Come down to Texas, and I'll introduce you to some gay Republicans, who aren't social conservatives, but realize just how much the Democrats want to fuck up the country.
Yet for the last 30 years or so, the Republicans have been the undisputed champion of big wasteful government. The Democrats have consistently been better "Republicans" than the Republicans.
Maybe you should stop and look around a little bit instead of repeating ancient sayings that lost their truth decades ago.
The Republicans have proven that not only do they want to fuck up the country, but given the slightest opportunity they will run full speed ahead toward that goal regardless of how illegal or unconstitutional they have to go to do that.
Only somebody with a delusional religious belief in a freaking political party of all things, and a complete ignorance of the last 30 years could possibly attempt to defend the Republicans by claiming the Democrats want to fuck up the country.
Take the worst ideas the Democrats ever had taken to the extreme, throw in radical religious lunacy, and you have todays Republican party.
In reality, the vast majority of people who identify themselves as aligning with the Republican Party do so because of economic reasons not social policies.
Many decades ago there might have been some truth to this. For it to be true now, you would have to prove that the majority of self-identified Republicans believe in the biggest, most oppressive and most expensive government they can get. That they believe in spending money they don't have like drunken sailors and taking out high interest loans to cover it all.
Do you see Republicans admitting that that is what they want?
But let's throw the people who *voted* for Dubya & Co in the chair before that. After all, he was elected by a clear margin in 2004, well after the fun and games in Iraq were underway. Sadly, a people gets the leader(s) that they deserve.
You'll note my sig;-)
And, by the way, a lot of the "reforms" (the more egregious provisions of the PATRIOT Act) that Slashdotters complain about have had as many Dems behind them (especially initially) as Repubs. I've never claimed the Dems were good.
Nah, executing Bush & Co won't solve anything. Let his go back to his ranch and live out his life in ignominy after 2008.
See, we tried that after the Central American massacres... and after Iran Contra when they illegally funded terrorists and sold coke...and when they trained and funded Osama and after a whole other raft of shit which led us to this administration.
With the same treasonous scum back in charge.
If we do not make a stand and demand a simple lack of treason out of our leaders at this point, then we have no chance of ever seeing anything approximating a free society ever again.
The Dems got control of Congress, but Bush still has the legal, though unconstitutional, right to disappear you and your whole family to a death camp to be tortured and murdered on a whim.
Even if the Dems weren't douchebags themselves, the same fucking people will be back. Again.
To go away and live in ignominy, you have to be human enough to have a sense of shame, and these exact people have proven time and time again that they aren't.
That's true for the "Co" anyhow. Bush himself is a tool, but after betraying his oath of office, assaulting our constitution, all the lies, the torture and the murder does it really make sense that he should just go home to live off the wealth his family has accumulated over the generations by looting and betraying this country?
Nah, let's just elect someone better in 2008 and let bygones be bygones.
That is an entirely unworkable solution. All that will do is send the message out that we, the American people, do not give a flying fuck about honesty, integrity, morality, decency, liberty or any of the other qualities we like to claim for ourselves.
The only possible way we can ever again expect to be treated as decent people and a nation of law is to try convict and execute every single member of the Bush administration.
Anything short of that is an explicit statement of support for Bush's treasonous murderous actions over the years which will leave a big shadow over anything else we ever do.
Honestly, voting rights in America shouldn't be based on age, they should be based on independence and tax status. Its great being a liberal if someone else's tax money is being spent.
You really need to keep up.
The Republicans are the party of bigger government than even the Democrats and have been for 30 years They spend more, increase the size of government much more. Anybody who votes for Republicans for fiscal issues is a delusional moron who hasn't paid a bit of attention to the situation in decades.
To save you time, and so you'll know what you're looking for, I'll tell you what changes you'll see: None.
Well, there will be one change. Rummie will be making 100 (or so..just a nether number) times his current salary peddling his influence to the highest bidder.
Take all the like minded people in region A and call them Assholia. Take all the like minded people in region B and call them Fucktardistan. Why do people try so hard to make it work. Split the factions up, divide the land up, and let them be angry neighbors, not angry countrymen.
Well, you'd need at least one more region (whose name I'll leave up to you as you're pretty good at making them up).Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. Basically, the whole idea of Iraq as a nation is stupid as you picked up on. Blame the Brits for that one. They arbitrarily lumped it together.
Reasons we're not trying to split it up include Turkey's blind hatred of the Kurds and the fact that the different natural regions for division would be "seperate but unequal" in terms of resources.
There are probably a bunch of other reasons, but those are two major ones.
Pretty much all of my friends who joined the military did so out of patriotism, and nothing else.
Bullshit.
Given the fact that the US military has not been used for defense of this nation or any other job that a patriot could possibly support since WW2 your assertion is complete crap.
Or are you trying to redefine patriotism to mean "economic hitman"? That has been the only role for which our military has been used for 60+ years, so either you're calling your friends idiots for being too stupid to recognize simple basic facts or you're just lying.
That's a loaded question though, because the 'obvious' answer is different now than it was 6.5 years ago.
No it isn't. The obvious answer hasn't changed since none of the facts have changed.
If you were stupid enough to have believed Bush's lies in the first place, then having seen them proven to be just lies would make you think that. Nobody with any sense believed a word of his nonsense from the beginning.
So to anybody who gave enough of a shit to put any actual thought into the matter, nothing has changed and the obvious answer is exactly the same now as it was then.
Rumsfeld always got stuck in a position where he had to present a nuanced situation, and his decision based on that situation, without being able to give people all of the (classified) facts that led him to a decision that may be the best decision at the time, but isn't necessarily a popular one.
Hardly.
He sold his own lie through spouting insane and ridiculous nonsense. There was no nuance since he already planned to attack Iraq prior to the 2000 elections and he further planned to use *any* attack on the US as an excuse to do so knowing full well that he would be unable to convince the American people to back that play through any honest methods.
Seriously, dude, they published a position paper stating *exactly* that.
He is part of the criminal shadow government of wet work spooks and blood profiteers who decided they knew better than the US people, and helped bring about "regime change" back then..He is a very dangerous person and should have been put in jail for life a long time ago, but we never had a real investigation about that hit other than jim garrison's work.
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration. Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Win with dignity, or this country is going to polarize it self so much further, only bloodshed will solve it.
This country is already so polarized by the treasonous actions of the current administration and the Republican party that only bloodshed will solve it. The blood of Bush and his entire administration.
Unless they are tried convicted and executed, we will never again have even an expectation of being treated as if there was a shred of integrity left in this nation. Anything less is support for the agenda of cowardice, corruption, and treason which is there sole legacy at this point.
The cold war is long over, and the worst deprivations of civil rights were done by people like McCarthy 40+ years ago.
Hi, welcome back from your multi decade nap, hope it went well for you.
As you clearly know nothing about recent events, allow me to bring you up to speed. Recently Congress passed and the president signed a bill that allows the president to have any American citizen shipped away to a death camp to be tortured and murdered solely upon his whim with no possibility of recourse to the law.
So sorry, we are in a far worse position civil (or otherwise) rightswise than at any time in the entire history of this nation.
The McCarthy era was *nothing* compared to the oppressive power of the current government, the lack of transparancy, or the complete lack of any oversight whatsoever.
How could you not vote for someone names "Stufflebeam", especially when his campaign domain is "RunRandyRun"?
Well, I'll admit that I was tempted based on his name, but when the first word I see on his website is "faith", I think I'll keep looking for a candidate that doesn't despise American values, thanks;-)
Unlike your failed notion that "right-wing" means your pro-slavery....
Wow, not only are you ignorant of basic political philosophies, but your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.
Supporting slavery is a right wing ideal absolutely by definition. Being "right-wing" unless you make it clear that you support every single *possible* right-wing ideology doesn't mean you're pro-slavery.
Seriously, if you can't even read, then there isn't much point in expecting you to be able to learn.
Outside the United States (where capitalism is supported by a broad range of politicians and people from the left and the right), the most notable distinction between left and right is in economic policy. The right advanced capitalism, whereas the left advocated socialism (often democratic socialism) or communism. Some on the right advocate laissez faire capitalism, tending toward minarchism,
What, you need more examples of how the definitions you are using are wrong or worthless?
Where, in that paragraph above does it put Liberalism?
Oh, it doesn't? You mean it completely leaves out an entire spectrum of thought instead arbitrarily lumping it in with one of the others with no mention?
That right there is a crystal clear example of how completely broken the definitions you are trying to use are. They ignore a large chunk of reality and incorrectly lump that philosophy in with one that violently opposes it.
Right wing and Laissez Faire are diametrically opposed.
Right wing believes in corporate welfare. Liberalism supports Laissez Faire.
Your definition does not address this basic fact and it tries to completely erase the very idea of Liberalism reducing it to a false dichotomy between the two pro big government anti-individual parties.
You have decided what you wish to believe, and you are going to believe it, and if evidence is presented to the contrary, you'll discard it as being untrue, unprovable, or not able to be classified by your own definition as evidence. So let's talk abou You have decided what you wish to believe, and you are going to believe it, and if evidence is presented to the contrary, you'll discard it as being untrue, unprovable, or not able to be classified by your own definition as evidence. So let's talk about this evidence. t this evidence.
Completly inaccurate lies again.
*You* are the one with religious beliefs not I. *You* are the one who is claiming all this evidence for something that you can provide nothing for. *you* are the one who has *chosen* completely arbitrarily and with no rational basis to believe something.
Therefore *you* are the only one who has any reason to ignore, make up, and discard evidence in order to maintain your irrational belief in your invisible friend.
I am doing nothing of the sort, nor do I have any reason to.
So I see that rather than provide any evidence, in spite of the fact that you continued bleating about how much there is, you write a bunch of nonsense about how religious loons are gaining power in the world as if that had any relevance to the topic.
Yes, it's quite obvious that many people blindly believe the same ignorant nonsense you do. Nobody is aruging that fact. Nobody is arguing the fact that letting loons run countries on a religious basis is *always* a bad thing.
So nobody doubts that people have and do believe in ridiculous things for no sane reason.
What that fact has to do with the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any of these whackjobs' private invisible super friends is beyond me.
I assume that you meant to imply that there was some sort of connection, but like the rest of what you have said here, it's nothing but lies and ignorance that you're spouting.
Screw that, if you don't agree with either party then go Libertarian!
They're not fielding a candidate for Governor in Illinois.
I'm stuck with a choice between the incumbent Democrat currently under federal investigation, the Republican challenger who served as State Treasurer under the former Republican governor currently serving 6.5 years in prison (meaning she's either as dirty as hell or as dumb as a bag of rocks (well...maybe both)), or the Greens.
Hell, maybe I'll just write in Harry Brown. Sure he's dead, but this *is* Illinois.
And you continue to be unable to provide one single scrap of evidence for your view.
Given that fact, please stop spouting moronic lies about how there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for my grandparents et al.
You're lying, you've been called on it and you have failed to do anything to account for your lies.
As far as the rest of the nonsense you're spouting...
The universe is here, we're in it. Scientific explanations do a pretty good job of explaining that and further they account for everything we have apart from rocks and trees.
Your fantasy world delusions do *nothing* to explain anything or to make the world a better place. The fact that you claim to believe in some force of all powerful good, but you are unable to defend him without *lying* does more to show the merit of your position than anything else.
Surely you are just trying to be provocative with that comment -- you can't be serious. because there's more evidence for Christ than there is for Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Hitler, Darwin, Carl Sagan, or your Great, Great Grandparents.Denying His having lived is akin to a 3 year old putting his hands over his eyes and saying that no one else can see him because he can't see anyone else. Many people choose first what they want to believe, then only allow what evidence they find useful to support their opinion, and discard as much evidence as needed in order to preserve their viewpoint. Well done -- what I had tried to explain you demonstrated perfectly.
Laughably delusional. You have yet to provide a single scrap of evidence. Not one. The fact that there are no pieces of evidence supporting your view shows that *you* have arbitrarily decided what to believe regardless of the evidence, or in this case, the absolute lack of any.
So, your viewpoint is completely muddied by the fact that you blindly chose to believe that it was magically true, most likely becasue that's the lie your parents told you.
My viewpoint on religion is still essentially the default position: Nobody has bothered providing any evidence for their bizarre fantasy super friends, so there's no reason to lend that view any credibility whatsoever.
Now if you'd care to actually try to provide some evidence for Jesus the man (not just somebody named that) having ever lived, then I can quite capably debunk your garbage evidence. You could save us both some time and just do some actual research using real thought rather than attempts to justify your fantasy world and debunk them yourself, but that seems really unlikely given your repeated spouting of truly silly lies.
I'll give you high marks for attempting to be provocative, but denying Christ's existence, isn't even remotely logical. There's a mountain of historical manuscripts, archaelogical evidence supporting them, the whole world calendar is based on His life, and there's 2000 years of history from that time which was consequential to His life.
If it isn't even "remotely logical", then surely you can point out some actual historical evidence for him ever having existed? No? You can't? Well, no surprise, but since you're the one saying that something is true in the absense of any evidence whatsoever, the fault of lacking logic is entirely yours.
The calendar?!? Seriously, *that's* your idea of historical evidence?!? How about the days of the week? Do their names prove the existence of Thor, Freya, Odin etc? What about the names of the planets? So Jupiter, Saturn and the rest of the Roman gods have been proven real?
But His existence...you'd ask someone who has never heard or seen you to trust a single piece of paper produced by a clock-punching government clerk over volumes of historical evidence? Why?
No, I'm asking you to provide *one* single scrap of legitimate historical evidence. The fact that there isn't *one* is the problem with your point, not mine.
But as I said below, pedophilia is an inherently exploitative act,
That is the *lie* you keep repeating which is the primary cause of a lot of people's disagreement with you.
Pedophilia is not an *act* at all in any possible way shape or form.
Get that through your head, then come back and discuss the subject reasonably. You've been pretty good all in all, but the deep lack of understanding of *the basic freaking vocabulary* you continue to demonstrate is a large part of what makes these types of discussions go downhill so fast.
The only way that killing Saddam would be a disaster is if it costs the county of Iraq more money to kill him than it does to imprison him for life. That is the only real problem with the death penalty in the U.S.
The fact that confessions have been beaten out of people by the cops leading to many innocent people on death row isn't a "real problem" with the death penalty in the US?!? Hell, dude, right after I moved to Illinois, they emptied death row becasue of exactly that. Before that, I even supported the death penalty.
Seriously, Dude. There are far worse problems with the death penalty than the expense. Like state sactioned murder of innocent people for one.
Slashdot Mirror
Come down to Texas, and I'll introduce you to some gay Republicans, who aren't social conservatives, but realize just how much the Democrats want to fuck up the country.
Yet for the last 30 years or so, the Republicans have been the undisputed champion of big wasteful government. The Democrats have consistently been better "Republicans" than the Republicans.
Maybe you should stop and look around a little bit instead of repeating ancient sayings that lost their truth decades ago.
The Republicans have proven that not only do they want to fuck up the country, but given the slightest opportunity they will run full speed ahead toward that goal regardless of how illegal or unconstitutional they have to go to do that.
Only somebody with a delusional religious belief in a freaking political party of all things, and a complete ignorance of the last 30 years could possibly attempt to defend the Republicans by claiming the Democrats want to fuck up the country.
Take the worst ideas the Democrats ever had taken to the extreme, throw in radical religious lunacy, and you have todays Republican party.
In reality, the vast majority of people who identify themselves as aligning with the Republican Party do so because of economic reasons not social policies.
Many decades ago there might have been some truth to this.
For it to be true now, you would have to prove that the majority of self-identified Republicans believe in the biggest, most oppressive and most expensive government they can get. That they believe in spending money they don't have like drunken sailors and taking out high interest loans to cover it all.
Do you see Republicans admitting that that is what they want?
Of course not. So your assertion is proven false.
But let's throw the people who *voted* for Dubya & Co in the chair before that. After all, he was elected by a clear margin in 2004, well after the fun and games in Iraq were underway. Sadly, a people gets the leader(s) that they deserve.
;-)
You'll note my sig
And, by the way, a lot of the "reforms" (the more egregious provisions of the PATRIOT Act) that Slashdotters complain about have had as many Dems behind them (especially initially) as Repubs.
I've never claimed the Dems were good.
Nah, executing Bush & Co won't solve anything. Let his go back to his ranch and live out his life in ignominy after 2008.
See, we tried that after the Central American massacres... and after Iran Contra when they illegally funded terrorists and sold coke...and when they trained and funded Osama and after a whole other raft of shit which led us to this administration.
With the same treasonous scum back in charge.
If we do not make a stand and demand a simple lack of treason out of our leaders at this point, then we have no chance of ever seeing anything approximating a free society ever again.
The Dems got control of Congress, but Bush still has the legal, though unconstitutional, right to disappear you and your whole family to a death camp to be tortured and murdered on a whim.
Even if the Dems weren't douchebags themselves, the same fucking people will be back. Again.
To go away and live in ignominy, you have to be human enough to have a sense of shame, and these exact people have proven time and time again that they aren't.
That's true for the "Co" anyhow. Bush himself is a tool, but after betraying his oath of office, assaulting our constitution, all the lies, the torture and the murder does it really make sense that he should just go home to live off the wealth his family has accumulated over the generations by looting and betraying this country?
Good points.
;-)
(say Fucktardistan)
Oh, I plan on saying that a lot. I love that word it really rolls off the tongue
Nah, let's just elect someone better in 2008 and let bygones be bygones.
That is an entirely unworkable solution.
All that will do is send the message out that we, the American people, do not give a flying fuck about honesty, integrity, morality, decency, liberty or any of the other qualities we like to claim for ourselves.
The only possible way we can ever again expect to be treated as decent people and a nation of law is to try convict and execute every single member of the Bush administration.
Anything short of that is an explicit statement of support for Bush's treasonous murderous actions over the years which will leave a big shadow over anything else we ever do.
Honestly, voting rights in America shouldn't be based on age, they should be based on independence and tax status. Its great being a liberal if someone else's tax money is being spent.
You really need to keep up.
The Republicans are the party of bigger government than even the Democrats and have been for 30 years
They spend more, increase the size of government much more.
Anybody who votes for Republicans for fiscal issues is a delusional moron who hasn't paid a bit of attention to the situation in decades.
To save you time, and so you'll know what you're looking for, I'll tell you what changes you'll see: None.
Well, there will be one change.
Rummie will be making 100 (or so..just a nether number) times his current salary peddling his influence to the highest bidder.
Take all the like minded people in region A and call them Assholia. Take all the like minded people in region B and call them Fucktardistan. Why do people try so hard to make it work. Split the factions up, divide the land up, and let them be angry neighbors, not angry countrymen.
Well, you'd need at least one more region (whose name I'll leave up to you as you're pretty good at making them up).Sunni, Shia, and Kurds.
Basically, the whole idea of Iraq as a nation is stupid as you picked up on. Blame the Brits for that one. They arbitrarily lumped it together.
Reasons we're not trying to split it up include Turkey's blind hatred of the Kurds and the fact that the different natural regions for division would be "seperate but unequal" in terms of resources.
There are probably a bunch of other reasons, but those are two major ones.
(De-believer? a-believer? e-believer? iBeliever? You believe her?)
Pretty much all of my friends who joined the military did so out of patriotism, and nothing else.
Bullshit.
Given the fact that the US military has not been used for defense of this nation or any other job that a patriot could possibly support since WW2 your assertion is complete crap.
Or are you trying to redefine patriotism to mean "economic hitman"?
That has been the only role for which our military has been used for 60+ years, so either you're calling your friends idiots for being too stupid to recognize simple basic facts or you're just lying.
That's a loaded question though, because the 'obvious' answer is different now than it was 6.5 years ago.
No it isn't.
The obvious answer hasn't changed since none of the facts have changed.
If you were stupid enough to have believed Bush's lies in the first place, then having seen them proven to be just lies would make you think that.
Nobody with any sense believed a word of his nonsense from the beginning.
So to anybody who gave enough of a shit to put any actual thought into the matter, nothing has changed and the obvious answer is exactly the same now as it was then.
Rumsfeld always got stuck in a position where he had to present a nuanced situation, and his decision based on that situation, without being able to give people all of the (classified) facts that led him to a decision that may be the best decision at the time, but isn't necessarily a popular one.
Hardly.
He sold his own lie through spouting insane and ridiculous nonsense. There was no nuance since he already planned to attack Iraq prior to the 2000 elections and he further planned to use *any* attack on the US as an excuse to do so knowing full well that he would be unable to convince the American people to back that play through any honest methods.
Seriously, dude, they published a position paper stating *exactly* that.
He is part of the criminal shadow government of wet work spooks and blood profiteers who decided they knew better than the US people, and helped bring about "regime change" back then..He is a very dangerous person and should have been put in jail for life a long time ago, but we never had a real investigation about that hit other than jim garrison's work.
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration.
Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Win with dignity, or this country is going to polarize it self so much further, only bloodshed will solve it.
This country is already so polarized by the treasonous actions of the current administration and the Republican party that only bloodshed will solve it.
The blood of Bush and his entire administration.
Unless they are tried convicted and executed, we will never again have even an expectation of being treated as if there was a shred of integrity left in this nation.
Anything less is support for the agenda of cowardice, corruption, and treason which is there sole legacy at this point.
The cold war is long over, and the worst deprivations of civil rights were done by people like McCarthy 40+ years ago.
Hi, welcome back from your multi decade nap, hope it went well for you.
As you clearly know nothing about recent events, allow me to bring you up to speed.
Recently Congress passed and the president signed a bill that allows the president to have any American citizen shipped away to a death camp to be tortured and murdered solely upon his whim with no possibility of recourse to the law.
So sorry, we are in a far worse position civil (or otherwise) rightswise than at any time in the entire history of this nation.
The McCarthy era was *nothing* compared to the oppressive power of the current government, the lack of transparancy, or the complete lack of any oversight whatsoever.
There's no comparison.
I voted Republican across the ballot!
Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.
How could you not vote for someone names "Stufflebeam", especially when his campaign domain is "RunRandyRun"?
Well, I'll admit that I was tempted based on his name, but when the first word I see on his website is "faith", I think I'll keep looking for a candidate that doesn't despise American values, thanks
Unlike your failed notion that "right-wing" means your pro-slavery....
Wow, not only are you ignorant of basic political philosophies, but your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.
Supporting slavery is a right wing ideal absolutely by definition.
Being "right-wing" unless you make it clear that you support every single *possible* right-wing ideology doesn't mean you're pro-slavery.
Seriously, if you can't even read, then there isn't much point in expecting you to be able to learn.
Outside the United States (where capitalism is supported by a broad range of politicians and people from the left and the right), the most notable distinction between left and right is in economic policy. The right advanced capitalism, whereas the left advocated socialism (often democratic socialism) or communism. Some on the right advocate laissez faire capitalism, tending toward minarchism,
What, you need more examples of how the definitions you are using are wrong or worthless?
Where, in that paragraph above does it put Liberalism?
Oh, it doesn't? You mean it completely leaves out an entire spectrum of thought instead arbitrarily lumping it in with one of the others with no mention?
That right there is a crystal clear example of how completely broken the definitions you are trying to use are. They ignore a large chunk of reality and incorrectly lump that philosophy in with one that violently opposes it.
Right wing and Laissez Faire are diametrically opposed.
Right wing believes in corporate welfare. Liberalism supports Laissez Faire.
Your definition does not address this basic fact and it tries to completely erase the very idea of Liberalism reducing it to a false dichotomy between the two pro big government anti-individual parties.
You have decided what you wish to believe, and you are going to believe it, and if evidence is presented to the contrary, you'll discard it as being untrue, unprovable, or not able to be classified by your own definition as evidence. So let's talk abou You have decided what you wish to believe, and you are going to believe it, and if evidence is presented to the contrary, you'll discard it as being untrue, unprovable, or not able to be classified by your own definition as evidence. So let's talk about this evidence. t this evidence.
Completly inaccurate lies again.
*You* are the one with religious beliefs not I.
*You* are the one who is claiming all this evidence for something that you can provide nothing for.
*you* are the one who has *chosen* completely arbitrarily and with no rational basis to believe something.
Therefore *you* are the only one who has any reason to ignore, make up, and discard evidence in order to maintain your irrational belief in your invisible friend.
I am doing nothing of the sort, nor do I have any reason to.
So I see that rather than provide any evidence, in spite of the fact that you continued bleating about how much there is, you write a bunch of nonsense about how religious loons are gaining power in the world as if that had any relevance to the topic.
Yes, it's quite obvious that many people blindly believe the same ignorant nonsense you do. Nobody is aruging that fact.
Nobody is arguing the fact that letting loons run countries on a religious basis is *always* a bad thing.
So nobody doubts that people have and do believe in ridiculous things for no sane reason.
What that fact has to do with the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any of these whackjobs' private invisible super friends is beyond me.
I assume that you meant to imply that there was some sort of connection, but like the rest of what you have said here, it's nothing but lies and ignorance that you're spouting.
Screw that, if you don't agree with either party then go Libertarian!
They're not fielding a candidate for Governor in Illinois.
I'm stuck with a choice between the incumbent Democrat currently under federal investigation, the Republican challenger who served as State Treasurer under the former Republican governor currently serving 6.5 years in prison (meaning she's either as dirty as hell or as dumb as a bag of rocks (well...maybe both)), or the Greens.
Hell, maybe I'll just write in Harry Brown.
Sure he's dead, but this *is* Illinois.
And you continue to be unable to provide one single scrap of evidence for your view.
Given that fact, please stop spouting moronic lies about how there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for my grandparents et al.
You're lying, you've been called on it and you have failed to do anything to account for your lies.
As far as the rest of the nonsense you're spouting...
The universe is here, we're in it. Scientific explanations do a pretty good job of explaining that and further they account for everything we have apart from rocks and trees.
Your fantasy world delusions do *nothing* to explain anything or to make the world a better place. The fact that you claim to believe in some force of all powerful good, but you are unable to defend him without *lying* does more to show the merit of your position than anything else.
Surely you are just trying to be provocative with that comment -- you can't be serious. because there's more evidence for Christ than there is for Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Hitler, Darwin, Carl Sagan, or your Great, Great Grandparents.Denying His having lived is akin to a 3 year old putting his hands over his eyes and saying that no one else can see him because he can't see anyone else. Many people choose first what they want to believe, then only allow what evidence they find useful to support their opinion, and discard as much evidence as needed in order to preserve their viewpoint. Well done -- what I had tried to explain you demonstrated perfectly.
Laughably delusional.
You have yet to provide a single scrap of evidence. Not one.
The fact that there are no pieces of evidence supporting your view shows that *you* have arbitrarily decided what to believe regardless of the evidence, or in this case, the absolute lack of any.
So, your viewpoint is completely muddied by the fact that you blindly chose to believe that it was magically true, most likely becasue that's the lie your parents told you.
My viewpoint on religion is still essentially the default position:
Nobody has bothered providing any evidence for their bizarre fantasy super friends, so there's no reason to lend that view any credibility whatsoever.
Now if you'd care to actually try to provide some evidence for Jesus the man (not just somebody named that) having ever lived, then I can quite capably debunk your garbage evidence.
You could save us both some time and just do some actual research using real thought rather than attempts to justify your fantasy world and debunk them yourself, but that seems really unlikely given your repeated spouting of truly silly lies.
I'll give you high marks for attempting to be provocative, but denying Christ's existence, isn't even remotely logical. There's a mountain of historical manuscripts, archaelogical evidence supporting them, the whole world calendar is based on His life, and there's 2000 years of history from that time which was consequential to His life.
If it isn't even "remotely logical", then surely you can point out some actual historical evidence for him ever having existed?
No? You can't?
Well, no surprise, but since you're the one saying that something is true in the absense of any evidence whatsoever, the fault of lacking logic is entirely yours.
The calendar?!? Seriously, *that's* your idea of historical evidence?!?
How about the days of the week? Do their names prove the existence of Thor, Freya, Odin etc?
What about the names of the planets? So Jupiter, Saturn and the rest of the Roman gods have been proven real?
But His existence...you'd ask someone who has never heard or seen you to trust a single piece of paper produced by a clock-punching government clerk over volumes of historical evidence? Why?
No, I'm asking you to provide *one* single scrap of legitimate historical evidence. The fact that there isn't *one* is the problem with your point, not mine.
But as I said below, pedophilia is an inherently exploitative act,
That is the *lie* you keep repeating which is the primary cause of a lot of people's disagreement with you.
Pedophilia is not an *act* at all in any possible way shape or form.
Get that through your head, then come back and discuss the subject reasonably. You've been pretty good all in all, but the deep lack of understanding of *the basic freaking vocabulary* you continue to demonstrate is a large part of what makes these types of discussions go downhill so fast.
The only way that killing Saddam would be a disaster is if it costs the county of Iraq more money to kill him than it does to imprison him for life. That is the only real problem with the death penalty in the U.S.
The fact that confessions have been beaten out of people by the cops leading to many innocent people on death row isn't a "real problem" with the death penalty in the US?!?
Hell, dude, right after I moved to Illinois, they emptied death row becasue of exactly that. Before that, I even supported the death penalty.
Seriously, Dude. There are far worse problems with the death penalty than the expense. Like state sactioned murder of innocent people for one.