should have been made the party should have realized this and picked her.
-
it was a joke bro calm down...
i agree but you know as well as i do there are ppl out there black and white that do this.
no worries man. I'm totally calm.
This board is a means of entertainment and distraction
-
The world was whispering it in 2000. They printed it in 2004, and now they're yelling it from the rooftops in 2008
The "world" can whisper, print, and yell all it wants. Americans (NOT Canadians, Brits, Europeans, or anyone else) will decide who the AMERICAN president will be.
As for Maher's bone-headed comments, there ain't no anchor tied to his butt. He can pack his luggage and leave, if he doesn't like our "dumb" country. Hollywood liberals always run off at the mouth about leaving, when their left-winged candidates get beat; only to stay their cynical behinds in our "dumb" country.
Unfortunately, if Obama loses, Maher (and like-minded screwball liberals) ain't going nowhere; they'll just cry like spoiled nap-deprived brats. These Hollywood types, who are allegedly so enlightened, don't seem to get that most Americans DO NOT CARE about their political musings.
Of course, they rarely bring up the question as to why, if they're so much smarter, why they can't produce a candidate that can handily get the job done. The two guys that ran against Bush LOST; and Obama is in a neck-and-neck battle with McCain, despite the issues with Iraq and the economy (two of the very issues that were supposed to spell the end for "W").
-
The "world" can whisper, print, and yell all it wants. Americans (NOT Canadians, Brits, Europeans, or anyone else) will decide who the AMERICAN president will be.
And that's why Maher doesn't trust 'em.
As for Maher's bone-headed comments, there ain't no anchor tied to his butt. He can pack his luggage and leave, if he doesn't like our "dumb" country. Hollywood liberals always run off at the mouth about leaving, when their left-winged candidates get beat; only to stay their cynical behinds in our "dumb" country.
Unfortunately, if Obama loses, Maher (and like-minded screwball liberals) ain't going nowhere; they'll just cry like spoiled nap-deprived brats. These Hollywood types, who are allegedly so enlightened, don't seem to get that most Americans DO NOT CARE about their political musings.
Hollywood types can handle the crap, ...they're rich. It's the morons who'll be paying the price.
Of course, they rarely bring up the question as to why, if they're so much smarter, why they can't produce a candidate that can handily get the job done. The two guys that ran against Bush LOST; and Obama is in a neck-and-neck battle with McCain, despite the issues with Iraq and the economy (two of the very issues that were supposed to spell the end for "W").
It's very simple. Democrats appeal to a constituents intelligence. Republicans appeal to a constituents ignorance.
There are far more ignoramusses than there those with common sense, let alone intelligence. A smart person can't dumb it down no matter how much they try, just as a moron can't suddenly develop critical thinking skills.
-
Ok Jag...mantra's of hope and change over substance. People fainting at campaign rallies like it was church or something. That really appeals to intellect. U really ahve no clue how our government works do u. Liberals have always appealed to the heart strings, getting people to vote with emotion, rather then the brain.
-
Ok Jag...mantra's of hope and change over substance. People fainting at campaign rallies like it was church or something. That really appeals to intellect. U really ahve no clue how our government works do u. Liberals have always appealed to the heart strings, getting people to vote with emotion, rather then the brain.
That's what all campaigns do (commercial advertising too).
Funny how you single it out by attaching it only to liberals. lol
On the change over substance jab..... if the role were reversed that what the conservatives would be doing. "CHANGE" is what people want. whether it be conservative or liberal. CHANGE is a BUZZ word that effective for this campaign. Nothing more.
-
And that's why Maher doesn't trust 'em.
Hollywood types can handle the crap, ...they're rich. It's the morons who'll be paying the price.
It's very simple. Democrats appeal to a constituents intelligence. Republicans appeal to a constituents ignorance.
There are far more ignoramusses than there those with common sense, let alone intelligence. A smart person can't dumb it down no matter how much they try, just as a moron can't suddenly develop critical thinking skills.
One, Maher’s an American, which effectively means that he’s calling himself “f*^@*(@ dumb”.
Two, if he doesn’t want to be an American or live in this country, he can take a hike (and I’m sure there are plenty of Americans that will help him pack).
Three, your response is little more than the immature, spoiled-brat response liberals give, when they back the wrong horse. Given that:
- Until 2006, the Dems had been on a four-election losing streak (in addition to losses in '94 and '96, except for Clinton's second term).
- Only two Democrats have been president in the last 40 years
- Only one of those two president got re-elected; the other got KILLED in his re-election bid.
- Despite the "good old days" of the Clinton administration, Al Gore LOST to our current president, George Bush.
- The economy and Iraq were supposed to be Bush's undoing in 2004; he got re-elected.
- The economy and Iraq are/were supposed to spell a convincing victory for whoever is the Dem nominee (in this case, Obama). To date, Obama is in a tooth-and-nail, knockdown, drag-out fight with McCain.
for you to talk about Democrats and intelligence, is rather silly. It's not about intelligence vs. ignorance. It's about worldview, plain and simple. By now, the Great White North should be FILLED with American liberals, who whine, complain, and threaten to leave, every time they get beat. Some of us wish they would actually walk the walk and get to walkin'.
-
It is blind ignorant racism which will prevent Obama being voted in. Mind you, it is only recently that apartheid was abolished is the USA, they weren't far ahead of South Africa in that respect. I suppose you can't blame your typical American for looking at Blacks as a sub human class of people, I mean even in the 1960's Cassius Clay had to eat in the Black section of the restraunts. The though of a black man being president must be making most mullet wearing stars and stripes wavers choke on their sister's titties.
Blacks could never be racist tho right?
I would love to meet Maher on a dark street.
And why is no one talking about the majority of black people are voting for Obama jus because he is black.
-
Blacks could never be racist tho right?
I would love to meet Maher on a dark street.
And why is no one talking about the majority of black people are voting for Obama jus because he is black.
Probably because that's not what is taking place! NEXT!
-
Jag they've polled, 97% of Blacks are voting for him because he's black.
-
Really? Jesse Jackson didn't get that kind of support, neither did Alan Keyes. How did he get so lucky? ::)
-
So wat your saying whites are dumb and are voting by skin color.
And blacks are not.
Do you get assistance when you breathe, because you are far to dumb to remember to take a breath on your own.
I no alot of black people who no nothing about politics and have never voted. But now they are gonna vote because he is black. And I have no doubt it is like that all around the country. Jus like I am sure there are plenty of white people who no nothing of politics but will vote jus to keep a black man out.
Get ur head out of ur ass.
-
Obama is the only viable Black candidate thats had half a chance...and the only one nominated. I guess u went to the same history classes as Joe Biden. Where "Roosevelt went on TV, after the stock market crash of 1929......" Well it was Hoover and I would bet there weren't any TV's.
-
Probably because that's not what is taking place! NEXT!
Maybe it is; maybe it isn’t. But, considering that 90% of the black vote would have gone to whoever emerged as the Democratic front-runner, it doesn’t make that big of a difference.
The fact that Obama is black may bring more voters to the polls, this time around. As I remember, black voters weren't quite as numerous in 2004 as they were in 2000.
Really? Jesse Jackson didn't get that kind of support, neither did Alan Keyes. How did he get so lucky? ::)
That’s because neither Jackson nor Keyes got to the “finals”. Or did you forget that Obama is the FIRST black man to headline a major party ticket.
-
It is blind ignorant racism which will prevent Obama being voted in. Mind you, it is only recently that apartheid was abolished is the USA, they weren't far ahead of South Africa in that respect. I suppose you can't blame your typical American for looking at Blacks as a sub human class of people, I mean even in the 1960's Cassius Clay had to eat in the Black section of the restraunts. The though of a black man being president must be making most mullet wearing stars and stripes wavers choke on their sister's titties.
Yep....I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Hey Jimmy, dispite what you might think, it's NOT his color that will prevent him from getting elected, it's his views....he's too far left, too liberal and he's a socialist. Doesn't mix well with people who actually don't want to rely on the government to support them.
-
Yes, yes she did.
-
Yep....I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Hey Jimmy, dispite what you might think, it's his color that will prevent him from getting elected, it's his views....he's too far left, too liberal and he's a socialist. Doesn't mix well with people who actually don't want to rely on the government to support them.
What the hell do u consider recently anyway.....
-
Yep....I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Hey Jimmy, dispite what you might think, it's his color that will prevent him from getting elected, it's his views....he's too far left, too liberal and he's a socialist. Doesn't mix well with people who actually don't want to rely on the government to support them.
Thats the problem liberals want the government to support them.
I read a poll that put over 80% people receiving govt assistance would describe themselves as liberal hmmmmmmmm.
-
What the hell do u consider recently anyway.....
Huh?
-
I ment jimmy's post that u quoted.
-
I ment jimmy's post that u quoted.
oh.
-
It is blind ignorant racism which will prevent Obama being voted in. Mind you, it is only recently that apartheid was abolished is the USA, they weren't far ahead of South Africa in that respect. I suppose you can't blame your typical American for looking at Blacks as a sub human class of people, I mean even in the 1960's Cassius Clay had to eat in the Black section of the restraunts. The though of a black man being president must be making most mullet wearing stars and stripes wavers choke on their sister's titties.
Is it age-ism if McCain doesn’t get elected? After all, for all of the “tolerance” professed by our liberal brethren, we’ve heard plenty of potshots from them about McCain being too old, assuming he’s going to keel over and die, the instant he gets sworn into office (if he gets elected).
Then, there’s the sexism routine. Notwithstanding the lumps Hilary Clinton took, the liberals were quite comfortable with the idea of a woman going to the White House, until that woman became Sarah Palin. Now, some of the most sexist attacks are coming from the left, AND FROM WOMEN.
-
His utopian views, his lack of experience, his gun grabbing ways, his two faced personality, his laughable idea of cutting taxes, the fact that his is one of the most liberal voters...There are so many things to dislike about this guy that i would be suprised if anybody ever got to his race... ::)
All of a sudden the idea of Utopia is bad?
When did this happen?
-
Then, there’s the sexism routine. Notwithstanding the lumps Hilary Clinton took, the liberals were quite comfortable with the idea of a woman going to the White House, until that woman became Sarah Palin. Now, some of the most sexist attacks are coming from the left, AND FROM WOMEN.
BINGO!!!
That oughta tell you something about "THAT WOMAN!" >:(
You never heard Liberals or Democrats hurling sexist remarks at Elizabeth Dole did you?
Whether you agreed with Elizabeth Dole or not, you at least had to admit she was a capable woman.
The same cannnot be said for Palin. That woman is a joke, ...an absolute joke and an insult to every woman voter.
If a Palin candidacy is the best that can be produced as a result of all the hard work, strides and gains made by capable, competent, feminists, ...then it's clear McCain is an idiot, ...and believes the American voters to be idiots. How he can freeze $hit in a stick, serve it up to you and have you say "Mmmmm... a fudgicle!" is beyond me! {spit}
-
BINGO!!!
That oughta tell you something about "THAT WOMAN!" >:(
You never heard Liberals or Democrats hurling sexist remarks at Elizabeth Dole did you?
Whether you agreed with Elizabeth Dole or not, you at least had to admit she was a capable woman.
The same cannnot be said for Palin. That woman is a joke, ...an absolute joke and an insult to every woman voter.
If a Palin candidacy is the best that can be produced as a result of all the hard work, strides and gains made by capable, competent, feminists, ...then it's clear McCain is an idiot, ...and believes the American voters to be idiots. How he can freeze $hit in a stick, serve it up to you and have you say "Mmmmm... a fudgicle!" is beyond me! {spit}
It tells me that, as I've said several times, that Palin shatters every image that the left has painted as the ideal late 20th/early 21st century woman. She's a CONSERVATIVE and she's become a smash on the political scene. Feminism, as we've come to know it, isn't about the advancement of women, overall. It's all about liberal, hard-left women. That has NEVER been more evident than now, with Palin in the spotlight.
As for your claim about Palin being "an absolute joke and an insult to every woman voter", that is flat-out FALSE, as shown by the number of conservative women who come to support Palin. And, if those polls (claiming that Obama hasn't closed the deal with the overwhelming majority of female H. Clinton voters) are on the money, then those lovely PUMAs don't think Palin is a joke.
-
It tells me that, as I've said several times, that Palin shatters every image that the left has painted as the ideal late 20th/early 21st century woman. She's a CONSERVATIVE and she's become a smash on the political scene. Feminism, as we've come to know it, isn't about the advancement of women, overall. It's all about liberal, hard-left women. That has NEVER been more evident than now, with Palin in the spotlight.
As for your claim about Palin being "an absolute joke and an insult to every woman voter", that is flat-out FALSE, as shown by the number of conservative women who come to support Palin. And, if those polls (claiming that Obama hasn't closed the deal with the overwhelming majority of female H. Clinton voters) are on the money, then those lovely PUMAs don't think Palin is a joke.
Great post.
-
It tells me that, as I've said several times, that Palin shatters every image that the left has painted as the ideal late 20th/early 21st century woman. She's a CONSERVATIVE and she's become a smash on the political scene. Feminism, as we've come to know it, isn't about the advancement of women, overall. It's all about liberal, hard-left women. That has NEVER been more evident than now, with Palin in the spotlight.
As for your claim about Palin being "an absolute joke and an insult to every woman voter", that is flat-out FALSE, as shown by the number of conservative women who come to support Palin. And, if those polls (claiming that Obama hasn't closed the deal with the overwhelming majority of female H. Clinton voters) are on the money, then those lovely PUMAs don't think Palin is a joke.
The woman who strictly says no to abortion even though the patient has been a victim of rape or incest? Why not let them pay for their own "rape-kit"? After all, rape is ok and it's up to some neocon douche bag whether you are allowed to have an abortion or not. ::)
-
BINGO!!!
You never heard Liberals or Democrats hurling sexist remarks at Elizabeth Dole did you?
Elizabeth Dole was never on a ticket or considered a threat.
-
I trust the average american to be easily distracted.
-
I trust the average american to be easily distracted.
You have no idea what you're talking....hey look, a penny!
-
You have no idea what you're talking....hey look, a penny!
Penny? that's short for Penelope right?
-
Palin breaks the mold of the modern woman b/c she's the stereotype of the bouncy bottom wife that knows her place while repeating the worst rightwing drivel spouted by her male superiors. Deregulation? Great! More personal freedom? Yup! (except for)Anti-abortion? You bet! Duller than butter knife? Always!
She's not new. She's not exciting. She's not provocative.
She's a milf Quayle-monster with less on the ball.
-
Palin breaks the mold of the modern woman b/c she's the stereotype of the bouncy bottom wife that knows her place while repeating the worst rightwing drivel spouted by her male superiors. Deregulation? Great! More personal freedom? Yup! (except for)Anti-abortion? You bet! Duller than butter knife? Always!
She's not new. She's not exciting. She's not provocative.
She's a milf Quayle-monster with less on the ball.
Actually Palin as a VP choice shows just how stupid the American public really is.
Take Obama and Biden out fo the equation and she's a grossly unqualifed candidate. She's on the ticket for one reason and one reason only.....to help get John McCain get elected.
People, who have any real sense (obviously, not the majority of Americans) should see McCain's choice for VP for what it is: Another whorish attempt at pandering.
The erection for Pailn will soon be over.
-
You mean the same half-wit that called American soldiers cowards is calling other Americans dumb? LOL!!!
I know, I know. He apologized and tried to play it off as a criticism of U.S. military policy and not American soldiers. If you belive that, then I guess you can believe anything he says.
-
You didn't have to be a genius to see that Ronald Reagan was an empty suit...
You didn't have to be a Mensa member to see that George Dubya wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer...
You kinda did have to be pretty dim to vote for Curious George a SECOND time...
Now that America is slipping from First World status to Second or possibly even Third World status (thanks in most part to Bush's policies) you'd have to be RETARDED to vote for an out-of-touch sickly geriatric with a running mate DUMBER THAN GEORGE W BUSH!
Palin makes Dan Quayle seem like an intellectual... seriously, it took her six years and six colleges to earn a BA in journalism!?! Supporting Palin is tantamount to having a toddler repair a Lamborghini with his plastic tool kit... she just isn't capable.
Coach; McWay and the other fundies, having twice voted for the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY you have NO CREDIBILITY!
The Luke
-
Yep....I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Hey Jimmy, dispite what you might think, it's NOT his color that will prevent him from getting elected, it's his views....he's too far left, too liberal and he's a socialist. Doesn't mix well with people who actually don't want to rely on the government to support them.
Where is he too far left? Id like Examples... Seems to be hes got the views America wants and FOX news seems to distort his views, so please give some FACTS.... Il be waiting...
-
You didn't have to be a genius to see that Ronald Reagan was an empty suit...
You didn't have to be a Mensa member to see that George Dubya wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer...
You kinda did have to be pretty dim to vote for Curious George a SECOND time...
Now that America is slipping from First World status to Second or possibly even Third World status (thanks in most part to Bush's policies) you'd have to be RETARDED to vote for an out-of-touch sickly geriatric with a running mate DUMBER THAN GEORGE W BUSH!
Palin makes Dan Quayle seem like an intellectual... seriously, it took her six years and six colleges to earn a BA in journalism!?! Supporting Palin is tantamount to having a toddler repair a Lamborghini with his plastic tool kit... she just isn't capable.
Coach; McWay and the other fundies, having twice voted for the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY you have NO CREDIBILITY!
The Luke
Ron Paul for President.
-
You didn't have to be a genius to see that Ronald Reagan was an empty suit...
An "empty suit" that BEAT THE CRAP out of incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale. I believe they call it a "landslide".
You didn't have to be a Mensa member to see that George Dubya wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer...
You kinda did have to be pretty dim to vote for Curious George a SECOND time...
Or you'd have to be pretty "dim" to vote the guys that "W" defeated to become president. Gore supposedly inherited all the wonderful prosperity from the late 90s. Yet, he didn't get the job done. What should have been a easy win for Gore ended up being a close but painful LOSS.
Now that America is slipping from First World status to Second or possibly even Third World status (thanks in most part to Bush's policies) you'd have to be RETARDED to vote for an out-of-touch sickly geriatric with a running mate DUMBER THAN GEORGE W BUSH!
Palin makes Dan Quayle seem like an intellectual... seriously, it took her six years and six colleges to earn a BA in journalism!?! Supporting Palin is tantamount to having a toddler repair a Lamborghini with his plastic tool kit... she just isn't capable.
Another goofball statement that's as wrong as two left shoes. For starters, Palin and her siblings were in college at the same time. Since, her folks couldn't afford to pay for them all, as the same time, she had to leave school. That's one of the reasons she started entering beauty paegants. It was to get the scholarship money to pay for school.
Regardless, she got her degree and ended up being a two-term mayor of her hometown as well as the governor of her state.
Coach; McWay and the other fundies, having twice voted for the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY you have NO CREDIBILITY!
The Luke
Once again, you show your tendency for blubbering and making excuses for why all these brilliant liberals keep getting their behinds kicked in elections. What it's going to be this time, if Obama doesn't get the job done?
As I said before, Iraq, the economy, and supposedly being "robbed" in 2000 were the rallying cries that were supposed to get "W" the axe in 2004. Guess what!!! it didn't happen. And, if you want to talk about the "worst president in American History", start with the former peanut farmer whom Reagan took to the woodshed in 1980.
Mor
-
Ron Paul for President.
I'd vote for Ron Paul....
...BUT....
...his small government ideals and free-market economics won't work for much longer.
Reducing government to the extent that corporations could possibly overpower it is simply foolish, add to this the growing menace of desk-top technologies such as genetically-tuned viral weapons; cold fusion; and especially supra-human AI... and you have a recipe for disaster.
Over the next century, maintaining the cohesion of civilization will become more and more difficult... requiring bigger and bigger government.
The Luke
-
Actually Palin as a VP choice shows just how stupid the American public really is.
With all do respect, OzmO...this is the epitome of elitist statements. We keep hearing that over and over again.
The "Americans are so stupid" moniker is why the left (generally speaking) has only 2 Democratic presidents for quite some time. The sooner this ideology goes out the door, the more likely it would be the folks might be more inclined to listen to some of the reasoning. it's like saying "You're too dumb to understand what I'm telling you, but this is what's best for you"
Doesn't come off too well, does it?
-
I'd vote for Ron Paul....
...BUT....
...his small government ideals and free-market economics won't work for much longer.
Reducing government to the extent that corporations could possibly overpower it is simply foolish, add to this the growing menace of desk-top technologies such as genetically-tuned viral weapons; cold fusion; and especially supra-human AI... and you have a recipe for disaster.
Over the next century, maintaining the cohesion of civilization will become more and more difficult... requiring bigger and bigger government.
The Luke
This may be true but at least Ron Paul talks about tangible issues, namely monetary policy (a disaster) and foreign policy (a disaster); I as an American would like to see a change in these two areas most and the two candidates offer nothing of the sort; both of them will continue to pour money into Georgia to protect 'our pipeline' and provoke Russia, maintain over 800 military bases overseas and both are in bed with special interest groups. Neither candidate talks about changing monetary policy or wants to have oversight done of decisions made by the Federal Reserve. For all these reasons and others I don't care who wins. If I cannot find future employment on Continental Europe (with my dual citizenship) I will head back out to Asia, plenty of jobs and saving opportunities there. The USA is doomed.
-
yeah..just stay over there.
-
yeah..just stay over there.
That's the plan Mr. Oil Pipeline.
-
An "empty suit" that BEAT THE CRAP out of incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale. I believe they call it a "landslide".
...winning doesn't make any of these Republican heroes any smarter; nor does it make them successes in the eyes of history.
George Dubya only won due to the moron vote. If you are proud to be part of this voting block then that is your prerogative. However, it is only morons who think of him as anything other then THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
A common misconception is still wrong... a majority religion is still a delusion... and a popular moron is still a moron.
The Luke
-
With all do respect, OzmO...this is the epitome of elitist statements. We keep hearing that over and over again.
The "Americans are so stupid" moniker is why the left (generally speaking) has only 2 Democratic presidents for quite some time. The sooner this ideology goes out the door, the more likely it would be the folks might be more inclined to listen to some of the reasoning. it's like saying "You're too dumb to understand what I'm telling you, but this is what's best for you"
Doesn't come off too well, does it?
As always, I respect your POV C-500. "BUT" Com on, she's a crappy candidate, let's face it. How can you anyone say she's a good VP candidate other then for winning this election?
Maybe the "Americans are so stupid" is over used. But it goes both ways to both parties. I believe the democratic party is intellectually bankrupt, that's for sure. But, isn't this is the same voter base who put reality shows on a pedestal. How much of this election is being debated on the issues? 90% of what i see on this board are wedge issues and ideology debates.
-
You mean the same half-wit that called American soldiers cowards is calling other Americans dumb? LOL!!!
I know, I know. He apologized and tried to play it off as a criticism of U.S. military policy and not American soldiers. If you belive that, then I guess you can believe anything he says.
True. I forgot about that. This is the same guy who called the 911 terrorists courageous.
He's also the same person who made fun of a Down's Syndrome baby.
-
...winning doesn't make any of these Republican heroes any smarter; nor does it make them successes in the eyes of history.
George Dubya only won due to the moron vote. If you are proud to be part of this voting block then that is your prerogative. However, it is only morons who think of him as anything other then THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
A common misconception is still wrong... a majority religion is still a delusion... and a popular moron is still a moron.
The Luke
I was thinking about restarting the cult of Zeus; you with me?
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/Zeus-1.jpg)
-
...winning doesn't make any of these Republican heroes any smarter; nor does it make them successes in the eyes of history.
And who are these "eyes of history", other than the far-left historians, who like you, bleat and complain when they continually back the wrong horse?
George Dubya only won due to the moron vote. If you are proud to be part of this voting block then that is your prerogative. However, it is only morons who think of him as anything other then THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
A common misconception is still wrong... a majority religion is still a delusion... and a popular moron is still a moron.
The Luke
There's no misconception involved. The simple fact is that you and other liberals of your ilk cry like toddlers, every time you lose, making excuse after excuse for not getting it done. "Worst presidents....." don't get re-elected. So, now, unable to explain why the left couldn't find a candidate to defeat Bush, you revert to the tired "we're smart; you're stupid" routine.
The more you belittle Bush, the more pathetic it makes you liberals look, because TWICE that "moron" sent your candidate home in defeat. Gore didn't get the job done; Kerry didn't get the job done. And as for Obama, the consensus was that a Obama-Clinton/Clinton-Obama ticket would be unstoppable. He picked Biden, instead. Now, with Palin on McCain's ticket, we have a nip-and-tuck race.
But, it's nice to see you have the excuses and pitiful schoolgirl whining all cued up, should Obama follow in the footsteps of Kerry and Gore.
-
McWay,
If you think Bush is a good president then you are simply proving Bill Maher's assertion that Americans are "...just too fucking dumb".
Get real dude... there was a balanced budget under Clinton, Bush has pushed the national debt to $10 trillion! (he's doubled it)
This is why religious people shouldn't be considered for any official office... they are intrinsically divorced from reality. They actually seem to be think that simply because they CONVINCE themselves of miracles and other such moronic superstitions that their BELIEF can somehow alter reality.
The Luke
-
McWay,
If you think Bush is a good president then you are simply proving Bill Maher's assertion that Americans are "...just too fucking dumb".
Get real dude... there was a balanced budget under Clinton, Bush has pushed the national debt to $10 trillion! (he's doubled it)
This is why religious people shouldn't be considered for any official office... they are intrinsically divorced from reality. They actually seem to be think that simply because they CONVINCE themselves of miracles and other such moronic superstitions that their BELIEF can somehow alter reality.
The Luke
Amen !
NT
-
McWay,
If you think Bush is a good president then you are simply proving Bill Maher's assertion that Americans are "...just too fucking dumb".
Get real dude... there was a balanced budget under Clinton, Bush has pushed the national debt to $10 trillion! (he's doubled it)
This is why religious people shouldn't be considered for any official office... they are intrinsically divorced from reality. They actually seem to be think that simply because they CONVINCE themselves of miracles and other such moronic superstitions that their BELIEF can somehow alter reality.
The Luke
Does that mean you are not in on my Zeus cult revival?
-
Amen !
NT
x2 ;D
-
Amen !
NT
...there's a prime example right there!
Christians run around saying "Amen" (not you NT) because that's how Jesus finished the Our Father. Truth is the Our Father is actually an ancient Egyptian prayer lifted straight from the Egyptian "Book of the Dead".
"Our father, Amon, who art in heaven" etc, etc... the refrain is "Amon let it be so" which then became "Amen". Again, chronic Christian ignorance.
Guess this does tie-in with Deicide's cult revival as Zeus and Amon were later amalgamated into Zeus-Amon in a Romanised Egypt.
The Luke
-
McWay,
If you think Bush is a good president then you are simply proving Bill Maher's assertion that Americans are "...just too fucking dumb".
Get real dude... there was a balanced budget under Clinton, Bush has pushed the national debt to $10 trillion! (he's doubled it)
This is why religious people shouldn't be considered for any official office... they are intrinsically divorced from reality. They actually seem to be think that simply because they CONVINCE themselves of miracles and other such moronic superstitions that their BELIEF can somehow alter reality.
The Luke
Obama is ALSO a religious person, or did you forget that part in all your blubbering. He professed to be a man of faith. So, genius, why are you talking about Obama being president of the United States?
As for Clinton, again why didn't Gore carry on the torch supposedly pass to him by Clinton? He was the VP, during all the "wonder years" of the 90s. Yet, he LOST.
With regards to Bush, my statement was that he was good enough to get re-elected, and all the liberal genius (with all of their so-called enlightenment) couldn't produc a candidate that could beat him.
And, to top it all off, genius, Ron Paul, THE VERY GUY YOU SAID YOU'D GIVE YOUR VOTE, is also a religious person.
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator. - Ron Paul, "The Covenant News", July 2007
...there's a prime example right there!
Christians run around saying "Amen" (not you NT) because that's how Jesus finished the Our Father. Truth is the Our Father is actually an ancient Egyptian prayer lifted straight from the Egyptian "Book of the Dead".
"Our father, Amon, who art in heaven" etc, etc... the refrain is "Amon let it be so" which then became "Amen". Again, chronic Christian ignorance.
The Luke
That, like so many of your other posturing, is patently FALSE. But, this ain't the time or place to dismantle that foolishness.
-
As for Clinton, again why didn't Gore carry on the torch supposedly pass to him by Clinton? He was the VP, during all the "wonder years" of the 90s. Yet, he LOST.
...75% of Americans believe in the literal reality of angels.
Isn't seventy-five-percent a majority?
Does being part of group that is obviously wrong and deluded make you right and insightful if that group is in the majority?
The Luke
-
Obama is ALSO a religious person, or did you forget that part in all your blubbering. He professed to be a man of faith. So, genius, why are you talking about Obama being president of the United States?
As for Clinton, again why didn't Gore carry on the torch supposedly pass to him by Clinton? He was the VP, during all the "wonder years" of the 90s. Yet, he LOST.
With regards to Bush, my statement was that he was good enough to get re-elected, and all the liberal genius (with all of their so-called enlightenment) couldn't produc a candidate that could beat him.
And, to top it all off, genius, Ron Paul, THE VERY GUY YOU SAID YOU'D GIVE YOUR VOTE, is also a religious person.
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator. - Ron Paul, "The Covenant News", July 2007
That, like so many of your other posturing, is patently FALSE. But, this ain't the time or place to dismantle that foolishness.
Yeah, one thing I don't like about Ron Paul is his silly Christianity, but at least he doesn't hit you over the head with it.
-
...75% of Americans believe in the literal reality of angels.
Isn't seventy-five-percent a majority?
Does being part of group that is obviously wrong and deluded make you right and insightful if that group is in the majority?
The Luke
Why don't you ask the guy that YOU SAID you'd give your vote, Ron Paul?
Once again, you have Joe Biden disease, munching on your own metatarsals, when your silly claims get sliced. This is almost as ridiculous as your pitiful attempt to paint Obama as an atheist, when you got tripped up last time.
But, it's gets better. Here's more from a guy, by your screwball standards, is "divorced from reality", but you'd vote for him, anyway, PER YOUR OWN WORDS!
Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment ... routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression."
And, a little more info on Paul:
He was raised Lutheran but is currently a Baptist. BTW, did I hear him say something about a "Creator"....UHH OHHHH!!!!!! ;D
-
Just for the record... McWay didn't read my post correctly, if I could vote in the American elections I'd vote for Barack Obama (my fellow atheist).
I'd prefer to vote for Ralph Nader, but he isn't a viable candidate in the US because the mean IQ has drifted so far from the average.
The Luke
-
Just for the record... McWay didn't read my post correctly, if I could vote in the American elections I'd vote for Barack Obama (my fellow atheist).
I'd prefer to vote for Ralph Nader, but he isn't a viable candidate in the US because the mean IQ has drifted so far from the average.
The Luke
Nader is solid on a lot of issues, including 3 of the most pressing ones: foreign policy, monetary policy, civil liberties...
-
Yeah, one thing I don't like about Ron Paul is his silly Christianity, but at least he doesn't hit you over the head with it.
Perhaps not, although the following statement of his might leave a lump or two:
Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment ... routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression."
But, our resident boy genius, Luke, claims that Christians are "divorced from reality" and that they're "morons". Yet, he just added some Grey Poupon to those toes of his by stating that HE WOULD VOTE for Paul, a Christian and, per that previous statements, a potential CREATIONIST.
Sacred bleu!!!
-
Why don't you ask the guy that YOU SAID you'd give your vote, Ron Paul?
Once again, you have Joe Biden disease, munching on your own metatarsals, when your silly claims get sliced. This is almost as ridiculous as your pitiful attempt to paint Obama as an atheist, when you got tripped up last time.
But, it's gets better. Here's more from a guy, by your screwball standards, is "divorced from reality", but you'd vote for him, anyway, PER YOUR OWN WORDS!
Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment ... routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression."
And, a little more info on Paul:
He was raised Lutheran but is currently a Baptist. BTW, did I hear him say something about a "Creator"....UHH OHHHH!!!!!! ;D
Yes, Paul doesn't know anything about Evolution; that is true.
-
But, our resident boy genius, Luke, claims that Christians are "divorced from reality" and that they're "morons". Yet, he just added some Grey Poupon to those toes of his by stating that HE WOULD VOTE for Paul, a Christian and, per that previous statements, a potential CREATIONIST.
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired:
I'd vote for Ron Paul....
...BUT....
...his small government ideals and free-market economics won't work for much longer.
...do you misquote scripture with that mouth?
The Luke
-
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired:
Oh really? Where in that statement do you call him a "moron" or claim that he's divorced from reality, because he's a Christian?
...do you misquote scripture with that mouth?
The Luke
Look who's talking. You called Obama an atheist, which he is NOT. Then you jump to another candidate, Paul, and it appears that you DID NOT know he was a Christian.
Now, you're hopping to Nader. It sounds to me as if you're foolishly clinging to any non-Republican candidate WITHOUT checking their bios out, regarding their faith. And, last time I checked, you didn't make any distinction between Republicans and Democrats/Independents, with regards to their religious beliefs making them "morons".
-
Oh really? Where in that statement do you call him a "moron" or claim that he's divorced from reality, because he's a Christian?
Look who's talking. You called Obama an atheist, which he is NOT. Then you jump to another candidate, Paul, and it appears that you DID NOT know he was a Christian.
Now, you're hopping to Nader. It sounds to me as if you're foolishly clinging to any non-Republican candidate WITHOUT checking their bios out, regarding their faith. And, last time I checked, you didn't make any distinction between Republicans and Democrats/Independents, with regards to their religious beliefs making them "morons".
The fact is, you can't get elected in that country if you don't profess some bullshit Christian nonsense; everyone knows that. How legitimate these claims are, is an entirely different question.
-
It's a question of IQ McWay...
If Prof Stephen Hawking or Prof Roger Penrose professed a sincere belief in the existence of Santa Claus in front of a crowd of kindergarten children... I would assume they were pandering (somewhat innocently) as no adult sincerely believes in Santa Claus. Certainly not super-high IQ theoretical physicists.
When Barack Obama professes a sincere belief in Jesus Christ, I take into consideration his intellect and academic achievements... and I assume he is attempting to appease morons such as yourself. Obama never attended a church at any point in his life, till he decided to run for office... then he joined a politically connected church... I view such pretense as a necessary political evil.
When George Dubya professes a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration his chronic lack of intellect and paucity of academic achievements... and I assume he is a moron.
When Sarah Palin professes a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration her chronic lack of intellect and paucity of academic achievements... and I assume she is a moron.
When you, McWay, profess a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration your infantile, non-sequitur, evasive, obfuscating, dismissive, regurgitating, facetious, misquoting, uncomprehending posts on this forum and I am once again convinced that you too are a moron.
For once and for all... when someone with an IQ above 120 professes a sincere belief in any form of religion (or irrational thought) then it is a form of manipulation, whether sinister or noble. They don't make such protestations in private.
To quote Earnest Hemingway: "All thinking me are atheists".
Religion is the bulwark that protects the simple from the horrors of thought.
The Luke
-
It's a question of IQ McWay...
If Prof Stephen Hawking or Prof Roger Penrose professed a sincere belief in the existence of Santa Claus in front of a crowd of kindergarten children... I would assume they were pandering (somewhat innocently) as no adult sincerely believes in Santa Claus. Certainly not super-high IQ theoretical physicists.
When Barack Obama professes a sincere belief in Jesus Christ, I take into consideration his intellect and academic achievements... and I assume he is attempting to appease morons such as yourself. Obama never attended a church at any point in his life, till he decided to run for office... then he joined a politically connected church... I view such pretense as a necessary political evil.
When George Dubya professes a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration his chronic lack of intellect and paucity of academic achievements... and I assume he is a moron.
When Sarah Palin professes a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration her chronic lack of intellect and paucity of academic achievements... and I assume she is a moron.
When you, McWay, profess a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration your infantile, non-sequitur, evasive, obfuscating, dismissive, regurgitating, facetious, misquoting, uncomprehending posts on this forum and I am once again convinced that you too are a moron.
For once and for all... when someone with an IQ above 120 professes a sincere belief in any form of religion (or irrational thought) then it is a form of manipulation, whether sinister or noble. They don't make such protestations in private.
To quote Earnest Hemingway: "All thinking men are atheists".
Religion is the bulwark that protects the simple from the horrors of thought.
The Luke
Penrose is mindbogglingly brilliant; some of his ideas about the nature of human consciousness are as fascinating as they are difficult to understand.
-
Penrose is mindbogglingly brilliant; some of his ideas about the nature of human consciousness are as fascinating as they are difficult to understand.
I'm reading his "Road to Reality" masterpiece at the moment... it's pretty heavy going but that's to be expected when you attempt to explain the full extent of human understanding of reality through a mathematical framework. I have a degree in experimental physics though... wouldn't recommend it to a layman.
The Luke
-
As always, I respect your POV C-500. "BUT" Com on, she's a crappy candidate, let's face it. How can you anyone say she's a good VP candidate other then for winning this election?
Maybe the "Americans are so stupid" is over used. But it goes both ways to both parties. I believe the democratic party is intellectually bankrupt, that's for sure. But, isn't this is the same voter base who put reality shows on a pedestal. How much of this election is being debated on the issues? 90% of what i see on this board are wedge issues and ideology debates.
True.
I heard the "stupid" moniker here at work too. Now, I must grant you the notion that the average person doesn't go and find the information that is out there to help them form an opinion of the issues. But rather than say that people are stupid, I would prefer to call this laziness. Look at some of the longer articles that have been posted and the replies that say, "You expect me to read this?"
-
True.
I heard the "stupid" moniker here at work too. Now, I must grant you the notion that the average person doesn't go and find the information that is out there to help them form an opinion of the issues. But rather than say that people are stupid, I would prefer to call this laziness. Look at some of the longer articles that have been posted and the replies that say, "You expect me to read this?"
We are slowly becoming an ADD nation. ;D
But yes, i agree somewhat with your point about laziness as i'm guilty as anyone.
-
We are slowly becoming an ADD nation. ;D
That's just wrong! ;D
-
The fact is, you can't get elected in that country if you don't profess some bullshit Christian nonsense; everyone knows that. How legitimate these claims are, is an entirely different question.
But, it appears that the only time Luke questions the legitimacy of a candidate's Christian faith is if that candidate is a Republican. He isn't doubting the faith of Bush, McCain, or Palin. Yet, he's calling Obama an atheist, even though Obama has stated multiple times that he's a Christian.
And, with regards to Ron Paul, Luke states that he would vote for him, but for one issue. That issue was NOT Paul's Christian faith (or even the fact that he's a Republican). Yet, Luke insists that Christians should not be considered from office and are morons. And, we've all seen his long-winded diatribes about Republicans.
It's a question of IQ McWay...
If Prof Stephen Hawking or Prof Roger Penrose professed a sincere belief in the existence of Santa Claus in front of a crowd of kindergarten children... I would assume they were pandering (somewhat innocently) as no adult sincerely believes in Santa Claus. Certainly not super-high IQ theoretical physicists.
When Barack Obama professes a sincere belief in Jesus Christ, I take into consideration his intellect and academic achievements... and I assume he is attempting to appease morons such as yourself. Obama never attended a church at any point in his life, till he decided to run for office... then he joined a politically connected church... I view such pretense as a necessary political evil.
I view your pretense as a pathetic way to wiggle out of your self-imposed predicament.
Obama’s in his forties; he was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years. Do the math, genius. Even if Obama were an atheist in his younger years (a claim which you can’t back), it certaintly wouldn’t be the first time an atheist became a Christian (and it sure won’t be the last time).
When George Dubya professes a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration his chronic lack of intellect and paucity of academic achievements... and I assume he is a moron.
When Sarah Palin professes a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration her chronic lack of intellect and paucity of academic achievements... and I assume she is a moron.
When you, McWay, profess a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration your infantile, non-sequitur, evasive, obfuscating, dismissive, regurgitating, facetious, misquoting, uncomprehending posts on this forum and I am once again convinced that you too are a moron.
Tough words for a cowardly, self-destructing, strain-at-a-gnat-swallow-a-camel, can't-get-his-facts-straight, cry-like-a-baby-when-he-can't-get-the-job-done blowhard like you.
For once and for all... when someone with an IQ above 120 professes a sincere belief in any form of religion (or irrational thought) then it is a form of manipulation, whether sinister or noble. They don't make such protestations in private.
To quote Earnest Hemingway: "All thinking me are atheists".
Religion is the bulwark that protects the simple from the horrors of thought.
The Luke
To quote King David, "The fool hath said in his heart 'There is no God'" ;D
All of your alleged superior intellect, yet you've had to do more twisting than Chubby Checker in his prime to mask the fact that you've pledged your would-be support to two men, who are professed Christians. Obama is NOT an atheist, and all of the squawking and bleating from your posts don't change that.
As for you supremely cracked notion that people with high intellects can't be Christians, that fallacy is so easy to take apart that it's almost criminal. As a matter of fact, the last time you mentioned this mess, I pointed out that a certain deceased minister made the list of the 2000 Most Oustanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century.
Of course, there's a certain scientist whose discovery made dairy products safe to eat. Add to that list, the CEO of Babytooth Technologies, who heads a company, dedicated to stem-cell research, that does not involve the use of embryos but gleans such from (take a wild guess). But, again, this is just too easy a feat.
Back to your taste in candidates, try as you might, you just can untangle yourself. By your own (extremely bone-headed) standards, Christians are morons, which means either you would support a "moron" for president, doing the very thing you've accuse me and others of doing. Or, you pitifully have to make bogus claims with paper-shred-thin substance to back them (i.e. claiming that Obama is an atheist) to cover your exposed hind-quarters.
Whatever the case may be, you are making yourself look utterly silly.
-
McWay,
I think you are (mis)reading into my posts statements that aren't being made... you're still in school right?
Give the Christian thing a couple of years, you'll become disillusioned as you mature... most do.
It's very obvious that you haven't read much of the Bible and don't understand the metaphors/symbology used.
The Luke
PS- one minister out of a list of 2000 intellectuals kinda makes MY point, not yours.
-
It tells me that, as I've said several times, that Palin shatters every image that the left has painted as the ideal late 20th/early 21st century woman. She's a CONSERVATIVE and she's become a smash on the political scene. Feminism, as we've come to know it, isn't about the advancement of women, overall. It's all about liberal, hard-left women. That has NEVER been more evident than now, with Palin in the spotlight.
As for your claim about Palin being "an absolute joke and an insult to every woman voter", that is flat-out FALSE, as shown by the number of conservative women who come to support Palin. And, if those polls (claiming that Obama hasn't closed the deal with the overwhelming majority of female H. Clinton voters) are on the money, then those lovely PUMAs don't think Palin is a joke.
It's not the fact that she's a conservative that bothers me. There are plenty of conservatives.
It's the fact that she hasn't got a clue! She's a corrupt, hypocritical, megalomaniacal God-bot without a clue.
-
It's not the fact that she's a conservative that bothers me. There are plenty of conservatives.
It's the fact that she hasn't got a clue! She's a corrupt, hypocritical, megalomaniacal God-bot without a clue.
that sums it up :D
-
Elizabeth Dole was never on a ticket or considered a threat.
Elizabeth Dole was never considered a threat, ...not because she was never on a ticket,
because even if you disagreed with her way of doing things, you at least knew she was competent.
Palin is not considered a threat to an Obama presidency, ...she's far worse.
She is a threat to the safety & security of not only America, ...but the whole frikkin planet!
That is the real threat Palin represents.
The rest of the world was astonished and amazed (not in a good way) when that buffoon was ushered in.
And look at the giant fakkacta mess that has transpired since. You won't want to be around for a Palin presidency. I can assure you of that. If you think things are bad now... you ain't seen nothing yet. If the McCain/Palin ticket wins, ...watch and see how the rest of the world reacts.
-
You have no idea what you're talking....hey look, a penny!
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
Thanks for the laugh!
-
It's a question of IQ McWay...
If Prof Stephen Hawking or Prof Roger Penrose professed a sincere belief in the existence of Santa Claus in front of a crowd of kindergarten children... I would assume they were pandering (somewhat innocently) as no adult sincerely believes in Santa Claus. Certainly not super-high IQ theoretical physicists.
When Barack Obama professes a sincere belief in Jesus Christ, I take into consideration his intellect and academic achievements... and I assume he is attempting to appease morons such as yourself. Obama never attended a church at any point in his life, till he decided to run for office... then he joined a politically connected church... I view such pretense as a necessary political evil.
When George Dubya professes a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration his chronic lack of intellect and paucity of academic achievements... and I assume he is a moron.
When Sarah Palin professes a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration her chronic lack of intellect and paucity of academic achievements... and I assume she is a moron.
When you, McWay, profess a sincere belief in Jeebus, I take into consideration your infantile, non-sequitur, evasive, obfuscating, dismissive, regurgitating, facetious, misquoting, uncomprehending posts on this forum and I am once again convinced that you too are a moron.
For once and for all... when someone with an IQ above 120 professes a sincere belief in any form of religion (or irrational thought) then it is a form of manipulation, whether sinister or noble. They don't make such protestations in private.
To quote Earnest Hemingway: "All thinking me are atheists".
Religion is the bulwark that protects the simple from the horrors of thought.
The Luke
If you're refering to "organized relion" (religious dogma) I have to agree with you, ...however, I wonder do you draw a distinction between organized religion and spirituality?
-
If you're refering to "organized relion" (religious dogma) I have to agree with you, ...however, I wonder do you draw a distinction between organized religion and spirituality?
...spirituality is a well understood neurological process.
Why couldn't the non-religious enjoy it? Intellectuals/atheists get goosebumps too... what's your point?
The Luke
-
McWay,
I think you are (mis)reading into my posts statements that aren't being made... you're still in school right?
Give the Christian thing a couple of years, you'll become disillusioned as you mature... most do.
Nice try with the whole condescending bit. But, I graduated from college over a decade ago and am probably older than you.
The simple fact is that you've gone on record as saying that you would support either Obama or Paul, both of whom are, by their own words, CHRISTIANS. Yet, you keep flapping your gums about how Christians are morons. To that end, while wiping copious amounts of egg off your face, you feebly try to claim that Obama is an atheist. He is NOT, end of story.
You stated on this thread that you would vote for Paul, except for one issue. That issue you mentioned, boy genius, was NOT Paul's Christian beliefs, which by your screwy standards, makes him a "moron" and puts YOU in the same boat that you've placed those who voted for President Bush or who will vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.
It's very obvious that you haven't read much of the Bible and don't understand the metaphors/symbology used.
The Luke
I've read more than enough to dismiss most of the foolishness you tend to post here. As a matter of fact, in one particular discussion, I picked apart a number of your claim, piece by piece, using specific references in the Bible about which you had virtually NO CLUE.
If you want to take that trip down memory lane again, that's fine with me. But, move it to the Religious Forum.
PS- one minister out of a list of 2000 intellectuals kinda makes MY point, not yours.
Not really. They don't have to be ministers. It ain't as if the other 1999 folks on there are atheists.
-
McWay,
You are a prime example of what Bill Maher is referring to... no one else who read any of our threads on the Religious Debates Board thought you were proving anything other than the depth of your own self-delusion.
No rational person could read the first page of the Bible without being befuddled by the contradictions... For example, Genesis has two creation stories back to back: one ending with the creation of man, one beginning with it.
But it's what Christians themselves don't know that is really frightening...
Could you answer any of these questions McWay? (Googling would be cheating in this instance)
-to whom is God speaking during the creation process?
-what is the name of Adam's FIRST wife?
-why are there two trees in the Garden of Eden?
-what do the trees represent?
-what is the name of the serpent?
-what does the serpent represent?
-what is the Land of Nod?
...do you understand any of the metaphor here, or are you a blind literalist?
The Luke
-
McWay,
You are a prime example of what Bill Maher is referring to... no one else who read any of our threads on the Religious Debates Board thought you were proving anything other than the depth of your own self-delusion.
No rational person could read the first page of the Bible without being befuddled by the contradictions... For example, Genesis has two creation stories back to back: one ending with the creation of man, one beginning with it.
But it's what Christians themselves don't know that is really frightening...
Could you answer any of these questions McWay? (Googling would be cheating in this instance)
-to whom is God speaking during the creation process?
-what is the name of Adam's FIRST wife?
-why are there two trees in the Garden of Eden?
-what do the trees represent?
-what is the name of the serpent?
-what does the serpent represent?
-what is the Land of Nod?
...do you understand any of the metaphor here, or are you a blind literalist?
The Luke
This has nothing to do the questions you posted here. This is about your inability to backtrack and cover your behind. You claimed that Christians were "morons" and that religious people (Christians, in particular) shouldn't be considered for public office, because they were "divorced from reality".
Yet, you have been quoted as stating that you WOULD support two candidates, Barack Obama and Ron Paul, both of whom are professed Christians.
You repeatedly claimed that Obama is an atheist, which he is NOT. And the reason you gave for not supporting Paul was due to an issue regarding his economic policies, NOT his Christian faith (or the fact that he's a Republican).
By your own silly words (and even sillier standards), Obama and Paul are "morons". And, you would support either one of them; hence, you are every bit the "moron" that you claim that those who support Bush or McCain are.
-
Didn't think you could answer any of those questions...
Thanks for proving my point.
Regarding yours... in every field of science all the top intellectuals are atheists. Why do you think clever people involved in politics would be any different?
In Europe the VAST majority of intellectual politicians are atheists... constituents such as yourself are the reason only two members of congress ADMIT to being atheists.
Seriously though... have a go at answering those questions; I'd like to see just how literal and simplistic your thinking is.
The Luke
-
...spirituality is a well understood neurological process.
Why couldn't the non-religious enjoy it? Intellectuals/atheists get goosebumps too... what's your point?
The Luke
I was just wondering if you classified the 2 as one and the same because I definitely do not.
Some people believe them to be the same.
Personally, I don't believe Obama is a "Christian", ...at least not in the general sense that most people assume a "Christian" to be. I believe the man is deeply spiritual, and that he draws strengths and courage from the "Christian" legacy, ...but I believe the man to be deeply spiritual with a firm foundation in common sense, something sorely lacking in todays dogmatic God-bots.
-
Didn't think you could answer any of those questions...
Thanks for proving my point.
Regarding yours... in every field of science all the top intellectuals are atheists. Why do you think clever people involved in politics would be any different?
In Europe the VAST majority of intellectual politicians are atheists... constituents such as yourself are the reason only two members of congress ADMIT to being atheists.
Seriously though... have a go at answering those questions; I'd like to see just how literal and simplistic your thinking is.
The Luke
Luke,
The bottomm line is that Osama bin Laden himself could appear before the Republican God-bots and says he's had a religious experience, has become a born-again christian, ...and they would vote for him to be President in a heart-beat. And the religious right would respond with "God works in mysterious ways".
-
He's an atheist.
When he's outside the US, does he make time to go to Church...?
Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr was most probably an atheist... he surrounded himself with atheist advisers and didn't speak in religious terms except before his congregation.
I'm not off base here... Mother Theresa was an atheist (her private letters have shown this, much to the delight of anti-theists such as Christopher Hitchens).
The Luke
-
Didn't think you could answer any of those questions...
Thanks for proving my point.
Wrong again. As I said earlier, if you want to go that route, take it to the Religious forum.
Regarding yours... in every field of science all the top intellectuals are atheists. Why do you think clever people involved in politics would be any different?
The "top intellectuals" who are atheists make no bones about it. The politicians, including the two you mentioned that you would support, said that they are Christians. You have no evidence to the contrary, other than your cracked beliefs that they are somehow closet atheists, because your skewed mind can't comprehend an intellegent person ALSO being a man/woman of faith.
That's your issue, however, not mine and certainly not that of millions of other people.
In Europe the VAST majority of intellectual politicians are atheists... constituents such as yourself are the reason only two members of congress ADMIT to being atheists.
NEWS FLASH!!! This ain't Europe. This is about the United States of America. Obama isn't an atheist.
Seriously though... have a go at answering those questions; I'd like to see just how literal and simplistic your thinking is.
The Luke
Again, going off-topic to save your behind don't cut it here. Take those questions to the Religious forum.
He's an atheist.
When he's outside the US, does he make time to go to Church...?
Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr was most probably an atheist... he surrounded himself with atheist advisers and didn't speak in religious terms except before his congregation.
<<<<pause for floor-pounding, belly-aching laughter>>>>>
It's a good thing I'm not drinking anything at the moment, or my monitor would be a mess. King gave the most famous SPEECH OF HIS LIFE, using religious terms. And, boy genius, King was a MINISTER, as are at least two of his children, son MLK III and daughter Bernice, both of whom took their cues from dear old dad. At no time did King proclaim that there is no God or that he'd rejected his faith.
Even by your standards, this is downright pathetic. First, Obama; now King. What other prominent figure are you going to foolishly and inaccurately claim is/was an atheist?
Lest you forget about King's most well-known speech, here are a few excerpts:
Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children."
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
"Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics—will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
And, you have the gall to call someone else a "moron". ::)
I'm not off base here... Mother Theresa was an atheist (her private letters have shown this, much to the delight of anti-theists such as Christopher Hitchens).
The Luke
More supreme foolishness from atheists. Her private letters show a woman of despair, as many people have been in life. Even Jesus' own cousin, John the Baptist (who baptized Jesus and declared Him to be the Messiah) asked, while in prison and during despair, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"
Many Christians have felt at times that God was not with them, during hard times. Mother Theresa was no different. Yet, AT NO TIME, does she claim that there is no God. There's a world of difference, between having doubt, during times of strife, and empathically declaring that God doesn't exist. So, as much as I like a good laugh, spare me this foolishness. My abs can't take the pain.
-
Wrong again. As I said earlier, if you want to go that route, take it to the Religious forum.
The "top intellectuals" who are atheists make no bones about it. The politicians, including the two you mentioned that you would support, said that they are Christians. You have no evidence to the contrary, other than your cracked beliefs that they are somehow closet atheists, because your skewed mind can't comprehend an intellegent person ALSO being a man/woman of faith.
That's your issue, however, not mine and certainly not that of millions of other people.
NEWS FLASH!!! This ain't Europe. This is about the United States of America. Obama isn't an atheist.
Again, going off-topic to save your behind don't cut it here. Take those questions to the Religious forum.
<<<<pause for floor-pounding, belly-aching laughter>>>>>
It's a good thing I'm not drinking anything at the moment, or my monitor would be a mess. King gave the most famous SPEECH OF HIS LIFE, using religious terms. And, boy genius, King was a MINISTER, as are at least two of his children, son MLK III and daughter Bernice, both of whom took their cues from dear old dad. At no time did King proclaim that there is no God or that he'd rejected his faith.
Even by your standards, this is downright pathetic. First, Obama; now King. What other prominent figure are you going to foolishly and inaccurately claim is/was an atheist?
Lest you forget about King's most well-known speech, here are a few excerpts:
Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children."
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
"Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics—will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
And, you have the gall to call someone else a "moron". ::)
More supreme foolishness from atheists. Her private letters show a woman of despair, as many people have been in life. Even Jesus' own cousin, John the Baptist (who baptized Jesus and declared Him to be the Messiah) asked, while in prison and during despair, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"
Many Christians have felt at times that God was not with them, during hard times. Mother Theresa was no different. Yet, AT NO TIME, does she claim that there is no God. There's a world of difference, between having doubt, during times of strife, and empathically declaring that God doesn't exist. So, as much as I like a good laugh, spare me this foolishness. My abs can't take the pain.
Desert Storm god does not exist. Solved.
-
Luke,
The bottomm line is that Osama bin Laden himself could appear before the Republican God-bots and says he's had a religious experience, has become a born-again christian, ...and they would vote for him to be President in a heart-beat. And the religious right would respond with "God works in mysterious ways".
Meanwhile, the liberal left would have tea and crumpets with a guy, who states IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that he, if given the chance and the means, would wipe your people and your country (and that of one of your allies) off the face of the planet.
-
Desert Storm god does not exist. Solved.
Apparently, Luke ain't convinced of your "stirring" analysis, as he's now had to resort to FALSELY claiming that Obama, MLK, and Mother Theresa are atheists.
-
Apparently, Luke ain't convinced of your "stirring" analysis, as he's now had to resort to FALSELY claiming that Obama, MLK, and Mother Theresa are atheists.
Mother Theresa was; her letters prove it.
-
Mother Theresa was; her letters prove it.
Her letters prove nothing of the sort. They show that, as some points in her life, she was in despair and expressed doubt, as is the case with virtually every Christian that has ever walked the face of this earth.
-
Apparently McWay can't comprehend of an intelligent person PRETENDING to be religious in order to sway genuinely religious sheeple. Read about L Ron Hubbard some time.
Would Martin Luther King Jr have become a minister if he'd been able to run for office...? I think had he been born in Europe or perhaps just born two decades later he'd have been a socialist politician or trade union leader.
Likewise, if Obama had been born in Europe he wouldn't need to maintain the pretense of Christianity during elections.
Mother Theresa's letters are actually quite explicit... she had no faith that God existed for the last few decades of her life. She simply felt trapped into maintaining the facade of piety.
Christopher Hitchens (a respected historian/biographer as well as a celebrated, outspoken anti-theist) has written very convincingly on all three of these subjects.
All across the globe, in every field of human endeavor, the VAST OVERWHELMING majority of intellectuals are atheists (or should I say: "realists"). Why should intellectuals running for office in America be any different?
Could it be that American voters are "just too fucking dumb"? (to bring us back on topic)
The Luke
-
Apparently McWay can't comprehend of an intelligent person PRETENDING to be religious in order to sway genuinely religious sheeple. Read about L Ron Hubbard some time.
I can comprehend it. I can also comprehend a desperate atheist, who repeatedly sticks his feet in his mouth, making up stuff to cover his you-know-what, when his crackpot claims get dismantled.
You have NOTHING that shows that Obama is an atheist; you have NOTHING that shows that King was such.
Would Martin Luther King Jr have become a minister if he'd been able to run for office...? I think had he been born in Europe or perhaps just born two decades later he'd have been a socialist politician or trade union leader.
Likewise, if Obama had been born in Europe he wouldn't need to maintain the pretense of Christianity during elections.
And, if Scott Norwood's FG were 2 feet to the left, the Bills would have a Super Bowl Championship.
BOTTOM LINE: IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. King was a minister, not an atheist, end of story on that one. Obama, regardless of where he was born, lives here and professed to be a Christian.
And, bottom line, YOU SAID that you'd vote for him, a professed Christian, and (by your own words) a "moron". Quit trying to make up hypothetical "would've, should've, could've" scenarios to prop up your flatten points.
They ain't atheists, period. You have NOTHING that shows either man was "pretending".
Mother Theresa's letters are actually quite explicit... she had no faith that God existed for the last few decades of her life. She simply felt trapped into maintaining the facade of piety.
Christopher Hitchens (a respected historian/biographer as well as a celebrated, outspoken anti-theist) has written very convincingly on all three of these subjects.
Wrong again. I've read her letters and they say nothing of the sort.
All across the globe, in every field of human endeavor, the VAST OVERWHELMING majority of intellectuals are atheists (or should I say: "realists"). Why should intellectuals running for office in America be any different?
Could it be that American voters are "just too fucking dumb"? (to bring us back on topic)
The Luke
You mean to bring YOURSELF back on topic. You're the one that stated that you would support certain candidates, namely Obama and Paul. Yet, the only way to get yourself out of the corner, in which you painted yourself, is to pretend Obama is an atheist, which he IS NOT. And, lest we forget, you mentioned the one reason why you would not vote for Paul, and SURPRISE!!!! His religious beliefs was NOT the reason you gave.
Europe and their alleged intellectuals have nothing to do with the matter. You proclaimed your would-be support for two presidental candidates, BOTH OF WHOM are Christians. You have zip that proves that they're pretending to do that for political expedience, relying solely on your warped (and unsubstantiated) concept that high intellects and Christian faith can't mutually exist.
What's worse, you continue to make false statements about both King and Mother Theresa. Neither denied that God existed, especially King. Theresa's letters expressed her being rejected by God, feeling spiritually empty, and thinking that He is not (or will not) answer her prayers. Again, she is hardly the first Christian to express such feelings. Many in the faith have expressed such woe LONG before Mother Theresa.
Everything she's experiencing is what average believers experience in their spiritual lives writ large. I have known scores of people who have felt abandoned by God and had doubts about God's existence....Who would have thought that the person who was considered the most faithful woman in the world struggled like that with her faith?" he asks. "And who would have thought that the one thought to be the most ardent of believers could be a saint to the skeptics?" - Rev. James Martin
To top it all off, Mother Theresa wanted those letters destroyed because, "I want the work to remain only His (Jesus)." And, she felt if the letters were published, "people will think more of me — less of Jesus."
No matter what her peronsal feelings were, she DID NOT want them to hinder what she believed to be God's work. So much for all the atheist flap about MT.
The more you try to hide your pitiful posturing, the more pathetic you look. You find a figure whom you think is an intectual and insightful guy. Yet, when you find out he's a Christian, it skewers your warped worldview, to the point that you have to make up foolishness to cover your exposed self.
You are just as "dumb" as the American voter, because you have expressed your (at the very least superficial) support of TWO presidental candidates who are BOTH Christians.
-
McWay,
Again, you are arguing against what you think I posted... not what I actually posted.
Attending church and professing Christian faith do not make one a Christian... I myself was confirmed into the Catholic Church at age twelve, very very profitable... I made 70 Irish punts... if a twelve year old atheist (I took a satanic name and the bishop actually confirmed me "Set"! Hilarious.) would do that for a new bike, wouldn't an atheist politician do the same for the presidency?
If MLK was so religious, why did he spend so much time in the company of atheists?
Regarding Mother Theresa (who lived down the road from me and I knew her driver by the way):
Wrong again. I've read her letters and they say nothing of the sort.
...did you come to that conclusion using the same reading skills that have you misconstruing my posts?
If you are so right and I am so wrong, why does no one else posting in this thread agree with your interpretation of my argument?
You claim I am wrong for arguing that intellectuals can't be Christians because some intellectuals claim to be Christians... I might be short on proof by using the general trend for atheism among intellectuals as the basis of my argument, but you seem to be certain professed Christians are actually Christian based on no evidence whatsoever?
Tell me McWay, can you tell the difference between a Christian and a lying atheist?
The Luke
PS -Just for the record, the new pope, Pope Benedict XVI, is also an atheist. (Don't take the bait on this one McWay, it'll be embarrassing for you)
-
McWay,
Again, you are arguing against what you think I posted... not what I actually posted.
Try that again.
I'd vote for Ron Paul....
...BUT....
...his small government ideals and free-market economics won't work for much longer.
Reducing government to the extent that corporations could possibly overpower it is simply foolish, add to this the growing menace of desk-top technologies such as genetically-tuned viral weapons; cold fusion; and especially supra-human AI... and you have a recipe for disaster.
That is YOUR quote. Maybe I need to squint a little harder, but WHERE in that post do you state that your reason for not voting for Paul is due to his Christian beliefs?
Attending church and professing Christian faith do not make one a Christian... I myself was confirmed into the Catholic Church at age twelve, very very profitable... I made 70 Irish punts... if a twelve year old atheist (I took a satanic name and the bishop actually confirmed me "Set"! Hilarious.) would do that for a new bike, wouldn't an atheist politician do the same for the presidency?
So, you've shown yourself to be a liar (you'll excuse me, if I don't pass out from shock). You have yet to demonstrate that such applies to Obama. You have NOT shown where he states his disbelief in God, or what policies he endorses to that end.
If MLK was so religious, why did he spend so much time in the company of atheists?
I'm sorry!! I missed the memo where spending time with atheists voids your status as a believer in God. Jesus Christ was criticized for befriending tax collectors and prostitutes. I guess that makes Him an IRS agent and a whore. ::) .
Not only was King not an atheist, he was a minister. And, contrary to your blatantly false claim, he used references to the God he served in his speeches, both inside and outside his church.
Regarding Mother Theresa (who lived down the road from me and I knew her driver by the way):
...did you come to that conclusion using the same reading skills that have you misconstruing my posts?
If you are so right and I am so wrong, why does no one else posting in this thread agree with your interpretation of my argument?
I didn't misconstruct your post. What you're doing is scrambling for excuses, because you can't defend your own statements. The simple fact you stated that your concern about Paul was his economic policy; otherwise you'd vote for him. By your own self-inflicted words, Paul is a "moron" and shouldn't even be considered for office, because he is a Christian. Yet, but for a disagreement in a certain policy, YOU WOULD VOTE FOR HIM. There is no misconstructing words here. Your statements are in black-and-white, genius.
You claim I am wrong for arguing that intellectuals can't be Christians because some intellectuals claim to be Christians... I might be short on proof by using the general trend for atheism among intellectuals as the basis of my argument, but you seem to be certain professed Christians are actually Christian based on no evidence whatsoever?
Tell me McWay, can you tell the difference between a Christian and a lying atheist?
It's called benefit of the doubt.
Again, demonstrate that King, Obama, Theresa and the other folks you mentioned are lying. You can start by stating what actions of their disqualify them from being "actually Christian".
Oh, I forgot. King associated with atheists; Theresa, during times of despair, expressed doubts about God's love for her. Yep, those are real nail-in-the-coffin points, there. ::)
Since you just stated that you're "short on proof" (an understatment, to say the least), I will take Paul and Obama's statements of faith as valid, until such evidence to the contrary comes to light.
PS -Just for the record, the new pope, Pope Benedict XVI, is also an atheist. (Don't take the bait on this one McWay, it'll be embarrassing for you)
I don't know what the definition of atheist is in Bizarro-world (where you reside); but, last time I checked, an atheist was someone who specifically belief that there is no supernatural deity. Benedict doesn't fit that description. Of course, neither do King, Paul, Theresa, or Obama.
-
What is this, the Sarah Palin Institute of Answering-The-Question-You-Want-to-Answer-Not-The-Question-Asked...?
Try to answer this one McWay...
Tell me McWay, can you tell the difference between a Christian and a lying atheist?
...it shows just how stupid your position is.
The Luke
-
What is this, the Sarah Palin Institute of Answering-The-Question-You-Want-to-Answer-Not-The-Question-Asked...?
Try to answer this one McWay...
...it shows just how stupid your position is.
The Luke
You're one to talk. I've asked you specifically to cite any words or deeds that back your claims of Obama, King, and Paul being atheists. You've come up with zip.
Show where King is lying about his faith, or Obama is lying about his faith, or that Paul is lying about his faith.
A "lying atheist" would (for lack of a better term) "come out" upon achieving some sort of political/financial advantage. That is, under the HUGE assumption that he is never exposed beforehand.
Of course, that is essentially moot, as you don't have JACK to show that the aforementioned people are atheists. BTW, what are the actions of these people that you can show, which deems them as not being "actually Christian"?
Try that on for size, instead of stumbling and fumbling around, trying to cover your behind.
-
show me how Noah got 2 of every animal together.
-
show me how Noah got 2 of every animal together.
Try reading "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study".
Better yet, try actually making a statement, revelant to the topic at hand.
-
You're one to talk. I've asked you specifically to cite any words or deeds that back your claims of Obama, King, and Paul being atheists. You've come up with zip.
Show where King is lying about his faith, or Obama is lying about his faith, or that Paul is lying about his faith.
It is impossible to tell whether someone is being genuine or insincere in professing their faith... I'm not sure you grasp this basic truth.
However, outside of the faith-focused arena of politics, among the general public there is a very, very strong trend (I would contend a causal link) for intellectuals to be atheists. It's not just a trend actually, it's a very strong correlation with 99+% of intellectuals being atheists.
That's why I find it hard to believe ANY intellectual is a religious believer despite their protestations... it's just so much more likely that such a person (Obama; MLK etc) is actually an atheist maintaining a necessary facade of faith.
Remove the requirement of such a facade, as happens in scientific circles, and 99+% of intellectuals dismiss the concept of a personal god.
Don't you understand this McWay?
The Luke
-
It is impossible to tell whether someone is being genuine or insincere in professing their faith... I'm not sure you grasp this basic truth.
Then, your claims, boy genius, that Obama and Paul are lying about their Christian faith, hold even LESS WEIGHT.
However, outside of the faith-focused arena of politics, among the general public there is a very, very strong trend (I would contend a causal link) for intellectuals to be atheists. It's not just a trend actually, it's a very strong correlation with 99+% of intellectuals being atheists.
Assuming that gibberish is correct (a gracious one, to say the least), the two men in question, Barack Obama and Ron Paul, the two men that YOU WOULD GIVE YOUR VOTE are both Christians.
But, lest you whine and cry about my misinterpreting your statements again,
I'd vote for Ron Paul....
...BUT....
...his small government ideals and free-market economics won't work for much longer.
Reducing government to the extent that corporations could possibly overpower it is simply foolish, add to this the growing menace of desk-top technologies such as genetically-tuned viral weapons; cold fusion; and especially supra-human AI... and you have a recipe for disaster.
That is the reason you gave Deicide for your reluctance to support Paul. NOTHING IN THAT STATEMENT mentions his Christian faith, which by your own words...again....This is why religious people shouldn't be considered for any official office... they are intrinsically divorced from reality. They actually seem to be think that simply because they CONVINCE themselves of miracles and other such moronic superstitions that their BELIEF can somehow alter reality.
Obama and Paul, by their own words, are men of faith. They believe in God; therefore they are NOT atheists. You've, by your previous statements (quoted above for all to see), stated that they aren't fit for office. Yet, you would vote for either man., thus making you the "moron" you claim others to be.
That's why I find it hard to believe ANY intellectual is a religious believer despite their protestations... it's just so much more likely that such a person (Obama; MLK etc) is actually an atheist maintaining a necessary facade of faith.
Just when you think the buffoonery has reached its limit, you come up with this gem. Your finding it "hard to believe" holds as much worth as a Confederate dollar. To even suggest that King was hiding is atheism by becoming a MINISTER is beyond ridiculous. As for Obama, again, what are these actions or statements that betray his professed Christian faith.
Remove the requirement of such a facade, as happens in scientific circles, and 99+% of intellectuals dismiss the concept of a personal god.
Don't you understand this McWay?
The Luke
I understand that you've ducked the questions regarding your demostrations of the aforementioned people being atheists, or not being "actually Christian". I understand that you continue to taste your own toes, by claiming that religious people shouldn't be considered for office and they're morons on one hand, while publicly declaring your support for two presidental candidates, who've declared that they are Christians, on the other.
Then, in a pathetic attempt to shield your exposed rump, you come up with this cornball conspiracy that these men are closet atheists, with little-or-nothing to back your claims (by your own words, you're "short on proof"). What's more comical/pathetic, you try to pull that line with MLK.
To this day, you have YET to show that such is a facade, as it relates to Obama, Paul, or King. This is based on little more than your cracked-up, jacked-up logic, regarding intellect and faith.
-
Then, your claims, boy genius, that Obama and Paul are lying about their Christian faith, hold even LESS WEIGHT.
Assuming that gibberish is correct (a gracious one, to say the least), the two men in question, Barack Obama and Ron Paul, the two men that YOU WOULD GIVE YOUR VOTE are both Christians.
But, lest you whine and cry about my misinterpreting your statements again,
I'd vote for Ron Paul....
...BUT....
...his small government ideals and free-market economics won't work for much longer.
Reducing government to the extent that corporations could possibly overpower it is simply foolish, add to this the growing menace of desk-top technologies such as genetically-tuned viral weapons; cold fusion; and especially supra-human AI... and you have a recipe for disaster.
That is the reason you gave Deicide for your reluctance to support Paul. NOTHING IN THAT STATEMENT mentions his Christian faith, which by your own words...again....This is why religious people shouldn't be considered for any official office... they are intrinsically divorced from reality. They actually seem to be think that simply because they CONVINCE themselves of miracles and other such moronic superstitions that their BELIEF can somehow alter reality.
Obama and Paul, by their own words, are men of faith. They believe in God; therefore they are NOT atheists. You've, by your previous statements (quoted above for all to see), stated that they aren't fit for office. Yet, you would vote for either man., thus making you the "moron" you claim others to be.
Just when you think the buffoonery has reached its limit, you come up with this gem. Your finding it "hard to believe" holds as much worth as a Confederate dollar. To even suggest that King was hiding is atheism by becoming a MINISTER is beyond ridiculous. As for Obama, again, what are these actions or statements that betray his professed Christian faith.
I understand that you've ducked the questions regarding your demostrations of the aforementioned people being atheists, or not being "actually Christian". I understand that you continue to taste your own toes, by claiming that religious people shouldn't be considered for office and they're morons on one hand, while publicly declaring your support for two presidental candidates, who've declared that they are Christians, on the other.
Then, in a pathetic attempt to shield your exposed rump, you come up with this cornball conspiracy that these men are closet atheists, with little-or-nothing to back your claims (by your own words, you're "short on proof"). What's more comical/pathetic, you try to pull that line with MLK.
To this day, you have YET to show that such is a facade, as it relates to Obama, Paul, or King. This is based on little more than your cracked-up, jacked-up logic, regarding intellect and faith.
Paul isn't lying about his Christianity, which is unfortunate. No one is perfect. Obama is a slimely politician and he is intelligent, he knows religion is for the masses, the weak and the gullible.
-
McWay,
I won't argue this point any further with you... someone else who is reading this will chime in and either put you in your place or point out how you are missing the point.
If this was a discussion I would participate... but it is not.
You shout down my points without substantiation of your objections, yet demand that I provide substantiation for everything I say.
This has reached a point of futility when in my last post I asked:
It is impossible to tell whether someone is being genuine or insincere in professing their faith... I'm not sure you grasp this basic truth.
...a question which you obviously failed to comprehend when you asked:
To this day, you have YET to show that such is a facade, as it relates to Obama, Paul, or King. This is based on little more than your cracked-up, jacked-up logic, regarding intellect and faith.
...so your argument AGAINST my claim that such a determination is impossible is my FAILURE to do so?
So I claim something is impossible... you claim it must be POSSIBLE because no one can do it?
I Maher's words you, sir, are "just too fucking dumb".
The Luke
-
The Luke,
The Almighty says: Answer the f...freaking question.
You're worse than Sarah Palin.
-
The Luke,
The Almighty says: Answer the f...freaking question.
You're worse than Sarah Palin.
...which question?
The Luke
-
McWay,
I won't argue this point any further with you... someone else who is reading this will chime in and either put you in your place or point out how you are missing the point.
If this was a discussion I would participate... but it is not.
In other words, you're hoping someone can do the job that you CAN'T do.
You shout down my points without substantiation of your objections, yet demand that I provide substantiation for everything I say.
How horrible of me to actually ask you to to back your claim about three men (Obama, Paul, and MLK) supposedly pretending to be atheists, especially with one of them being a minister.
This has reached a point of futility when in my last post I asked:
...a question which you obviously failed to comprehend when you asked:
...so your argument AGAINST my claim that such a determination is impossible is my FAILURE to do so?
So I claim something is impossible... you claim it must be POSSIBLE because no one can do it?
I Maher's words you, sir, are "just too fucking dumb".
The Luke
As usual, you tuck your tail and cry like a you-know-what, when you can't back your smack. If it's impossible to tell if someone is being a Christian or not, then it would behoove you to either give them the benefit of the doubt concerning their faith (until evidence to the contrary appears), or execute the mute function on them lips of yours!!!
You have done neither and have pulled more gaffes than Joe Biden on the campaign trail, trying to plug the holes in your argument. Other than your perpetual "They're so smart and insightful; they can't really be Christians" bleating, you have produce diddly squat, regarding your claims.
At the end of the day, you have pledged your would-be support for Obama (a Christian man, by his own account) and, but for an economic disagreement (NOT AN ISSUE WITH HIS FAITH), you'd do the same for Paul.
And, that, boy genius, makes you a "moron", BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, which you listed here for all to see.
-
McWay,
All I did was apply trends evident in every human population to intellectual politicians.
Simply speaking... in every field of human endeavor ALL intellectuals are atheists... why should intellectual politicians be an anomalous exception?
The Luke
-
McWay,
All I did was apply trends evident in every human population to intellectual politicians.
Simply speaking... in every field of human endeavor ALL intellectuals are atheists... why should intellectual politicians be an anomalous exception?
The Luke
What you did was apply your atheistic philosophy and OPINION and stretch that way beyond the scope of the subject. You are making a lack of faith in God a REQUIREMENT to be an intellectual. That is hardly the case.
You believe that Obama and Paul are intellectuals or you would not consider voting for them. Yet, these two men are Christians, by their own accounts. And, unless you have evidence to the contrary, you have little choice but to take their words at face value or continue this odd conspiracy theory of yours, which you can't back.
-
That's only the second thing I agree with Maher on (the first one was that the Fashion industry is run by white women and gays, but I digress). Wasn't P.T> Barnum that said, "Nobody has ever gone broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people"?
-
McWay,
Don't you understand that I can only be as certain of Obama being an atheist as you can be of him being a Christian?
He is a highly educated intellectual and former professor of constitutional law... I'd say from a statistical standpoint it's more likely he's faking for the sheeple such as yourself.
Didn't Putin wear a crucifix lapel pin to win over Dubya?
The Luke
-
McWay,
Don't you understand that I can only be as certain of Obama being an atheist as you can be of him being a Christian?
He is a highly educated intellectual and former professor of constitutional law... I'd say from a statistical standpoint it's more likely he's faking for the sheeple such as yourself.
I've enjoyed reading this debate so don't take this as an attack.
I was thinking there may be some merit to what you're saying, being that Black Liberation Theology is more about race than faith. Also, all politicians are fucking liars, which also adds to your claim.
On the other hand, your entire theory is based on a limited sample that you selected and have no way of proving correct. Yes, you can google a great number of renowned thinkers who were atheists throughout the years, but there are many others to the contrary. In essence, I don't think you can create a justifed baseline trend to support your argument.
-
Grape Ape,
Could you list three really great thinkers who were devoutly religious... not artists now, but great thinkers?
I asked McWay a series of questions earlier on in this thread regarding symbology in the book of Genesis... he didn't bite, which is unfortunate because not only is there a good argument to be made for ALL intellectuals being atheists there is even a good argument to be made that most great religious thinkers are/were atheists. I was hoping to lure him into a discussion of this.
Even McWay himself isn't too sure exactly what he believes in... there are several different Gods described as the one true god in the Old and New Testaments.
The symbolism in Genesis would seem to indicate that the foundational work of the bible itself was written by an atheist... similar claims could be made regarding much of Christianity.
The Luke
-
Voltaire?
I would think naming them would be moot, because I'm sure a google search will turn up 50 or more. Being able to name them right away is moot anyway - you're still using a corrupt, cherry-picked sample to create your trend.
-
Voltaire?
I would think naming them would be moot, because I'm sure a google search will turn up 50 or more. Being able to name them right away is moot anyway - you're still using a corrupt, cherry-picked sample to create your trend.
Actually, you'd need a Google search to find a devout intellectual... not the other way around.
I used the examples I did in order to show that better arguments can be made for the atheism of even presumptively religious intellectuals than can be made for the sincerity of their professed beliefs. Listing the top 10,000 scientists in the world would have been pretty monotonous... so I had to make the point with figures McWay would accept as both religious and intelligent.
NORAD tracks Santa on their website each Christmas Eve... do those scientists sincerely believe in Santa? Or should we consider the intended audience?
McWay barely reads my posts and is so focused on misconstruing my points as obvious falsehoods that he only ever evades answering my questions... and I can't answer anything he needs clarification on because he can't ever concede anything, let alone his own miscomprehensions.
So I say "A"... he thinks I said "B"... he asks me why I said "B"... but instead of reading "A" or what I meant by "A" he rants about how "B" is wrong. He can't accept that he doesn't understand a post... and I'm not dumbing down my writing style for him, it's not fair on people such as yourself Grape Ape who are reading this thread for entertainment... we don't need another "Truce" thread.
For example I could present a very plausible argument to refute the piety of the current pope... if anyone was open-minded enough to want to hear it. I'm sure McWay would misconstrue that argument too.
The Luke
-
Grape Ape,
Could you list three really great thinkers who were devoutly religious... not artists now, but great thinkers?
I asked McWay a series of questions earlier on in this thread regarding symbology in the book of Genesis... he didn't bite, which is unfortunate because not only is there a good argument to be made for ALL intellectuals being atheists there is even a good argument to be made that most great religious thinkers are/were atheists. I was hoping to lure him into a discussion of this.
Ummm....I told you that if you wanted to discuss that, then take it to the Religious Forum, because that particular issue has nothing to do with politics.
Not that I don't know where you're going with this.
Even McWay himself isn't too sure exactly what he believes in... there are several different Gods described as the one true god in the Old and New Testaments.
The symbolism in Genesis would seem to indicate that the foundational work of the bible itself was written by an atheist... similar claims could be made regarding much of Christianity.
The Luke
DEAD WRONG on both counts. I am quite confident in sure in my beliefs. Again, it's apparent that you have some bizarre definition of what an atheist is, to make such an absurd claim about the foundation of the Bible being written by an atheist.
An atheist believes that there is NO GOD, no deity, no supernatural being whatsoever. The authors of the books of the Bible DO NOT fit that description.
-
Actually, you'd need a Google search to find a devout intellectual... not the other way around.
I used the examples I did in order to show that better arguments can be made for the atheism of even presumptively religious intellectuals than can be made for the sincerity of their professed beliefs. Listing the top 10,000 scientists in the world would have been pretty monotonous... so I had to make the point with figures McWay would accept as both religious and intelligent.
Who presumed them religious? That's a big assumption on your part.
NORAD tracks Santa on their website each Christmas Eve... do those scientists sincerely believe in Santa? Or should we consider the intended audience?
McWay barely reads my posts and is so focused on misconstruing my points as obvious falsehoods that he only ever evades answering my questions... and I can't answer anything he needs clarification on because he can't ever concede anything, let alone his own miscomprehensions.
So I say "A"... he thinks I said "B"... he asks me why I said "B"... but instead of reading "A" or what I meant by "A" he rants about how "B" is wrong. He can't accept that he doesn't understand a post... and I'm not dumbing down my writing style for him, it's not fair on people such as yourself Grape Ape who are reading this thread for entertainment... we don't need another "Truce" thread.
For example I could present a very plausible argument to refute the piety of the current pope... if anyone was open-minded enough to want to hear it. I'm sure McWay would misconstrue that argument too.
The Luke
The crux of your agrument is still that Obama is an intellect and therefore must be an ahtiest due to a sample that you hand picked. You have to realize this.
-
McWay,
Don't you understand that I can only be as certain of Obama being an atheist as you can be of him being a Christian?
He is a highly educated intellectual and former professor of constitutional law... I'd say from a statistical standpoint it's more likely he's faking for the sheeple such as yourself.
Sheeple? Ummm...boy genius, I'M NOT THE ONE claiming that I'd vote for Obama...YOU ARE!!! You stated that you would vote for him and have encouraged others to do the same. The reason you're claiming that he's lying about his Christian beliefs is because you've painted yourself in a corner, by your statements about people of faith.
Obama's intellect and teaching about law have nothing to do with the picture. Jay Sekulow runs the American Center of Law and Justice. I think he knows a thing or two about constitutional law. He's also a man of faith. Here are some of his credentials (from Wikipedia):
Sekulow has been honored numerous times throughout his career. In 1994, he was named to the National Law Journal’s Power List, which highlights some of the most prolific attorneys in America. In 1997, he was named to the American Lawyer’s Public Sector 45, a list dedicated to legal public servants who have made the most impact in their respective fields.Following this accolade, the National Law Journal placed Dr. Sekulow in their highly coveted 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America list.Most recently, Legal Times profiled him as one of the 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 years, solidifying his place as one of the most renowned legal professionals in the United States today.
Here's the part where you show how his Christian faith knocks him OUT of the intellectual category or that he's "faking" his religious beliefs.
Didn't Putin wear a crucifix lapel pin to win over Dubya?
The Luke
And the relevance would be......
-
McWay barely reads my posts and is so focused on misconstruing my points as obvious falsehoods that he only ever evades answering my questions... and I can't answer anything he needs clarification on because he can't ever concede anything, let alone his own miscomprehensions.
So I say "A"... he thinks I said "B"... he asks me why I said "B"... but instead of reading "A" or what I meant by "A" he rants about how "B" is wrong. He can't accept that he doesn't understand a post... and I'm not dumbing down my writing style for him, it's not fair on people such as yourself Grape Ape who are reading this thread for entertainment... we don't need another "Truce" thread.
Back to your sniveling, I see. I don't think you said "B". I know what you've said, because I've posted it in BLACK AND WHITE, to dismantle your claims.
YOU, straight up, said that you'd vote for Ron Paul but for your disagreement with his economic policy. Yet, you said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about his Christian belief, which by your own standards make him "divorced from reality" and a "moron".
You've also claimed that people should vote for Obama. But since he has stated that he is man of faith, you're left with little choice but to concoct some foolishness about his being a closet atheist, about which you even said you're "short on proof".
I asked you specifically to give any actions or statements from Barack Obama (or Ron Paul or even MLK) THAT WOULD BETRAY his professed Christian beliefs. You've come up with more excuses than a man going to jail and done so much dancing the MC Hammer, in his prime, couldn't touch.
For example I could present a very plausible argument to refute the piety of the current pope... if anyone was open-minded enough to want to hear it. I'm sure McWay would misconstrue that argument too.
The Luke
You've been asked several times to present such about Obama and others. Yet, you ain't produced JACK!!! What's the hold up? Are you waiting for an engraved invitation?
-
Grape Ape and McWay,
Do either of you believe Vladimir Putin is a believing Christian? He wore a crucifix lapel pin?
Do either of you believe Mother Theresa was a believing Christian? Her personal letters very explicitly delineate her 50 year crisis of faith that resulted in her admitting that she couldn't even bring herself to believe though she wanted to.
Do either of you believe Pope Benedict is a believing Christian? As head of the Holy Office (also known as the Holy See or more infamously as The Inquisition) he sent letters demanding priests and bishops all across the US and Europe send any and all evidence of child molestation to the Holy See so that proper compensation could be calculated... he then destroyed all this evidence and refused to help any of the prosecutions.
Are these the actions of someone who GENUINELY believed he would someday be judged by God? When you are complicit in and enabler of organised, covered-up mass child rape, at what point does that become criminal? At what point does that become immoral? At what point does that become un-Christian?
Do either of you really believe any intellectual is a genuine religious believer? American politics is the only arena in which intellectuals profess religious faith... where are the religious intellectuals in any other field of human endeavor?
Doesn't Occam's Razor dictate we should assume this tiny subset of the intellectual population to be pandering to the religious believers upon whose votes they depend?
The Luke
PS -Voltaire was a famously outspoken atheist
-
Hmm....maybe the Cult of Apollo?
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/God_Apollo_by_TaekwondoNJ.jpg)
-
Deicide,
Is it just me or could the arguments being made against me here be characterized as ridiculous?
I'm being called to task by Grape Ape for stating that Obama; Ron Paul (both self professed Christians); Martin Luther King Jr (a reverend); Mother Theresa (a nun) and the Pope (something of a religious figure in his own way) could be ASSUMED to be religious people by McWay.
I used the examples I did in order to show that better arguments can be made for the atheism of even presumptively religious intellectuals than can be made for the sincerity of their professed beliefs. Listing the top 10,000 scientists in the world would have been pretty monotonous... so I had to make the point with figures McWay would accept as both religious and intelligent.
Who presumed them religious? That's a big assumption on your part.
...What the Fuck?
Grape Ape, am I being unfair here? Is this a typo/syntax-error? Did you actually mean "NOT religious" referring to my claim about scientists?
You didn't really mean to question whether Obama; Ron Paul; Martin Luther King Jr; Mother Theresa and the Pope could be assumed to be religious?
McWay is still harping on about his unique (read: WRONG!) interpretation that I said I'd vote for Ron Paul?
I'd vote for Ron Paul....
...BUT....
...his small government ideals and free-market economics won't work for much longer.
...I could understand his mistake if English isn't his first language (lots of non-native speakers on GetBig) as he mightn't have seen "BUT" used a bridge to an exception clause.... BUT, he totally disregards the clarification I made a few posts later:
Just for the record... McWay didn't read my post correctly, if I could vote in the American elections I'd vote for Barack Obama (my fellow atheist).
I'd prefer to vote for Ralph Nader, but he isn't a viable candidate in the US because the mean IQ has drifted so far from the average.
...perhaps his inability to properly read posts and refusal to answer any of the simple questions asked him is a symptom of Bill Maher's assertion?
What do those reading this thread think? Is McWay just too dumb to vote?
The Luke
-
Deicide,
Is it just me or could the arguments being made against me here be characterized as ridiculous?
I'm being called to task by Grape Ape for stating that Obama; Ron Paul (both self professed Christians); Martin Luther King Jr (a reverend); Mother Theresa (a nun) and the Pope (something of a religious figure in his own way) could be ASSUMED to be religious people by McWay.
...What the Fuck?
Grape Ape, am I being unfair here? Is this a typo/syntax-error? Did you actually mean "NOT religious" referring to my claim about scientists?
You didn't really mean to question whether Obama; Ron Paul; Martin Luther King Jr; Mother Theresa and the Pope could be assumed to be religious?
McWay is still harping on about his unique (read: WRONG!) interpretation that I said I'd vote for Ron Paul?
...I could understand his mistake if English isn't his first language (lots of non-native speakers on GetBig) as he mightn't have seen "BUT" used a bridge to an exception clause.... BUT, he totally disregards the clarification I made a few posts later:
...perhaps his inability to properly read posts and refusal to answer any of the simple questions asked him is a symptom of Bill Maher's assertion?
What do those reading this thread think? Is McWay just too dumb to vote?
The Luke
MCWAY is just full of himself; I have seen him destroyed by real archaeologists and historians of antiquity. Just a faith head with a bit of loud rhetoric...
OK...I am trying to figure out which deity to worship?
Ares?
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/ARES_by_el_grimlock.jpg)
Hera?
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/Hera_by_TaekwondoNJ.jpg)
Artemis?
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/Artemis.jpg)
Poseidon?
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/Poseidon_by_TaekwondoNJ.jpg)
Hermes?
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/Hermes_by_TaekwondoNJ.jpg)
Hades? (I really like him)
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/Hades_by_TaekwondoNJ.jpg)
Hephaestus?
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/Hephaestus_by_TaekwondoNJ.jpg)
Or the King of the Gods, Zeus?
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/trickledownolympus/_ZEUS_by_el_grimlock.jpg)
Which god deserves a cult the most?
-
This thread blows.
Anyone wants to see me, I'm down at the mini mart.
Peace out.
-
Deicide,
Is it just me or could the arguments being made against me here be characterized as ridiculous?
I'm being called to task by Grape Ape for stating that Obama; Ron Paul (both self professed Christians); Martin Luther King Jr (a reverend); Mother Theresa (a nun) and the Pope (something of a religious figure in his own way) could be ASSUMED to be religious people by McWay.
...
The Luke
Paul isn't lying about his Christianity, which is unfortunate.
-
The Luke,
The Almighty says: Answer the f...freaking question.
You're worse than Sarah Palin.
...which question?
The Luke
Q: If all Christians are fools, why did you say that you'd vote for Ron Paul? Ron Paul is an intellectual and a devout Christian. Ron Paul is a fool? Are you a fool?
Statement of Faith - By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
-
This thread blows.
Anyone wants to see me, I'm down at the mini mart.
Peace out.
Kneel before Cyric, worm, the Dark Sun and Lord of Murder...
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/Remus13/Dieties/Cyric_symbol.jpg)
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/LordAo/Cyric_p21.jpg)
-
Q: If all Christians are fools, why did you say that you'd vote for Ron Paul? Ron Paul is an intellectual and a devout Christian. Ron Paul is a fool? Are you a fool?
His Christian beliefs are foolish...without a doubt...
-
So what? The Luke said that he'd vote for Ron Paul, and he gave the only reason why he would not vote for Ron Paul. His one reason had nothing to do with Ron Paul's Christian beliefs.
I am not the Luke.
-
Does anyone know if there's a special website that gives the next day's weather?
Thanks, Rockdogs!
-
His Christian beliefs are foolish...without a doubt...
So what? The Luke said that he'd vote for Ron Paul, and he gave the only reason why he would not vote for Ron Paul. His one reason had nothing to do with Ron Paul's Christian beliefs.
I am not the Luke.
Deicide,
It appears that all the things that you love about Ron Paul, you have his "foolish" Christian belief to thank for:
Statement of Faith - By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
-
So what? The Luke said that he'd vote for Ron Paul, and he gave the only reason why he would not vote for Ron Paul. His one reason had nothing to do with Ron Paul's Christian beliefs.
Deicide,
It appears that all the things that you love about Ron Paul, you have his "foolish" Christian belief to thank for:
Statement of Faith - By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
His monetary and foreign policy are a consequence of his Christian beliefs? Ah....noooooo.
-
His monetary and foreign policy are a consequence of his Christian beliefs? Ah....noooooo.
Yes.
"I seek His guidance in all that I do"
"I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success."
"I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution"
Statement of Faith - By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
-
Yes.
"I seek His guidance in all that I do"
"I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success."
"I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution"
Statement of Faith - By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
Yes, it's very sad but at least he doesn't cram it down your throat. He was just indoctrinated at a young age and it's hard to recover from that...
-
Deicide,
Is it just me or could the arguments being made against me here be characterized as ridiculous?
I'm being called to task by Grape Ape for stating that Obama; Ron Paul (both self professed Christians); Martin Luther King Jr (a reverend); Mother Theresa (a nun) and the Pope (something of a religious figure in his own way) could be ASSUMED to be religious people by McWay.
...What the Fuck?
Wrong again, boy genius. You're being called to task, because you made the claim that the aforemtnioned people are ATHEISTS, but you have not provided one hint of an example of their actions or statements that demonstrate such.
I assume that those folks are religious, because of their statements and actions of faith, combined with a distinct LACK of evidence to the contrary. You keep popping off at the mouth, claiming that they're atheists. Let's see some examples of that.
Grape Ape, am I being unfair here? Is this a typo/syntax-error? Did you actually mean "NOT religious" referring to my claim about scientists?
You didn't really mean to question whether Obama; Ron Paul; Martin Luther King Jr; Mother Theresa and the Pope could be assumed to be religious?
McWay is still harping on about his unique (read: WRONG!) interpretation that I said I'd vote for Ron Paul?
...I could understand his mistake if English isn't his first language (lots of non-native speakers on GetBig) as he mightn't have seen "BUT" used a bridge to an exception clause.... BUT, he totally disregards the clarification I made a few posts later:
...perhaps his inability to properly read posts and refusal to answer any of the simple questions asked him is a symptom of Bill Maher's assertion?
What do those reading this thread think? Is McWay just too dumb to vote?
You miss again, Luke. I quoted EXACTLY what you said and Loco mentioned it as well. You stated that the one reason you would not vote Paul was in regards to his economic policy. NOTHING WAS MENTIONED about his religious beliefs, which by your standards, makes him unfit for office, "divorced from reality" and a "moron".
Yet, this is the reason you gave for your reluctance to vote for Paul:
I'd vote for Ron Paul....
...BUT....
...his small government ideals and free-market economics won't work for much longer.
Reducing government to the extent that corporations could possibly overpower it is simply foolish, add to this the growing menace of desk-top technologies such as genetically-tuned viral weapons; cold fusion; and especially supra-human AI... and you have a recipe for disaster.
Again, where in that statement do you disqualify Paul for consideration, BECAUSE OF HIS CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, which you should do automatically, based on your previous statements?
And, I know you are NOT talking smack about not answering questions. To this day, you have NOT addressed the issues, regarding the men (or MT). You have NOT shown anything that backs your claims that these folks are closet atheists.
-
Well try answering a question properly here McWay...
Is Putin a believing Christian? ...he did wear a crucifix lapel pin.
Is Pope Benedict? ...he ran the worlds largest pedophile ring.
I notice you avoid what you don't want to answer, all the while putting words in my mouth.
The Luke
-
Grape Ape and McWay,
Do either of you believe Vladimir Putin is a believing Christian? He wore a crucifix lapel pin?
Do either of you believe Mother Theresa was a believing Christian? Her personal letters very explicitly delineate her 50 year crisis of faith that resulted in her admitting that she couldn't even bring herself to believe though she wanted to.
Her personal letters are simply her expression, during her times of grief and despair. They aren't much different than the lamentations of Job, when he went through his trials. She felt that God had abandoned her at times, just as Job did
Job 30 (NASB):
Job 30:1 "But now those younger than I mock me, Whose fathers I disdained to put with the dogs of my flock.
Job 30:2 "Indeed, what {good was} the strength of their hands to me? Vigor had perished from them.
Job 30:3 "From want and famine they are gaunt Who gnaw the dry ground by night in waste and desolation,
Job 30:4 Who pluck mallow by the bushes, And whose food is the root of the broom shrub.
Job 30:5 "They are driven from the community; They shout against them as {against} a thief,
Job 30:6 So that they dwell in dreadful valleys, In holes of the earth and of the rocks.
Job 30:7 "Among the bushes they cry out; Under the nettles they are gathered together.
Job 30:8 "Fools, even those without a name, They were scourged from the land.
Job 30:9 "And now I have become their taunt, I have even become a byword to them.
Job 30:10 "They abhor me {and} stand aloof from me, And they do not refrain from spitting at my face.
Job 30:11 "Because He has loosed His bowstring and afflicted me, They have cast off the bridle before me.
Job 30:12 "On the right hand their brood arises; They thrust aside my feet and build up against me their ways of destruction.
Job 30:13 "They break up my path, They profit from my destruction; No one restrains them.
Job 30:14 "As {through} a wide breach they come, Amid the tempest they roll on.
Job 30:15 "Terrors are turned against me; They pursue my honor as the wind, And my prosperity has passed away like a cloud.
Job 30:16 "And now my soul is poured out within me; Days of affliction have seized me.
Job 30:17 "At night it pierces my bones within me, And my gnawing {pains} take no rest.
Job 30:18 "By a great force my garment is distorted; It binds me about as the collar of my coat.
Job 30:19 "He has cast me into the mire, And I have become like dust and ashes.
Job 30:20 "I cry out to You for help, but You do not answer me; I stand up, and You turn Your attention against me.
Job 30:21 "You have become cruel to me; With the might of Your hand You persecute me.
Job 30:22 "You lift me up to the wind {and} cause me to ride; And You dissolve me in a storm.
Job 30:23 "For I know that You will bring me to death And to the house of meeting for all living.
Job 30:24 "Yet does not one in a heap of ruins stretch out {his} hand, Or in his disaster therefore cry out for help?
Job 30:25 "Have I not wept for the one whose life is hard? Was not my soul grieved for the needy?
Job 30:26 "When I expected good, then evil came; When I waited for light, then darkness came.
Job 30:27 "I am seething within and cannot relax; Days of affliction confront me.
Job 30:28 "I go about mourning without comfort; I stand up in the assembly {and} cry out for help.
Job 30:29 "I have become a brother to jackals And a companion of ostriches.
Job 30:30 "My skin turns black on me, And my bones burn with fever.
Job 30:31 "Therefore my harp is turned to mourning, And my flute to the sound of those who weep.
Those are the laments of a man who lost his fortune and family. Yet, AT NO TIME does he doubt that God exists. On the contrary, much like MT, Job thinks that God either does not love him anymore or is punishing him for some inexplicable reason.
And in case you missed it, MT specifically asked that her letters be destroyed, because would put the emphasis on her instead of Jesus. That's hardly a concern someone would have, if he/she didn't believe that He existed. In fact, one of her letters (which you conveniently missed states, "I want the work to remain only His"). She wanted the work that she did to be for the glory of God, the absolute LAST thing that would be on the mind of an atheist.
Do either of you believe Pope Benedict is a believing Christian? As head of the Holy Office (also known as the Holy See or more infamously as The Inquisition) he sent letters demanding priests and bishops all across the US and Europe send any and all evidence of child molestation to the Holy See so that proper compensation could be calculated... he then destroyed all this evidence and refused to help any of the prosecutions.
Are these the actions of someone who GENUINELY believed he would someday be judged by God? When you are complicit in and enabler of organised, covered-up mass child rape, at what point does that become criminal? At what point does that become immoral? At what point does that become un-Christian?
If these accusations are accurate, such actions are un-Christian. But, how does that make Benedict an atheist, what you claimed he was?
Do either of you really believe any intellectual is a genuine religious believer? American politics is the only arena in which intellectuals profess religious faith... where are the religious intellectuals in any other field of human endeavor?
Only in American politics? Boy are you off your rocker or what?
As for where the intellectuals are....Hmmmm....There's:
Louis Pasteur, Dr. Robin Crossman, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. D. James Kennedy (2000 Most Oustanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century); RADM (Ret.) Barry Black, Dr. Bruce Metgzer, Dr. Ben Carson, Jay Sekulow.....stop me anytime you like.
The bottom line is that silly statement of yours is based on little more than your atheist bias, which has no root when it comes to actual fact, regarding intellect and religious belief. And, that still doesn't erase the fact that YOU have stated your would-be support for two guys, who shouldn't even register on your radar, because they claim to be Christians.
That alone, by your standards, makes them "morons" and unfit for public office. But, since you have some interest in them or even like them (re: Obama), you've had to resort to foolish claims that they're actually atheists on the down-low. Laughable, yet pitiful.
-
Well try answering a question properly here McWay...
Is Putin a believing Christian? ...he did wear a crucifix lapel pin.
Is Pope Benedict? ...he ran the worlds largest pedophile ring.
I notice you avoid what you don't want to answer, all the while putting words in my mouth.
The Luke
Since it’s obvious you missed your daily “Hooked on Phonics” session, I will reiterate my answer to those questions of yours, even though you CONTINUE to hide behind them to avoid answering those addressed to you.
If these accusations are accurate, such actions are un-Christian. But, how does that make Benedict (or Putin) an atheist, what you claimed he was?
Those actions, while (if true) errant, are NOT a declaration or a statement of a LACK OF BELIEF in GOD of the supernatural, the VERY DEFINITION OF AN ATHEIST.
An ATHEIST does not believe that God exist. You have NOT demonstrated any actions or statements by Obama, King, Paul, Mother Theresa, or even Benedict or Putin, that shows that THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN A SUPERNATURAL DIETY.
-
Yes, it's very sad but at least he doesn't cram it down your throat. He was just indoctrinated at a young age and it's hard to recover from that...
Notwithstanding the issue of his Christian faith hardly being something from which Paul would need to "recover", you forget that Christians come from all walks of life. There is the little matter of Obama who, according to his bio, became a Christian AS AN ADULT.
And, there are plenty of people who've done that. In fact, if you asked Loco, he'll tell you about one of his favorite authors, A FORMER ATHEIST who became a Christian.
-
Notwithstanding the issue of his Christian faith hardly being something from which Paul would need to "recover", you forget that Christians come from all walks of life. There is the little matter of Obama who, according to his bio, became a Christian AS AN ADULT.
And, there are plenty of people who've done that. In fact, if you asked Loco, he'll tell you about one of his favorite authors, A FORMER ATHEIST who became a Christian.
Like I said, there are bigger issues than Ron Paul's Christianity (which unfortunately does affect his abortion views but that is not the pressing issue of our time); he is spot on civil liberties, monetary policy and most importantly foreign policy, which is all I care about. I don't like Obama and have nothing to say about him; maybe he is bullshitting, maybe not. He's not getting my vote.
Loco is an ok guy, apart from his Christianity; there is a Brazilian guy (an evangelical) who lives in my house; I avoid the religion thing with him and he is ok for the most part. There are lots of decent people of weak psychology who fall for the false hope of Christianity.
-
Well said Deicide...
I think most sensible people would conclude that people such as Putin are Christian for show only.
How McWay can think a believing Christian could cover up large scale institutional pedophilia (as the current Pope has) I don't know. But it might explain how someone such as Ted Hagard can be a straight married man who has sex with men, while NOT being homosexual.
Judge people by their actions.
Why can't Christians concede that they don't know for sure whether any professed Christian is a true believer in their heart...?
The Luke
-
Like I said, there are bigger issues than Ron Paul's Christianity (which unfortunately does affect his abortion views but that is not the pressing issue of our time); he is spot on civil liberties, monetary policy and most importantly foreign policy, which is all I care about. I don't like Obama and have nothing to say about him; maybe he is bullshitting, maybe not. He's not getting my vote.
So be it. But, you've made it clear why you'd vote for Ron Paul. And, you don't think he's a moron, just because he's a Christian or that he shouldn't be running for office.
The issue is Luke's self-inflicted wounds, regarding his statements of who should and shouldn't be considered for office.
Well said Deicide...
I think most sensible people would conclude that people such as Putin are Christian for show only.
How McWay can think a believing Christian could cover up large scale institutional pedophilia (as the current Pope has) I don't know. But it might explain how someone such as Ted Hagard can be a straight married man who has sex with men, while NOT being homosexual.
Judge people by their actions.
Why can't Christians concede that they don't know for sure whether any professed Christian is a true believer in their heart...?
The Luke
GOOD JOB, genius. That's what I've said all along. Until I see some actions that conflict with Obama's or Paul's profession of faith, I will assume that those men are what they say they are.
You, on the other hand, have made bone-headed statements about these guys being atheists. Yet, when asked REPEATEDLY to show what statements or actions of theirs betray their profession of faith or show that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, you cry and make pitiful excuses.
As for Benedict, it appears that you still don't read very well. If those actions of Benedict are true, then such actions are errant and decidedly un-Christian. With that said, that STILL doesn't make your utterly stupid claim, about Benedict being an atheist, valid.
This issue isn't whether Christians concede about whether someone is a true believer. So, cease with this woeful attempt to cover your backside.
You specifically that these guys were atheists (i.e. they DO NOT BELIEVE in God). So, show where such is the case. As the old saying goes, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!
Try answering those questions for one, instead of sniveling, hiding behind hypothetical situations, and dredging up more pointless questions, in an attempt to avoid backing your previous claims.
-
Which questions McWay, your prose isn't as well structured as you think it is...
Ask me one simple short sentence question and I'll answer it, succinctly (even though you wouldn't do the same for me).
The Luke
-
Which questions McWay, your prose isn't as well structured as you think it is...
Ask me one simple short sentence question and I'll answer it, succinctly (even though you wouldn't do the same for me).
The Luke
I've asked you several, which went a little something like this:
1. Obama is ALSO a religious person, or did you forget that part in all your blubbering. He professed to be a man of faith. So, genius, why are you talking about Obama being president of the United States?
2. I asked you specifically to give any actions or statements from Barack Obama (or Ron Paul or even MLK) THAT WOULD BETRAY his professed Christian beliefs.
3. Again, where in that statement do you disqualify Paul for consideration, BECAUSE OF HIS CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, which you should do automatically, based on your previous statements?
And, just in case you still don't get it.
4. What actions or statements or Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Martin Luther King betray their claim of being Christians and show that, per you claims, that they are atheists (i.e. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, OR ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL DEITY)?
-
Ask me one simple short sentence question and I'll answer it, succinctly (even though you wouldn't do the same for me).
...epic reading comprehension.
Pick one question... so we don't have to read your unending evasive diatribes.
The Luke
-
...epic reading comprehension.
Pick one question... so we don't have to read your unending evasive diatribes.
The Luke
You pick one and let's see if you actually answer it, instead of running away and making excuses.
-
1. Obama is ALSO a religious person, or did you forget that part in all your blubbering. He professed to be a man of faith. So, genius, why are you talking about Obama being president of the United States?
I didn't. Not in this thread. Find the quote...
2. I asked you specifically to give any actions or statements from Barack Obama (or Ron Paul or even MLK) THAT WOULD BETRAY his professed Christian beliefs.
In Obama's case, he was raised a secularist and remained one till he decided to run for public office... even then he chose the specific congregation that would afford him the most access to the movers and shakers in the Chicago black community.
Add to this his high IQ... a religious intellectual would be quite an anomaly. An intellectual professing to be religious for political reasons is far more plausible and far more probable.
There are NO religious intellectuals in the science fields, where a profession of faith is not required... that should tell us something. There are no Kim Jong-Il worshipping intellectuals outside of North Korea either.
3. Again, where in that statement do you disqualify Paul for consideration, BECAUSE OF HIS CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, which you should do automatically, based on your previous statements?
I didn't in that statement... but neither did I ever claim the one reason I gave was the one and only reason I had... you falsely attributed that statement to me, just as you also falsely claimed that I wanted to vote for Ron Paul.
Doesn't deliberately misquoting someone in order to falsely accuse them of being a liar constitute "bearing false witness"?
4. What actions or statements or Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Martin Luther King betray their claim of being Christians and show that, per you claims, that they are atheists (i.e. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, OR ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL DEITY)?
...Professing yourself a Christian doesn't make you one.
Similarly, neither have performed any actions that would by definition make them atheists either... so we don't know.
You contend that even those of distinctly un-Christian conduct can still be Christians (referring to my statements regarding Putin and Pope Benedict)... but this doesn't hold true.
And this is where religious people show themselves to be divorced from reality...
Ted Haggard professes himself to be a heterosexual Christian... but secretly he loves the cock.
He gets caught.
To his deluded congregation of religious simpletons he still is a heterosexual Christian.... just a heterosexual Christian who has "sinned".
George Bush figures Vladimir Putin (ex-KGB dirty works operative) is a good man because he wore a crucifix lapel pin. I have a tshirt that says "FBI: Federal Breast Inspector".
George Bush claims to be a born-again Christian, so the delude masses vote him president... then he carpet bombs civilians. Stalin also bombed civilians, should we believe he was a the "decent, simple man" he claimed to be?
Do you see where this is going?
Intellectuals don't believe in the literal truth of folklore... they certainly don't take one particular folktale literally as a basic tenet of their character while dismissing all other fairytales.
But would an ambitious politician fake such piety in order to win elections?
The Luke
-
Notwithstanding the issue of his Christian faith hardly being something from which Paul would need to "recover", you forget that Christians come from all walks of life. There is the little matter of Obama who, according to his bio, became a Christian AS AN ADULT.
And, there are plenty of people who've done that. In fact, if you asked Loco, he'll tell you about one of his favorite authors, A FORMER ATHEIST who became a Christian.
Just one?
Lee Strobel
Josh McDowell
C. S. Lewis
Ravi Zacharias
Francis Collins
Alister McGrath
Anne Rice...
The list goes on
-
The Luke,
The Almighty says: Answer the f...freaking question.
You're worse than Sarah Palin.
...which question?
The Luke
Q: If all Christians are fools, why did you say that you'd vote for Ron Paul? Ron Paul is an intellectual and a devout Christian. Ron Paul is a fool?
Statement of Faith - By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
-
Q: If all Christians are fools, why did you say that you'd vote for Ron Paul? Ron Paul is an intellectual and a devout Christian. Ron Paul is a fool?
Statement of Faith - By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
He is foolish to believe that his political and monetary policies/opinions are founded on Christian principles because plenty of atheists (such as myself) generally agree with him with no religious justification at all, rather a rational and philsophical one.
-
Lee Strobel
Josh McDowell
C. S. Lewis
Ravi Zacharias
Francis Collins
Alister McGrath
Anne Rice...
...pretty short list. But without doing any Googling:
-Anne Rice... pulp novelist, not an intellectual by any stretch
-C S Lewis... mathematician and intellectual, only became religious after he developed schizophrenia (if I remember correctly)
The Luke
-
...pretty short list. But without doing any Googling:
-Anne Rice... pulp novelist, not an intellectual by any stretch
-C S Lewis... mathematician and intellectual, only became religious after he developed schizophrenia (if I remember correctly)
The Luke
Alister McGrath is pathetic; he isn't even a good advocate of Christianity: watch him get destroyed by Peter Atkins...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Peter+atkins+alister+mcgrath&emb=0&aq=f#
-
Way to avoid the question, The Luke!
-
Way to avoid the question, The Luke!
Way to watch that idiot Mcgrath get annihilated.
-
I'm being called to task by Grape Ape for stating that Obama; Ron Paul (both self professed Christians); Martin Luther King Jr (a reverend); Mother Theresa (a nun) and the Pope (something of a religious figure in his own way) could be ASSUMED to be religious people by McWay.
The Luke
???
Your argument was that Obama was an athiest, despite acting completely to the contrary, because you: 1. Assumed he was a great thinker and, 2. Applied your theory that most great thinkers throughout history were athiests, therefore Obama must be too.
Your statement above was never what I questioned.
-
whats Maher have to do with this
-
I didn't. Not in this thread. Find the quote...
There's that short memory again!
Just for the record... McWay didn't read my post correctly, if I could vote in the American elections I'd vote for Barack Obama (my fellow atheist).
I'd prefer to vote for Ralph Nader, but he isn't a viable candidate in the US because the mean IQ has drifted so far from the average.
The Luke
In Obama's case, he was raised a secularist and remained one till he decided to run for public office... even then he chose the specific congregation that would afford him the most access to the movers and shakers in the Chicago black community.
Being raised secularist doesn't mean squat. As Loco has just shown you, there are plenty of people, some who were professed atheists, who became Christians in their adult lives. Plus, you STILL haven't demonstrated that Obama DOES NOT believe in God.
There are NO religious intellectuals in the science fields, where a profession of faith is not required... that should tell us something. There are no Kim Jong-Il worshipping intellectuals outside of North Korea either.
Wrong again! I've listed some of them earlier. But, just as a refresher: Dr. Ben Carson, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Robin Crossman, Dr. Kurt Wise, just ot name a few.
I didn't in that statement... but neither did I ever claim the one reason I gave was the one and only reason I had... you falsely attributed that statement to me, just as you also falsely claimed that I wanted to vote for Ron Paul.
I don't think so. I specifically stated that the lone reason you gave to Deicide for being reluctant to support Paul was his economic policies. And, I quote YOUR VERY OWN WORDS to make that point. Plus, you still miss the fact that, BY YOUR OWN WORDS, Paul shouldn't even be in consideration, because of his Christian beliefs. By your standards, he's "divorced from reality", a "moron", and he "shouldn't be considered for public office".
You've had plenty of opportunity to voice your objections to Paul, based on his religious beliefs. Guess what!!! YOU DID NOTHING OF THE SORT!!!
Doesn't deliberately misquoting someone in order to falsely accuse them of being a liar constitute "bearing false witness"?
I didn't misquote you, so please stop crying and making that accusation, every time you fall short in backing up your statements. I cited your words, exactly and I've done it more than once.
...Professing yourself a Christian doesn't make you one.
Similarly, neither have performed any actions that would by definition make them atheists either... so we don't know.
That's why we have this crazy thing called BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. If you don't know, stop making STUPID STATEMENTS, such as the one you made earlier about Obama being "my fellow atheist".
You contend that even those of distinctly un-Christian conduct can still be Christians (referring to my statements regarding Putin and Pope Benedict)... but this doesn't hold true.
And this is where religious people show themselves to be divorced from reality...
Ted Haggard professes himself to be a heterosexual Christian... but secretly he loves the cock.
He gets caught.
To his deluded congregation of religious simpletons he still is a heterosexual Christian.... just a heterosexual Christian who has "sinned".
George Bush figures Vladimir Putin (ex-KGB dirty works operative) is a good man because he wore a crucifix lapel pin. I have a tshirt that says "FBI: Federal Breast Inspector".
George Bush claims to be a born-again Christian, so the delude masses vote him president... then he carpet bombs civilians. Stalin also bombed civilians, should we believe he was a the "decent, simple man" he claimed to be?
Do you see where this is going?
Yep, it's going to be your feet down your gullet.....AGAIN. The issue wasn't whether or not they were Christians. It was whether or not, per your claims, they were atheists (i.e. they DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD or any other supernatural deity).
Intellectuals don't believe in the literal truth of folklore... they certainly don't take one particular folktale literally as a basic tenet of their character while dismissing all other fairytales.
Tell that to Jay Sekulow, the late D. James Kennedy, and the others listed earlier.
But would an ambitious politician fake such piety in order to win elections?
The Luke
Maybe, maybe not. The problem is YOU HAVE NOTHING that shows that such is the case. And, you've been asked to produce such on multiple occasions. Instead, you opt to whine, bleat, moan, and make pitiful accusations.
-
...pretty short list. But without doing any Googling:
-Anne Rice... pulp novelist, not an intellectual by any stretch
-C S Lewis... mathematician and intellectual, only became religious after he developed schizophrenia (if I remember correctly)
The Luke
When did Loco claim that this list was exhaustive? Plus, these are Loco's favorites. That certainly doesn't mean that these are the only Christians who were once atheists.
-
When did Loco claim that this list was exhaustive? Plus, these are Loco's favorites. That certainly doesn't mean that these are the only Christians who were once atheists.
Exactly, I did say that there are many more, plus the length of the list is irrelevant. The mere existence of this list is what's relevant, in light of The Luke's claims.
The Luke, are you going to answer my question?
-
There are NO religious intellectuals in the science fields, where a profession of faith is not required... that should tell us something.
WHAT?
As examples of "good scientists who are sincerely religious", Dawkins names Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 99. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
Here are more:
Among the fathers of the so-called modern synthesis, Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian and something of an amateur theologian; Sir Ronald Fisher was a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines.
- H. Allen Orr, "Gould on God", Can religion and science be happily reconciled?
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html
And that's just to name a few.
The Luke,
are you going to answer my question, or are you going to keep changing the subject to avoid it?
-
WHAT?
As examples of "good scientists who are sincerely religious", Dawkins names Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 99. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
Here are more:
Among the fathers of the so-called modern synthesis, Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian and something of an amateur theologian; Sir Ronald Fisher was a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines.
- H. Allen Orr, "Gould on God", Can religion and science be happily reconciled?
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html
And that's just to name a few.
The Luke,
are you going to answer my question, or are you going to keep changing the subject to avoid it?
All of these scientists support Evolution in every respect. Tell that to your Young Earth Creationist friend MCWAY, cabron.
-
All of these scientists support Evolution in every respect. Tell that to your Young Earth Creationist friend MCWAY, cabron.
That's irrelevant to this discussion and this still very much contradicts The Luke's claim that "There are NO religious intellectuals in the science fields." These are devout Christians and they are very well known modern scientists.
-
That's irrelevant to this discussion and this still very much contradicts The Luke's claim that "There are NO religious intellectuals in the science fields." These are devout Christians and very well known modern scientists.
Who regard Evolution as fact. You should argue with MCWAY about this; he thinks the world is 6,000 years old.
-
Who regard Evolution as fact. You should argue with MCWAY about this; he thinks the world is 6,000 years old.
Then you should argue with The Luke who claims that "There are NO religious intellectuals in the science fields" and also claims that Ron Paul is an atheist.
-
This thread is a prime example of what Bill Maher is talking about...
Religious morons misquoting and misrepresenting the other side of the argument so they can convince themselves they are right.
Way to avoid the question, The Luke!
The Luke, are you going to answer my question?
The Luke,
are you going to answer my question, or are you going to keep changing the subject to avoid it?
...which question? This one:
Q: If all Christians are fools, why did you say that you'd vote for Ron Paul? Ron Paul is an intellectual and a devout Christian. Ron Paul is a fool?
...I can't answer this as I never said I would vote for Ron Paul.
Am I actually being attacked for something I DIDN'T say...? How logical is that?
I'm sure loco could edit a quote of mine to make it seem that I did (as McWay has done to suit his own ends) but I was pretty explicit with some of my exceptions.
To answer the question I assume is implied here.
Yes... if Ron Paul truly is a devout religious believer (there's no way we can know for sure as Vladimir Putin and many others also claim such yet their actions are at odds with Christian beliefs), but if he is truly a believer, then yes... Yes he is a fool. Such an irrational belief would immediately demote him from any intellectual status... perhaps he is quasi-rational; high functioning in some areas, yet unable to think rationally in other areas.
To clarify... yes, there are NO religious scientists.
Quoting a list of ten; or twenty religious academics doesn't negate the validity of this statement.
Roughly a thousand Nobel Prizes have been awarded in the sciences (usually teams win)... maybe two or three of these scientists are religious. So the objection here is regarding the 0.01% who express some form of religious/spiritual belief.
That's fine by me... I'm happy to be only 99.9% right when my detractors are 99.9% wrong.
The Luke
-
This thread is a prime example of what Bill Maher is talking about...
Religious morons misquoting and misrepresenting the other side of the argument so they can convince themselves they are right.
...which question? This one:
...I can't answer this as I never said I would vote for Ron Paul.
Am I actually being attacked for something I DIDN'T say...? How logical is that?
I'm sure loco could edit a quote of mine to make it seem that I did (as McWay has done to suit his own ends) but I was pretty explicit with some of my exceptions.
To answer the question I assume is implied here.
Yes... if Ron Paul truly is a devout religious believer (there's no way we can know for sure as Vladimir Putin and many others also claim such yet their actions are at odds with Christian beliefs), but if he is truly a believer, then yes... Yes he is a fool. Such an irrational belief would immediately demote him from any intellectual status... perhaps he is quasi-rational; high functioning in some areas, yet unable to think rationally in other areas.
To clarify... yes, there are NO religious scientists.
Quoting a list of ten; or twenty religious academics doesn't negate the validity of this statement.
Roughly a thousand Nobel Prizes have been awarded in the sciences (usually teams win)... maybe two or three of these scientists are religious. So the objection here is regarding the 0.01% who express some form of religious/spiritual belief.
That's fine by me... I'm happy to be only 99.9% right when my detractors are 99.9% wrong.
The Luke
The Luke,
Thanks very much for finally answering my question! I apologize if you never said that you would ever support or vote for Ron Paul. If I understood correctly, Ron Paul is a fool to you and you'd never support him or vote for him.
Yes, I can edit your quotes. Anybody can. But I would never do that, and I doubt MCWAY would either.
As for "religious intellectuals in the science fields", you did not say that there are very few. You said that there are none. So you were wrong. And the scientists I listed are no ordinary scientists. They are some of the best and they have made great contributions to modern science.
-
As for "religious intellectuals in the science fields", you did not say that there are very few. You said that there are none. So you were wrong. And the scientists I listed are no ordinary scientists. They are some of the best and they have made great contributions to modern science.
...closer examination would show that the few scientists who do express religious belief generally have certain caveats:
-they believe in religion itself, not god.
Their belief being based on the worth of what Plato called "The Noble Lie" ie: religion does more good than harm, so it is worthwhile even if untrue. The "it's-good-for-other-people-to-believe" crowd.
-they believe in a sublime intelligence that produced the fundamental physical laws (like Einstein), not a personal god... but more of a "possible" creator akin to a non-interventionist Newtonian "Prime Mover".
-they are spiritualist or speculative deists... they have a gut feeling they're might be something behind the reality we see.
-they are mathematical deists: they believe in an impersonal; non-sentient set of mathematical laws whose expression is what we perceive as reality: some go so far as to liken insight into these laws to a quasi-religious revelation... a sort of initiatory mystery religion of science. But this is mostly romantic fancy and recognised as such even by those who partake of it.
-they are self identified religious non-believers. If asked they say they are Catholic (or Protestant) as they identify such tradition as part of their identity... but they don't worship; pray or believe. As a physicist friend of mine said: "Religion? That's what one abandons to embrace reason... whichever tradition you come from isn't nearly as important as you having left it". He once also asked a fellow doctoral candidate: "I was catholic... which religion did you leave?"
Religious scientists are no ordinary believers.
...the figures of devout religious scientists are so low that claiming certain scientists are religious as some form of trend is pointless. You'd find more schizophrenics; alcoholics or delusional scientists than you would find Bible-bashers. More of them are sitting in padded rooms claiming to be Napoleon than are praying in Church on Sunday morning.
To put it in perspective; there are probably more blacks in the KKK than there are religious believers among top scientists.
Does that make the KKK a black organisation...? Does that make all ethnicities compatible with the KKK?
The Luke
-
...closer examination would show that the few scientists who do express religious belief generally have certain caveats:
-they believe in religion itself, not god.
Their belief being based on the worth of what Plato called "The Noble Lie" ie: religion does more good than harm, so it is worthwhile even if untrue. The "it's-good-for-other-people-to-believe" crowd.
-they believe in a sublime intelligence that produced the fundamental physical laws (like Einstein), not a personal god... but more of a "possible" creator akin to a non-interventionist Newtonian "Prime Mover".
-they are spiritualist or speculative deists... they have a gut feeling they're might be something behind the reality we see.
-they are mathematical deists: they believe in an impersonal; non-sentient set of mathematical laws whose expression is what we perceive as reality: some go so far as to liken insight into these laws to a quasi-religious revelation... a sort of initiatory mystery religion of science. But this is mostly romantic fancy and recognised as such even by those who partake of it.
-they are self identified religious non-believers. If asked they say they are Catholic (or Protestant) as they identify such tradition as part of their identity... but they don't worship; pray or believe. As a physicist friend of mine said: "Religion? That's what one abandons to embrace reason... whichever tradition you come from isn't nearly as important as you having left it". He once also asked a fellow doctoral candidate: "I was catholic... which religion did you leave?"
Religious scientists are no ordinary believers.
...the figures of devout religious scientists are so low that claiming certain scientists are religious as some form of trend is pointless. You'd find more schizophrenics; alcoholics or delusional scientists than you would find Bible-bashers. More of them are sitting in padded rooms claiming to be Napoleon than are praying in Church on Sunday morning.
To put it in perspective; there are probably more blacks in the KKK than there are religious believers among top scientists.
Does that make the KKK a black organisation...? Does that make all ethnicities compatible with the KKK?
The Luke
But none of this is true for the scientists that I...that Richard Dawkins listed. These are not just scientists, but "good scientists" and not just deists, but "sincerely religious", devout Christians.
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 99. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
And
Among the fathers of the so-called modern synthesis, Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian and something of an amateur theologian; Sir Ronald Fisher was a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines.
- H. Allen Orr, "Gould on God", Can religion and science be happily reconciled?
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html
-
I disagree with Luke here cabron because the human mind is infinitely skilled at delusion, compartmentalisation and self-convinction. I think there are good scientists that are religious but I think it highly unlikely that it was their science which make them religious. Psychological delusion is a powerful thing and we all suffer from it to some extent.
-
I disagree with Luke here cabron because the human mind is infinitely skilled at delusion, compartmentalisation and self-convinction. I think there are good scientists that are religious but I think it highly unlikely that it was their science which make them religious. Psychological delusion is a powerful thing and we all suffer from it to some extent.
"cabron"
LOL ;D
Deicide,
for the sake of the topic of this thread, based on what you just wrote above, would you agree that a deeply religious person, such as Ron Paul, can still make a good president just as much as those deeply religious people make good scientists?
-
This thread is a prime example of what Bill Maher is talking about...
Religious morons misquoting and misrepresenting the other side of the argument so they can convince themselves they are right.
...which question? This one:
...I can't answer this as I never said I would vote for Ron Paul.
Am I actually being attacked for something I DIDN'T say...? How logical is that?
I'm sure loco could edit a quote of mine to make it seem that I did (as McWay has done to suit his own ends) but I was pretty explicit with some of my exceptions.
Loco already pointed that out, during his conversation with Deicide, " So what? The Luke said that he'd vote for Ron Paul, and he gave the only reason why he would not vote for Ron Paul. His one reason had nothing to do with Ron Paul's Christian beliefs.
To answer the question I assume is implied here.
Yes... if Ron Paul truly is a devout religious believer (there's no way we can know for sure as Vladimir Putin and many others also claim such yet their actions are at odds with Christian beliefs), but if he is truly a believer, then yes... Yes he is a fool. Such an irrational belief would immediately demote him from any intellectual status... perhaps he is quasi-rational; high functioning in some areas, yet unable to think rationally in other areas.
Once again, if there's no way you can know for sure (and you CANNOT PRODUCE any actions of theirs that would betray their profession of faith), then you give them the benefit of the doubt. You haven't done that. Furthermore, that boneheaded statement of yours just proved what I've said from the start. You can't back your words, with regards to Obama, Paul, MLK, or anyone else.
The only reason you're suggesting that these men are atheists (at least, with King and Obama) is because of YOUR OWN PREJUDICIAL (but woefully lacking in fact) bent that religious people can't be intellectuals. That has been proven to be dead wrong, time and time and time again.
To top it all off, you said that the one issue you had with Paul was his economic policy, NOT his religious beliefs. Per your own twisted standards, the thought of perhaps voting for Paul should have VANISHED the second you learned that he was a Christian.
NONE of these men are atheists; NONE of them claim that there is no God or support positions or have taken actions that would suggest their lack of belief in a supernatural deity. Therefore, your proclaiming that they are atheists, to save your contorted logic and figuratively exposed behind, is not only false, it's just plain DUMB!
To clarify... yes, there are NO religious scientists.
Incorrect, once again, as I listed a handful of them earlier: Louis Pasteur, Kurt Wise, Robin Crossman, Ben Carson, Duane Gish, and that's merely the short list.
Quoting a list of ten; or twenty religious academics doesn't negate the validity of this statement.
The list is far longer; again, no one claimed that such is exhaustive. Once again, your pitiful takes get cut to ribbons; so, you're scrambling to make excuses.
Roughly a thousand Nobel Prizes have been awarded in the sciences (usually teams win)... maybe two or three of these scientists are religious. So the objection here is regarding the 0.01% who express some form of religious/spiritual belief.
That's fine by me... I'm happy to be only 99.9% right when my detractors are 99.9% wrong.
The Luke
Last time I checked, winning a Nobel prize was NOT A REQUIREMENT to be an intellectual. There are plenty of intellectuals who don't win them. Basically, it goes like this. Your attempt to rationalize why you'd potentally vote for someone, who is a Christian, while struggling to claim that he's actually atheist, is perhaps the most feeble and foolish gesturing I've ever seen. The only thing that might trump that is your spineless, limp-wristed whining about people twisting your words, even though those words are in plain sight, in black-and-white, in full context, for all to see.
-
"cabron"
LOL ;D
Deicide,
for the sake of the topic of this thread, based on what you just wrote above, would you agree that a deeply religious person, such as Ron Paul, can still make a good president just as much as those deeply religious people make good scientists?
As long as they keep their delusion to themselves. Ron Paul is really a borderline case; I think though, in these times, one needs to overlook his religious lunacy.
People can be delusional and still do other things well. I used to believe in the power of astrology in my youth.
-
As long as they keep their delusion to themselves. Ron Paul is really a borderline case; I think though, in these times, one needs to overlook his religious lunacy.
People can be delusional and still do other things well. I used to believe in the power of astrology in my youth.
Notwithstanding the disagreement with the claims of his faith being "delusional", Luke isn't even doing that. Everytime he finds an "intellectual" he likes, who happens to be a Christian, he feebly attempts to explain away their Christian faith to untie the philosophical knot, in which he finds himself.
-
McWay mentioned Dr. Ben Carson, who is arguably the leading neurosurgeon in the world and a devout Christian. How does The Luke characterize Dr. Carson?
-
McWay mentioned Dr. Ben Carson, who is arguably the leading neurosurgeon in the world and a devout Christian. How does The Luke characterize Dr. Carson?
...I'll have to look this up. There have been lots of physicists; archaeologists; historians; geologists etc pushed as "pro-Creation scientific experts" by Creationists only to be exposed as charlatans later on.
There's a list maintained at...
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html
...and quoted/promulgated on many religious sites, of "50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God".
Read just the first three names... none of them were religious.
The rest of this impressive list is equally ridiculous.
The Luke
-
...I'll have to look this up. There have been lots of physicists; archaeologists; historians; geologists etc pushed as "pro-Creation scientific experts" by Creationists only to be exposed as charlatans later on.
There's a list maintained at...
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html
...and quoted/promulgated on many religious sites, of "50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God".
Read just the first three names... none of them were religious.
The rest of this impressive list is equally ridiculous.
The Luke
I'll help you. Here is some info:
A pediatric neurosurgeon of world-renown, and a mentor to countless individuals of all ages, Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., M.D., carries with him his message of hope for and faith in the human spirit and the remarkable ability of the human brain. To all who say that circumstances in their lives have made personal success impossible, Dr. Carson, director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, is living proof that perseverance, prayer, and self-respect, combined with a devotion to acquiring knowledge, can overcome any obstacles in one's way.
http://www.drbencarson.com/
A committed Christian, Dr. Carson places the values of God and family above all other considerations in his life. He turns for guidance to the word of God, and to his family and church community for strength and the moral compass to keep steady in his endeavors and at peace.
http://www.drbencarson.com/faith.html
-
Just save your breath, you masturbators.
There is no God and Americans are incredibly stupid.
Now fuck off.
-
Just save your breath, you masturbators.
There is no God and Americans are incredibly stupid.
Now fuck off.
Wow you just proved James Phoenix and TheLukes Theory that Athiests are more intelligent than Christians.
::)
-
Wow you just proved James Phoenix and TheLukes Theory that Athiests are more intelligent than Christians.
::)
LOL
-
Just save your breath, you masturbators.
There is no God and Americans are incredibly stupid.
Now fuck off.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
-
I'll help you. Here is some info:
A pediatric neurosurgeon of world-renown, and a mentor to countless individuals of all ages, Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., M.D., carries with him his message of hope for and faith in the human spirit and the remarkable ability of the human brain. To all who say that circumstances in their lives have made personal success impossible, Dr. Carson, director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, is living proof that perseverance, prayer, and self-respect, combined with a devotion to acquiring knowledge, can overcome any obstacles in one's way.
http://www.drbencarson.com/
A committed Christian, Dr. Carson places the values of God and family above all other considerations in his life. He turns for guidance to the word of God, and to his family and church community for strength and the moral compass to keep steady in his endeavors and at peace.
http://www.drbencarson.com/faith.html
Oh my.
Was it AFTER this, that he did what he did?
-
Good thread. :)