|
On October 20 2010 17:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 15:34 jacen wrote:
Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices. What is with all the left wingers on this website? America is already a laughing stock economically , i like the tea parties conservative economic policies. You can't keep spending at the rate Obama has been and not expect to wake up with a big hangover.
calling people with brains left wingers?
this woman is just incredibly dumb. she wants the us to be like iran in case u didn't know. she did not even know the separation of state and religion is in the first ammendment of the constitution. how can someone support the us becoming a christian religious state? let alone those dumb economic arguments of people still believing in wrong economic rules like government spendings (government spendings will be reinvested netting the government more taxes f.e.). but i won't comment this bs.
just some nice quotes of this lady:
Coons said that creationism, which he considers "a religious doctrine," should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution's First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state.
The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded.
source
|
Just saw the video, HEEEELARIOUS =)
|
On October 20 2010 17:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 15:34 jacen wrote:
Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices. What is with all the left wingers on this website? America is already a laughing stock economically , i like the tea parties conservative economic policies. You can't keep spending at the rate Obama has been and not expect to wake up with a big hangover.
I love the tea party's original goals. I think the biggest threat to US well-being and safety by FAR is the government.... reckless spending on an unbelievable level, the slow creep towards a police state (but no policing of huge financial entities that are literally robbing US citizens), and the insane desire to give the rich MORE tax cuts.
I hate what the tea party has become. Millions of retarded right-wingers joined the movement and soon far outnumbered the original tea partiers. Now it's all about Muslim fears and idiotic "take our country back" nonsense, fear-based politics, and people who just want all our problems magically fixed without paying for anything or cutting any costs.
In fact I'm pretty sure if the current tea party had their way, they'd cut no spending, increase tax cuts, and blow the deficit up into the stratosphere. It's the complete opposite of what they were supposed to be.
Christine O'Donnell and all the others hate the idea of government spending and really want the deficit gone, but can't come up with a single way to actually reduce the spending. Fortunately all of the followers are happy to cheer along with the talking points, and don't think far enough to realize that no solutions to the problems are being offered.
|
On October 20 2010 16:25 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 12:14 Beef Noodles wrote:On October 20 2010 12:06 Sadist wrote:On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote:
Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES
If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant
If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory
I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow. It has nothing to do with Christians. What? It has to do with a fundamental view of science. Theories are created to fit data. That data does SUPPORT the theory, but you can't use that data to PROVE the theory (or that would be circular reasoning). I believe in gravity, but I wouldn't call someone crazy for coming up with a different theory that also fit the data (gravity is an extreme example). Due to the nature of arriving at theories, it is very hard to both prove/disprove an intelligent theory. That is my only point. So be nice to people with a differing opinion (and don't write them off as Christian fundamentalists or whatever). But Christine O'Donnell=Christian fundamentalist
I dont know if this was a joke post or not but if people cant see that ID is simply codeword for creationism I dont think we can have any type of discussion because its pointless. Read up on the history of where "Intelligent design" came from and its plainly obvious that its creationism packaged to con people into thinking its real science. Its a tactic of trying to muddy up the waters like cigarette companies tried to use to say they arent harmful to your health.
Nowadays they are simply trying to get the "debate" taught, but there is no fucking debate so its just these people trying to confuse people and ruin them.
|
How did the Bill of Rights waving tea party elect someone who doesn't even know any of the text.
|
Well... at least she's not a witch!
|
On October 20 2010 23:03 Yurebis wrote:
Well... at least she's not a witch!
a fundamentalist christian witch would be odd indeed 
her own people would burn her.
|
It's not surprising that she doesn't know that, after all if you ask the average joe on the street about the first amendment they'll tell you it's about freedom of speech which it is, but of course that's not the first sentence. I bet you couldn't get more then 5% (that's about 20 of 435)of the house to recite the first amendment word by word. Maybe people don't know that now because most people aren't worried about the President crowning himself pope and making us all tithe to the government, but back in 1780s that was sort of an issue.
That being said, she should totally know that if she's running for office. Odds are she's not going to get elected, but either way it's still a sad comment on our political system where the best candidates are still complete idiots.
btw people over use fundamentalist, Amish are fundamentalist, O'Donnel is just a stupid person.
|
Republicans are no better at fiscal responsibility than Democrats. The only difference is what they want to spend the money on. Democrats want to extend health care coverage and unemployment benefits, Republicans want to put more into military contractors and tax cuts for the rich (abolishing things like estate taxes that only affect multimillion dollar estates).
The Tea Party may have started off as a separate entity of concerned voters, but it's been wholely consumed by the Republican establishment.
|
On October 20 2010 14:29 Beef Noodles wrote:
Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory.
2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well)
3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion
4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway.
1. You don't know what a scientific theory is. See preceding posts.
2. You made the bold claim of "It has nothing to do with Christianity". Your words, not mine. You make a badass blanket assertion like that, best be prepared to back it up. I am challenging that claim, so please, do go on. Nowhere did I say there was anything wrong with criticizing a theory, I merely made the observation that it appears the totality of the people doing the criticizing appear to be religious. If you can rebut this claim, by all means, go ahead.
On October 20 2010 14:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Can you name any non-Christian politicians, period? Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is purely fundamentalist Christianity since you've only seen the context of this debate in the US, where a huge majority of the nation is Christian. Fundamentalist Muslims, for example, may also be against evolution: http://www.hssrd.org/journal/summer2002/muslim-response.htm
Whoa, how silly of me to make that obviously incorrect assumption in a clearly US-based thread about clearly American politicians in an American debate. Clearly I did not realize we were actually talking about things in a global context, my apologies.
|
On October 20 2010 23:03 Yurebis wrote:
Well... at least she's not a witch!
I'm not sure about this. Maybe we should weigh her against a duck to make sure!
|
|
|
I still remember the shitstorm when he wanted to be sworn-in with a Qu'ran instead of a Bible.
|
On October 21 2010 01:33 Adila wrote:I still remember the shitstorm when he wanted to be sworn-in with a Qu'ran instead of a Bible.
Unfortunately, me too.
I'd make a fuss. Like in court they make you swear on a Bible. I'd be like "I'm an atheist. I am not swearing on that."
|
On October 21 2010 01:33 Adila wrote:I still remember the shitstorm when he wanted to be sworn-in with a Qu'ran instead of a Bible.
My favorite thing about the whole "obama is muslim!!1" conspiracy crowd, is that even if obama is actually a muslim, why does it matter at all?
|
On October 21 2010 02:42 Infundibulum wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2010 01:33 Adila wrote:I still remember the shitstorm when he wanted to be sworn-in with a Qu'ran instead of a Bible. My favorite thing about the whole "obama is muslim!!1" conspiracy crowd, is that even if obama is actually a muslim, why does it matter at all?
Muslims=terrorists
|
So when is the Pope moving the Vatican do Washington ? You can have it. Many times i thought italian politics is so corrupt and bad, putting idiots in parliament, but it doesn't seem to be a local thing. At least they don't openly talk about a christian state, we had that for so long and had to siege the pope to end it some 150 years ago, so ok you can have him, the vatican and his castle.
|
On October 21 2010 04:23 Ganondorf wrote:
So when is the Pope moving the Vatican do Washington ? You can have it. Many times i thought italian politics is so corrupt and bad, putting idiots in parliament, but it doesn't seem to be a local thing. At least they don't openly talk about a christian state, we had that for so long and had to siege the pope to end it some 150 years ago, so ok you can have him, the vatican and his castle.
Americans don't really like Catholics either.
|
On October 21 2010 00:42 MangoTango wrote:I'm not sure about this. Maybe we should weigh her against a duck to make sure!
ahh, but only if she has already turned someone into a newt 
|
On October 21 2010 00:30 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 14:29 Beef Noodles wrote:
Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory.
2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well)
3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion
4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway. 1. You don't know what a scientific theory is. See preceding posts. 2. You made the bold claim of "It has nothing to do with Christianity". Your words, not mine. You make a badass blanket assertion like that, best be prepared to back it up. I am challenging that claim, so please, do go on. Nowhere did I say there was anything wrong with criticizing a theory, I merely made the observation that it appears the totality of the people doing the criticizing appear to be religious. If you can rebut this claim, by all means, go ahead. Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 14:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Can you name any non-Christian politicians, period? Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is purely fundamentalist Christianity since you've only seen the context of this debate in the US, where a huge majority of the nation is Christian. Fundamentalist Muslims, for example, may also be against evolution: http://www.hssrd.org/journal/summer2002/muslim-response.htm Whoa, how silly of me to make that obviously incorrect assumption in a clearly US-based thread about clearly American politicians in an American debate. Clearly I did not realize we were actually talking about things in a global context, my apologies.
I really don't like internet arguing. You're right. Everyone who disagrees with you just doesn't know what they are talking about. (Don't read this sarcastically -- I give up)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Rep.K.Ellison.jpg/210px-Rep.K.Ellison.jpg)
