Hillary...

Home  \  Off Topic  \  Hillary...

How does Hillary Rodham Clinton have any credibility with anyone at all?
This article was an inset to an article about Bush’s visit to the NSA in my paper today, it's headline was-

Here's the article-

Well here’s what I say about it.

Here’s a quote from the article that this was inserted in-

So, it sounds like the NSA is eavesdropping on people in the country to find out what terrorists are up to. What’s so strange and far-fetched about that Senator Clinton? I thought you said we’re obligated to track the terrorists down. Wait, you did. OK, I know you said we’re obligated to.

Moving along now…


Please, Senator, even I know that! They do not. Why? Even if there is some law that prohibits the government from eavesdropping on phone calls in the United States, this is war. There are no laws. We can kill people in war can’t we? We can break things that don’t belong to us in war can’t we? Your problem is that you still haven’t realized that this is war, we don’t have to follow our laws! They don’t apply! How can you be so naive??

Finally


Yeah, cause Bush just wants to know who’s house you’re going to for that party Friday night so he can come crash it.

/endrant

posted by  jedimario

Kind of like Kerry, flip-flopping...sadly, I'd still probably vote for her (supposing I could vote), due to the first female president stuff :laughing::ohcrap:

posted by  chris_knows

...it's like saying the Honda Insight is your favorite car because it was the first mass-market hybird in the US

posted by  jedimario

That's why I don't vote...and because I can't, but it would be interesting, and probably better than the competition lol...

posted by  chris_knows

sorry democrats. you're pretty much the largest mass of stupid people i've ever seen in my life. what's your motto? to hell with laws, unless it effects us. THENOMG, WENEEDLAWS. know what senator? i think you're afraid the nsa might just overhear a convo about how you're rigging the election or maybe even about those mysterious deaths in the white house during your term.:roll:

posted by  princessklutz04

:clap:

posted by  99integra

I agree with Sen. Clinton on the domestic eavesdropping. She's not saying she disagrees with using this method to track down terrorists, it seems like she just doens't want to give the gov't a carte blanche to monitor whoever they want in whatever way they see fit, or set a precedent of using this type of monitoring without restraint. Use the technology if we got it b/c tracking terrorists is a huge priority, but do it in a way that safeguards the privacy and freedom of average citizens. Succesful monitoring and protecting privacy are NOT mutually exclusive.

posted by  boothe

It's easy to pass judgement when you aren't the one affected by it. Would you still feel the same way about the government if they had singled you out and thought you were a terrorist, simply because of your decent, your religeon, your skin color? Would you have felt the same way if they arrested you and questioned you for hours simply because they tapped into your phone conversations and you said something that they took to be a threat against the government (whether it be true or taken out of context)? I find it funny that they were so quick to impeach President Clinton, but President Bush has pretty much gotten away with murder and not a thing has been done. It was an immoral and corrupt way of going about it. They could have gotten permission, but chose not to because "I'm the president, I rule all, I govern all, I own all." It's time to stand up and tell your government this country was built on freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religeon and freedom to live any damn way I choose to live without fear of reprimand. One day you will understand we ALL have rights in this country and the government chose to violate those rights. :2cents:

posted by  97Talonchik

actually, no i wouldn't. i would appreciate the fact that they were trying to protect the country in which i chose to live. plus, if you aren't bashing america, then you don't need to worry about the government taking it as a threat to america. and i for one will not bash my country.

as for taken out of context? i highly doubt that would happen. if i'm on the phone talking to someone, i never say weird stuff that could be misconstrued to make one believe that i'm going to blow something up or kill someone. therefore, if these people are having innocent conversations as well, they have nothing to worry about.

one more thing: yes, there are plenty of whites aiding and abetting terrorism, but the MAJORITY (notice i didn't say all, but majority) ARE of middle eastern descent. therefore, doesn't it make SENSE to rule them out first? how do we find seriel killers? we profile. sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. but again, i'd rather be profiled then look up and see a plane headed for me.:2cents:

posted by  princessklutz04

The flip side of this for all you who think we must do whatever it takes to stop terrorists, what they are doing right now IS against the current law in the US, and can lead to actual suspects getting off the hook - this highlights the importance of coordinating our efforts with what is within legal bounds - or having a serious discussion about how we're going to change the law to help fight terrorism while protecting basic civil liberties.


Filing in case of two Albany Muslims says counts should be dismissed because NSA actions violated laws

By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Tuesday, January 24, 2006

ALBANY -- An FBI sting case that targeted two members of an Albany mosque should be dismissed because the investigation originated from a national spying program that may be illegal, an attorney for one of the defendants said in a motion filed in U.S. District Court.

The challenge of the government's case against Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, who are accused of taking part in a plot to sell missile launchers to terrorists, may force federal prosecutors, and a U.S. District judge, to address a national debate unfolding about whether the National Security Agency violated any laws by eavesdropping on U.S. residents.
...

posted by  boothe

Easy to say you wouldn't mind as I can assume you are white, middle class and young. I doubt you would feel the same if you were of Middle Eastern decent.

posted by  97Talonchik

The phone conversation thing I just won't stand for...I tend to talk about blowing stuff up, and burning stuff, and other illegal stuff, which even though I'm joking, the government might not know it...Like if I'm talking to a friend, and we get into talking about what kind of stupid video we should make (we've got about 30 minutes so far :laughing: )...If we joke around about making a giant bomb from gas and throwing it somewhere, it's a joke, but I wouldn't feel comfortable if the government heard it :2cents:

posted by  chris_knows

I've heard some super sketchy stories. My friend's dad is Iranian and her mom is white, they had someone in an unofficial outfit come to their house to "check the meter" in the basement - not really thinking much of it, her mom let the dude in. From that day on their phone clicks twice when you pick it up. Their friends have had similar expereinces. They don't care b/c they have nothing to hide - but her dad has lived here for 30 years and is a prominent doctor, the only thing that would make him suspect is that he is Iranian, and he hasn't even been back since the revolution.

Ultimately they don't care b/c they have nothing to hide, but what is going on is arguably bigger than tapping "known suspects" phone. (Unless being from the middle east makes you a suspect)

posted by  boothe

I think I answered YES to every one of those questions.

Permission? Permission from who? A bunch of idiots the sit on their big fat butts all day on internaltional ground in New York? Permission from the quite possibly the most corrupt organization in the history of mankind? One that we also happen to supply I think about 90% of EVERYTHING to. Yeah, we really need their permission.

Cause socialistc liberal policies and programs=freedom doesn't it? O wait that's right, socialism is the opposite of freedom smart one.

posted by  jedimario

Thats got to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard you say.

posted by  Pythias

I agree. Good thing I continued to read this topic I was about to reply to what she said. :clap:

posted by  Pythias

Although,I do think it would be great to have a female president, I just don't think she should be the first.
I wouldn't consider myself a democrat, but I'm certainly not republican. I do consider myself quite liberal.

I was wondering if any of you guys local newspapers or new channels are really biased and close-minded?
I live in conservative area, and for the most part, anyone liberal is considered "evil" and is patronized. I'm also close to two military bases, and saying you don't support the war isn't taken very lightly at all.Most of the political articles and commentaries, are just bashing liberal ideas while, praising conservatism. I rarely see a pro-liberal piece. I was just wondering is this kind of thing is common in other areas in the US.

To me personally, it doesn't really matter who gets elected. They're all the same in my eyes. I don't trust any of them. It's all about money and power. I think the way our country is being ran is disgusting. Our priorities are pretty screwed. The rich keep get richer, the poor keep get poorer. We can spend millions on creating bombs and weapons to kill others, but there are people in our country who can't even afford to feed and clothe their own children. I don't really get it.

posted by  SmileLines

I dissagree with the way we went to war, but i do not dissagree with the war, if that makes sense. I also highly dissagree with the NSA and thier way of conducting business for two reasons;

ONE) no matter how you put it, invasion of privacy, wether you are white, black, hispanic, middle eastern, orange, blue green, is aganst the FIRST AMMENDMANT and if taken o court, no matter how many ways the prosuction will twist it, the supreme court wil eventually overturn any rulling and the goerment would look like retards with thier thumbs up thier asses

and TWO) if it is rele nessecary to spy on citizens of your own contury, you have truly become to paranoid, or you need to tighten your f***ing borders and not give green cards and visas to every1 that comes here, i dont care how free we are

this brings up another rant that i sahll not bore you with about mexicans and the damn border, but i sahll not bore you unless begged to do so

/suspendrantfornow

posted by  ride3k

Boy you're opening up a can of worms...

Yes the rich are getting richer, but the porr are NOT getting pooer. even if they are, "poverty" in this country is wealthy almost anywhere else, and it keeps going up. That's right, the poor are getting richer too, just not as fast as the rick are. So I ask you, if everyone is getting richer, then what's the problem?

Another thing, the government should not be providing for people who can't make it on their own, the government is SUPPOSED to biuld bombs and weapons, not create a socialistic state where no one has the motivation to work because they can just wait till the end of the month and pick up their welfare check. The government isn't the biggest part of the problem, the people are.

People like you get on my nerves because you won't look at the facts, you just watch CNN and read the New York Times.

posted by  jedimario

You're brilliant but an idiot all at the same time.

ONE-This is WAR. There are true Muslim US citizens who are cooperating with terrorists, and they must be stopped at any cost. If an attack were to happen tomorrow that could have been prevented by this "domestic spying", then everyone would scream at Bush for not doing anything. You guys do get it, as long as it's a Republican or conservative that's screwing up.

TWO-Yes you're absolutely right, our swiss cheese borders are just...wrong. George Bush is being an idiot about them, we need to do something about it. But I'll keep quite about that for now...

posted by  jedimario

I saw this ad at the top of the forums, so you can't call it advertising (post-whoring you may, but not advertising) :laughing:

http://www.xpressyourview.com/t_shirts1

Funny Anti-Bush T-Shirts...

*muttering*Crazy hippies*muttering* :laughing::joking:

posted by  chris_knows

Some one get me my boots, it’s getting a little deep in here.

You all would be shitting your pants if that happened to you, don’t you even lie about it.

Eavesdropping on citizens is against the law, it brakes the constitution... that was until the patriot act was passed... thank god some of its power has been restricted. If you don’t think its against the law then let me ask you... why do cops have to get a warrant before they can place a bug in your phone? Because its a law... now if the us government is above its own laws, then I want ****ing out because that’s not a state of government that any sane man woman or child should live in.

Lets not even get started on this is a war... if this were a real war, we would have taken out osama by now... instead half way in out task we switch gears and go after Iraq (its like we are a kid with ADD assigned to write a paper, half way through we start playing a video game)... dumbest mistake ever made by the us government!
But that’s a topic for another thread... this one is about our rights as citizens being slowly stripped away.

I will vote for Hillary, because I love this country and I’d hate to see it go down the shitter… we have time to save this once wonderful country… and with any luck the next administration will be able to clean up GWBs mistake.

posted by  TheFieroKid

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I dont agree with much else in your post... but damn what insite!

posted by  TheFieroKid

Bull shi!

It's wrong no matter who is doing it! I don’t care if it was a dem or a rep. Either way its wrong... war is wrong as well.
We spend far too much time trying to spread our influence every where, part of why we are so hated.

Go back a 100 years and see how the middle east thought of us then... we were just as greedy, opportunistic, and what every else they hate us for then as we are now... now look at the events in the last 100 years (mostly following WWII, and what we did with the Jewish refugees), then you’ll see where most of this hatred is stemming from...

On top of which we also trained the men we now call terrorists... "We taught that dog to squat how dare he do that shit in our own back yard"

This is a very sad time we live in, and unfortunately the majority of this country likes it the way it is... which is sad not just for our nation but also our species... If there is a god, he’s looking down at us with shame right now, probably weeping at what we’ve done and what we are doing to one another.

posted by  TheFieroKid

And I think I rolled my eyes at pretty much everything you said.....

posted by  windsonian

You're so right. We brought 9/11 on ourselves! :clap: Ban All SUV's~!!! :clap:

posted by  Pythias

ok... how 'bout this? if eavesdropping to ensure national security is so wrong and unnecessary... how 'bout you folks pipe up w/ some better ideas?


*crickets chirping*

have you forgotten about 9/11 and the fact that we got sucker punched b/c we got too smug and assumed that no one out there wanted to hurt us? so we just let any old f*cker in that wanted in and said "here's your citizenship---you don't even need to speak the language anymore. feel free to form a terrorist group, we're so enabling that we'll just look at you and say isn't that cute" america is no longer the "united states" because the only ones united are terrorist groups and minorities that are becoming the majority. which is fine, but if we want to have our freedoms, we have to pull together once in a while. it's not all wine and roses. people are too much into instant gratification anymore and don't believe that anything worth having requires work...

whoo, sorry.. needed to vent


how 'bout some ideas, though, instead of just complaints? anyone feel like working to make this a better country? (if you all think it sucks that bad)

posted by  dodger65

No No No we couldn't do that, that would actually require some kind of thought rather than simply poitning fingers at what should be done differently. Seems like all people want to do so please continue guys. :clap:

posted by  Pythias

SUVs have nothing to do with 9/11 stay on topic!

But in a way we did, would you say... if you beat your dog every day for several years and one day he bites off a finger... you brought it on your self?

Well I would say that if you force people out of their homes, alienate them the way they have been, you’d cause a bit of hostility that over a generations time could turn to hate and that hate would turn into actions... which is what happened.

Stop following the propaganda and start thinking for your self, you’ll be surprised by what you learn.

OH and I lost family in 9/11 so don’t think I’m just looking at this as an unaffected outsider.

posted by  TheFieroKid

lol I know about the SUV's, I was just joking around. Opinions won't resolve anything so there isn't a great deal that arguing does here. Let me lay it out on the line for you, I believe in what we are doing to prevent terrorism, spying, eaves-dropping, whatever it takes. This is simply my opinion, there really is not right or wrong here it is like the argument over abortion. Personally I am pro-choice, you can argue about things all day and not come out with a "right" answer, as for the whole dog analogy, I don't believe that justifies it in anyway, and is almost like comparings apples and oranges.

posted by  Pythias

Why would you make a short, totally pointless post about OTHER people's inaction?... All you've done is "simply point fingers" at other people for not doing anything .... what's good for the goose.....

If you want to see the world changed by CF - I urge YOU to do the first "some kind of thought" and come up with something ... don't just tell other people that THEY need to think or they're stupid when you're not willing to do the thinking yourself.

... And before you come back with "but now you're doing the same thing". Mine is reactionary to you doing it first. I would not have made any comment about people "simply pointing fingers" if you hadn't pointed fingers at the finger pointers.

posted by  windsonian

He never said it justifies anything.

posted by  windsonian

My bad he impled that. :sleep:

posted by  Pythias

Because personally I agree with this war and how we are trying to fight terrorism so far. That's why I am not doing the "some kind of thought" Does that mean that there aren't better ways to be handling it? No, it simply means I agree with the way things are going thus far, and not criticizing people.

posted by  Pythias

So if you're not criticizing - this was supposed to be not sarcastic?

posted by  windsonian

Wow you really misread that didn't you? I meant not criticizing the people in charge. :wink2:

posted by  Pythias

What about troops going to foreign lands and shooting at other, well, "troops" isn't real war?! That's one of the dumbest things I've heard. Right or wrong, this war is IS real. Just because we haven't achieved our main goal yet doesn't mean it's not taken seriously. If you didn't notice, the world is a big place, Osama could be almost anywhere in it. I'd like to see you organize the search party.

posted by  jedimario

Care to elaborate?

posted by  jedimario

Most likely something like, "Well if you were the one being eavesdropped on..... bs bs bs .... then it would be different."

Followed by you restating that you agreed with what they were doing and it wouldn't be different.

posted by  Pythias

YEah, but I'm a fair guy, I'll give him a chance.

posted by  jedimario

all i can say to all this is wow. you democrats have a reallu f**ked up perspective of republicans, don't you? i don't think we'd shit our pants if someone monitored our phone calls......i think ya'll would shit your pants if someone took your weed. oh, wait, they already do that. so THAT'S why ya'll are always so stupid. can't think straight with so much shit up your ass. you know, they do sell adult diapers for these things......

posted by  princessklutz04

My butt itches...oh wait...off topic. :laughing:

posted by  97Talonchik

Hmm, I seem to remember saying personal insults don’t win arguments... that still stands true.

FYI I’ve never touched a drug in my life, I don’t smoke and I never drank till I was 21 and even now I only drink it moderately (maybe one beer a week with dinner).

I didn’t mean you’d shit your self if they monitored your phone calls but you’d shit your self when you were abducted and placed in a small dark room with NSA agents asking you a million questions... and with so many of our leaders not having any problem with torture you can expect to lose a finger nail or two.

All this shit has happened all though out history, and those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them… in 2k years they will be telling of the great nation of America that fell… and just like Rome it’ll be like the right wing Christians that will be the cause of the downfall.

posted by  TheFieroKid

This war is real... real wrong! A war we were lied into, a war I’ve never supported, a war that we aren’t quite winning.

If this war had been taken seriously from the start we would have won by now... not enough troops + not enough supplies + constant bad intelligence = a great recipe for disaster.

Your right the world is a big place and that’s why when your hot on the bad guys trail you switch your attention to someone who you can easily find and blame for all our problems so that you don’t actually have to try to find the bad guy who did cause the problems... yup typical right wing method.

Oh and I was all for going into Afghanistan and getting those assholes… but we’ve seem to have lost site on that objective haven’t we?

posted by  TheFieroKid

To clarify.....:laughing:

http://h1.ripway.com/parkerlily/CF/untitled.bmp

posted by  97Talonchik

So what are you fighting for? Democracy?

Then you say this:


Does that sound democratic to you?
Define democracy.

posted by  windsonian

jed, im not saying this isnt war. im not saying some things are bad, well i am, but that is all a MORAL opinion, it is not the law in any way, shape or form. If the goverment wants to be able to evasdrop, hey, they shoudl first try and change the constitution before they get caught on thier damn asses, its just rediculous how this administration is runing things, we are just diving into things, both good and bad but still diving in, and we dont think of any type of consequence.

right now, if we stop an attack, i would jump up and down, yelling yppie at the top of my lungs b/c americans dont have to die in this country, but i will still be in favor of the war, and this evasdropping thing is great, as long as it can only affect certain people, and i dont mean by race.

when i say certain peopl, i mean the most suspect individuals, wether they be white, or muslim, it does not matter, they should be watched, but that constitution thing still needs to be taken care of.

sorry about jumping around, im not the best of writers

/suspendrantagain

posted by  ride3k

1. The US is a democratic republic. And I just want to know what your problem is so I can tell you why you're wrong.:laughing:

2. In case you couldn't tell, I was talking about the UN. No country has any obligation to any othetr country for anything except when it comes to terms of surrender, pacts, treaties, etc. I'm pretty sure we haven't signed anything saying we need the UN's permission to go to war. Democracy has nothing to do with it.

3. Just to humor you.... (http://www.answers.com/democracy&r=67)

posted by  jedimario

Your wrong.
We do need their permission.
Do you know what UN stands for? United Nations, that’s right nations around the country working together to solve their problems with peace. When we joined the organization we agreed (whether simply by notion or actual signing of papers) to work through them.

What we did went against the notion of peace and what the UN stands for.
We said ya we like the UN and all but we are going to do what we want when we want and the global community can either like it or hate it but we really don’t give a **** either way.

Now what kind of message does that send?
It sends a message that we could care less about peace and only care about our own agendas... Why should any other nation be on our side? If this all happened in Spain and Spain sent out troops into Iraq with out the global community behind them we would be all saying how horrible they are and what they did was wrong… but some how when we do it its perfectly ok… this is what we call hypocritical.

And very good, you know the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic... if this were a true democracy my vote might actually count for something.

And actually this country is really turning into a Oligarchy, after all if you don’t have any money you really don’t stand a chance of becoming president, all the people in the congress and in the white house are rich men… so ya its really oligarchy veiled as a republic… at least that’s how I see it.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Perhaps you're right, but either way, if we rely on other countries that hate us to dictate our policy on who we can and cant' attack, we will surely be destroyed! If it's not what the UN stands for, then I say good, do it! That's just my personal opinion. Also, in case you missed it, the UN is one of the most corrupt oraganizations ever, so even if we do have some obligation to them, we shouldn't. It's bad for us and good for everyone else's personal agenda. BTW, nations around the country really doesn't make any sense :thumbs:


Sometimes bad people do bad things. Sometimes these bad things must be stopped. Sometimes that means stopping the bad people. Sometimes there isn't a peaceful way to do that. Pacifism is one of the most ignorant "isms" as long as there are bad people who do bad things in this world. So, sometimes we must go against the notion of peace. And it's not about want, it's about stopping the bad people. But I already explained that.

One more thing, we SHOULDN'T care what other nations think of our actions. For one thing, most of them hate us all and will keep hating us untill we start doing things that will bring us down to their level.


I see your point, but it's baseless untill something like that actually happens.


You forgot something...you DO still have to get elected into office. All the money in the world won't do you any good if no one will vote for you. But probably the biggest reason that national leaders are rich is because they have the money to run the best campaigns. And, well, there's realy nothing that can be done about that except to actually educate all these kids that are going through public schools instead of turning them into mindless robots that do the system's bidding.

posted by  jedimario

Is the public school system a nursery for cyborgs?.

posted by  Wally

Loosely & metaphoricly speaking, here in the US, indeed they are.

posted by  jedimario

That's his point ... it is!

posted by  windsonian

i don't want to argue w/ you, fiero, i just want to understand your pov... how do you feel that we were lied into this war? pm me if you like, b/c i feel that a lot of people misunderstand what it's about b/c of all the things that happened around the same time..

posted by  dodger65

wow, comon now, that is the most paranoid bulls**t ive heard in a long time. If we had choices in which classes we took, how is that "controling" us? if we have choices in here, when, and how we go to college, how is that "controling us? If we could go play band, or go play sports, how is that "controling" us? seriously, just b/c you didnt like school, or b/c you dont agree with what is taught, dosent mean they are trying to control you, jesus christ, i had respect for your thouhgts now it is gone

posted by  ride3k

Great, Bush supporters here. Guess what, everything he does isnt right.

This whole phone tapping thing sounds familiar... "watergate" comes to mind for some odd reason. Of course that was when people actually cared about their civil rights.

posted by  OombaIsBack

first, i am not a bush supporter, and second, ive been saying that the whole time! if they want something done, see what the people think about changing the rights, if people dont want it done, then dont friggen do it

posted by  ride3k

I never said that the schools were controlling anyone. I said they were teching kids whatever the system wanted to learn, not necesarily what is right. Take evolution, for example. It is almost always taught as a fact, or scientific law, in public schools, when it has not even made it to a theory. At best, it's an unconfirmed hypothesis. Things like that.

posted by  jedimario

I know everyhitng he does isn't right, I already said that he's an idiot when it comes to immigration.

Watergate is completely different. It's like comparing an apple to a computer desk. That was the Republican party tapping the phone lines of Dem. party leaders to spy on them, not the CIA tapping a phone line to prevent another attack.

posted by  jedimario

Except those were for different reasons. Such as to gain an advantage over another party where as here we are trying to prevent terrorism. Great analogy there. :screwy: No shit everything he does isn't right but so far I have agreed more so with what he has done, than haven't.

posted by  Pythias

Exactly.

posted by  Pythias

Unconfirmed? Really can you explain dinosaurs? (edit: Oh and leviathan is described to sound far too much like the loc ness monster… and there are stories of similar animals from all over the world… sooo you cant really count that, as far as we know it was just a story of a mythical animal that never existed.)
And explain why they aren’t in the bible? I imagine that if a disciple had seen a trex after he wiped the shit from his pants he’d have told us about it.

Oh I know the fossils are made up by god to test our faith...LOL.

Can you explain with out using evolution in any way or god (because creation is no more verifiable, and has no base is scientific fact)... why there are different types of finches with different beaks do help them in their given environment. OR why different K-9s have different coats depending on where they are found?
OOH why humans from Africa have dark skin, or why humans from Europe have light skin, or why humans from the Americas have tan skin…

posted by  TheFieroKid

Thats what tanning excessively does to you.

posted by  Pythias

Actually, I believe there is a desription of a creature that very well could be a dinosaur in there somewhere, I'll try to find it.

Neither of them has scientific base. So what are you going to believe? That we're all here b/c of random chance through processes that have been show as impossible as science can psoosibly show them to be? Or that something designed all of this. And if you take out evolution and God, there really isn't any explanation. Neither of them are scientificly verifiable, but science comes alot closer to disproving evolution that to disproving creation.

posted by  jedimario

So, the end justifies the means?

posted by  windsonian

LOL OMG!!!
Tell me that’s a ****ing joke!
Its called melanin! Its found in humans with dark skin, we developed it to prevent sun damage in the desert! And that’s scientific fact!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin

posted by  TheFieroKid

Ya it was the Leviathan, and I edited my post to include it (sorry I believe I spelled it wrong the first time).
The book describes the animal to enough detail that it could very well be loc ness or any other number of mythical animals. If there were dinosaurs walking around back then I’m sure there would be more then just one obscure reference to it in Isaiah.


That life came from some random proteins that were exposed to radiation and mutated into life is more believable then a omnipotent being that hasn’t shown its self in over 2k years created us... not only that he wants us to live his way and if we don’t we are punished...

posted by  TheFieroKid

Have dinosaurs evolved? If so what are they now?

I think there is records of Britons doing battle with dinosaurs around 400BC.

I guess we have to be careful confusing extant with extinct with evolution with natural selection and survival of the fittest.

posted by  Wally

and I guess we have to be careful confusing knowledge with surmising.

posted by  windsonian

so are you saying god created and science evoloved, or are you saying niether, your not making sense man, or maybe its just me

but, science has proved, read it PROVED, every step of evolution, and the one thing that is missing, is that first step, the first, random occurence of the mutation that started it all, the first binding of carbon to carbon to everything else that make sup dna, and proteins, everything has been proven, its that first kick that has yet to be found, and it probably never will be b/c it is most likely the lucky randomness of two matching carbon atoms. friggen religous fanatics saying god did everything, hey, he might of done the first step, but that is alllll hes ever done

posted by  ride3k

:clap: :clap: :clap:
I have a cousin in one of those Christian only colleges and she said one of her professors is convinced evolution exists, because we don’t know how long a day is to god, so 7 days to create the earth could have been billions of years for us, and in the time the he created the land to the time he created man many a creature could have evolved. Which is why there was a mass extinction and they are all dead now, so god wiped them out.

Now to me that sounds like a perfectly reasonable compromise.
Because we have yet to really find the missing link between man and ape (but I’m confident we will one day soon) its a perfect way for people who are unable to come to grasp with reality can fit in their fantasy with out putting down science and/or trying to destroy it.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Wow your a retard if you couldn't figure out that was a joke. :screwy:

posted by  Pythias

Well given your past posts in this thread... and of course the fact that there’s no inflection Key on the keyboard, could you really blame me for thinking you were serious?

posted by  TheFieroKid

Yes, my past posts in this thread suggest that I would believe that? Well that is a pretty ignorant comment, why do you say that? Because I think for the most part we are doing the right thing? :screwy:

posted by  Pythias

No just seemed off the wall enough... I mean you think going in and killing innocent civilians (which is what’s happening) is the right thing... soo who freaking knows.

Oh and the min an innocent person was killed, the price became too high, and the moment one of ours died, the price was even higher.

posted by  TheFieroKid

And you think SUV's should be taken off the road, we can go round and round all day long. If you think I'm off the wall go look up how many people want this war to end and how many people would agree with having SUV's ban. :thumbs:

posted by  Pythias

I would lose count... lets see, my dad, my gf, my mom, her mom, her dad, my friends at school, my professors at school, probably most of my campus, my friends from HS.

The approval ratting for this war is dropped significantly, and so has love of SUVs.. Incase you had not noticed they are on their way out... why else would hummer be making a smaller more fuel efficient one? Or all the minivan/SUV hybrids be coming out? They are trying to save the market but it’s a lost cause. In 10 years almost all SUVs will be gone and out of production , names like Expedition and H1 or H2 will be things of the past.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Ever heard of the Fuel Crisis? :screwy: And no they will not be a thing of the past :laughing: Maybe that is what you hope, but it will not be so, in the end I am done arguing with you it's going nowhere. Seems like you just want to argue to argue and I will not contribute to that. :thumbs:

Thats funny how many people you know believe that about SUV's, because NONE I know says that, SH*T we even own an SUV that I drive sometimes.

posted by  Pythias

OK, I'll give a chance to show just exactly how science has proved every other step of evolution before I show you they're all wrong. Go ahead, I'm waiting...

posted by  jedimario

Your right it is a fuel crisis and it will bring an end to the SUV, just like in the 70s it nearly killed the American auto industry for the 2nd time in a 50 years they are shooting them self’s in the foot... big cars with big gas guzzling engines when the market is tending towards small economical cars.

That’s funny almost no one I know owns an SUV (with the exception of Sara’s tracker, car frame and roughly 28mpg, but I also don’t drive or ride in it)... Its probably the area you live in vs. the area I live in, I live in a blue state, in a very blue district, in a very blue city (Okemos and East Lansing *go state*). Where as your obviously in a red state in a red district. I admit that if I grew up in a red state, I’d probably be a conservative… but I was raised the way I was and I stick to my convictions.


But what I find most interesting, is that it’s the right wing (predominately Christians) that want war, they don’t care about the environment (drive SUVs, want less restrictions on industry ext), they don’t care about their fellow men (i.e. the poor and homeless, welfare Medicaid ext.). And yet they are following the words (or at least say they do) of a man if born today would be a left wing lib.
I mean think about it, Jesus feed the hungry, clothed the poor, healed the sick, loved every one, and promoted peace above all else. Sounds like a bleeding heart lib to me.

You’d think with them reading the bible to be so literal, that they’d follow Jesus’ teachings to the letter… hmm what do we call someone who preaches one thing and does another?

posted by  TheFieroKid

Don’t need too, all I have to do is show you the remains of the oldest humans found. 160,000 years old greatly predates anything the bible has to say.
If that doesn’t give enough for reasonable doubt then I don’t know what does.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2978800.stm

and oh my oh my looks like that just might be the missing link.

posted by  TheFieroKid

marry meh.:laughing:

anywjo, i agree totally with this. i mean, comon, look at what jedimario said....



comon people, get a brain.:screwy:

posted by  princessklutz04

yo, carbon dating and all that is FAULTY. ever heard of the mount st helen's incident? yeah. that's the thing where mt st helens erupted. in a matter of HOURS things were buried and fossilized that carbon dating said were MILLIONS of years old. anyone sense an inconsistency here?:screwy:

posted by  princessklutz04

That's so ignorant I almost laughed...we DO do these things, on our OWN. It's NOT the governmnet's responsiblitly, obligation, job, or even it's business to hand out anyhting!! This should be left to the private citizens! And saying Jesus would've been a left-wing lib...that's pretty arrogant. I'm not even gonna try to tell you what Jesus' political affiliation would be. He'd probably have to make his own because none of the ones around right now are probably good enough.

posted by  jedimario

Ya except these bones were not exposed to volcanic eruption nor were they exposed to fire *burned* (another way to cause faulty c14 readings). So the C14 readings are accurate with this specimen.

posted by  TheFieroKid

So your saying its not your political affiliation or religion that dictates your actions? What is it? Bad rearing?


Ill remind you about that when your the victim of a natural disaster and lose everything, oh or if you become sick and spend all your money trying to get better, or if you get hurt on the job, or when your old and because of unforeseen events you lose your nest egg.

What a loving out look you have there.




I don’t know, I’ve read the bible a few times and from the lessons he teaches Id have to say its pretty much like a demarcate. He certainly wouldn’t be in support of a war; he’d be in support of social programs to help the homeless, sick and poor. And he’d probably be fighting to keep the land that his father made beautiful.

Of course this is all just conjecture.

posted by  TheFieroKid

No, Christians I know donate money to charities and such and sometimes even do the work for them. We don't sit around and wait for an innefecient government program to help needt people, nor should we.



Again, we'll be helping the people in need if possible if we're true Christians, not waiting around for the government.




You forget that his father told us to make the land fruitful, tame it, etc. And he would probably make his own programs instead of supporting government ones. For one thing, he NEVER told the government to look after the needy, he always told the CHURCH to look after them.

Perhaps you missunderstand...I do believe it is our responsibility to assist the needy. I just don't think the government should have anything to do w/ it, b/c a person should be able to choose whether or not they want to be charitable. Also, private organzations and churchs would be much more effecient at making sure the right money/aid/etc. gets to the right people.

posted by  jedimario

EDIT-double post, stupid dial-up.....

posted by  jedimario

You can’t trust people to do it so the government has to stand in and take care of its citizens. This is what I believe.

Its funny, I have a lot of Christian friends and during Christmas I’m the only one when we go out shopping to donate to the salvation army... and I don’t know any Christians that donate other times of the year... tho my father donates 10% of his yearly income (roughly 10k - 15k) to Madd, and the salvation army.

Now I’m sure there are Christians out there who do, and I’m sure there are atheists out there who don’t... but I’m just giving examples from my life, which is all i have to draw from.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Also, there are many people who call themselves Christians who in reality are not. Another thing, do you know for sure they don't give any money to anything or anyone? Another problem is that they always tithe in church, but enough of that money may or may not make it to people whe need it. If there were enough real Christians in this country, you could trust them to do it. But this all goes back to the thing I wanted to say in your school paper topic, so I'll just leave it at that.

EDIT-I'm not saying that it becomes the government's responsibility when there are too few people willing to look after the needy.

posted by  jedimario

what do you want me to pull out hmm? how a living cell can become an entier human being, how carbon is the basis for all life, that DNA codes for how ppl look, not some god? or what about Darwins evolution laws? or what about mendel? was he a "myth" and had no true basis? face it, the fact of science proves evolution through many many things, God has the one thing, only one thing that cant be out proven by science, adn that is the first point fo creation, i would like you to point out to me in the bible that shows where humans come from? and if you say "from the rib of adam" i will shoot you, and i am not kidding b/c for all the ppl you call ignorant, that is the most ignorant thing i have ever heard.

posted by  ride3k

Phone tapping is phone tapping. It doesnt matter what the purpose is. More and more of our freedoms are being taken away every single day in the "fight against terrorism." Terrorists hate us because of the freedoms we enjoy, so giving them away to an moronic and terrible excuse for a president is letting them win. We're completely disregarding what our country was built on.

Right to fair trial by jury of peers? GONE thanks to Patriot Act, if they want to they can throw you away for whatever you want.
Right to privacy? GONE thanks to cameras everywhere you step and phonetapping.
Whats next? How far does this have to go before we realize that our country is turning into a dictatorship?

posted by  OombaIsBack

OK, first off, science can't prove anything, been over this before....:banghead:

second, those things you said are possible w/ microevolution, should've clarified that. And I don't know anyhting about Darwin's evolution laws or this mendel person, but I'll do a little digging.

third, the first human, Adam, came from dirt. Genisis 2:7 says, "the Lord God formed man from the dust og the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." So you could say that humans came from dirt.

posted by  jedimario

Yeah Oomba, there's a camera outside your house peering inside watching you shower....the cameras are in public places for security. You don't have privacy in public places from anyone who wants to also be in that public place, what's wrong with a security camera?

And so long as people remember the constitution, this country will never be a dictatorship. And that's a nice way of replying to your statement.

posted by  jedimario

dirt huh? soo what about DNA? RNA? proteins? ribosomes? cells? organelles? what about how we grow? i dont see dirt grow? againm, your just showing that god started it, and did nothing else, another thing, if god had only mad Adam and Eve, how is there 6 billion people in this world?

posted by  ride3k

So you must be totally against one of the following two things, so please tell me which:
1) Forcing all money earners into paying taxes that build roads for anyone (poor or otherwise) to use.
2) Poor people using the roads that your taxes helped build

So, which is it?

posted by  windsonian

No, I believe gas taxes should pay for roads, so that, more or less, the more soneone uses the roads, the more taxes they pay for them. Well actually I guess that makes me against #1. If you don't use the roads, you shouldn't pay for them.

posted by  jedimario

I suppose that's why I have faith. Believeing it's true without evidence. It's required for a Christian, so...o well I guess. I can't explain it, and that's really the whole point. I believe He created everything from nothing, so it actually isn't to far-fetched to believe He created man from dirt.

That's a talk you should have with your parents...:laughing: You can't be serious...

posted by  jedimario

No I think his point is that how do 2 people have enough genetic diversity to make up 6billion people. When now there isn’t enough for genetic diversity between 30 people to have 5 or more generations.

Also dude, you mention "Microevolution" which is fine because it’s the first step in realizing there is evolution on a grand scale... I mean seriously if you admit it can happen in a species in a given area why is it so hard for you to believe that it can happen across the vastness of animals on the planet.

Tell me are you one of those students who sits in class in science making fun of what the teacher is saying, and totally not learning thus wasting my tax dollars?

posted by  TheFieroKid

Easy...incest. :laughing:
Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel. Cain and his wife (who somehow mysteriously appears out of nowhere Genesis 4:17) begat Enoch. Enoch begat Irad and Irad begat Mehujael who begat Methusael who begat Lamech....and so on and so on.

posted by  97Talonchik

Macroevolution is impossible because animals would have to add to their genetic codes the info for a new species. All the variation we see today was already in everything's ancestors. I believe that's how it works, but not positive...


lol, actually I'm homeschooled, so my parents pay for me to go to a public school that I don't attend. I'm as far from wasting tax dollars as I can get right now.

posted by  jedimario

Now we all know what happens when we have sex with our siblings... sooo why didn’t these nasty mutations occur back then? Also why was it ok back then but now its taboo (not that I’d want to have sex with a sibling... just curious about the hypocrisy).

posted by  TheFieroKid

Wrong, mutations, which we have seen in species now.
A mutation occurs when a new generation has something the previous one didn’t, now occasionally these mutations occur to benefit the animals, is some cases its not. In the case of cats with 6 toes, it appears that the cats paw has an opposable thumb... could this be a step towards a different species? Who knows in the next 2millions years we'll see.



Surprise, well though I applaud your parents determination to teach you their ways... the problem with home schooling on whole is that there’s no chance for out side views... a child has no chance for getting opinions out side of what their parents teach which is a benefit of public school. Students in public school get influence from other students who have different back grounds which helps in tolerance and growing for a Childs psyche (all stuff I learned in my physiology class), this helps in making a fully rounded individual, not just a total lib or a total rep…

posted by  TheFieroKid

Ok then, fair enough. Now, what should pay for parks around the neighbourhood?

posted by  windsonian

how is macroevolution imposible? you do know that new species can occur by the spliting of one species over two geographical diverse places, take for instance squirrles on either rim of the grand canyon, its prved that they have the same ancestors, but they are two completely different species? how is that not macroevolution?you cant believe in micro and not believe in macro, thats just not right, faith or no faith

and ya, i know what you mean about faith, and thats what faith i have, God did something to begin it all, but he stoped there and let us go are own way, and i dont think god started adam and eve, that is just a bunch of crock, i think he started the first fisson between two seperate atoms that began the long long process of cell production

posted by  ride3k

So there were no negative affects of this mutation? How long did the cat live?



No chance for getting other opinions....the what am I getting from from you? It seems to be a different opinion. Please, enlighten me. Also, all my learning comes from books, I don't really have a teacher. Mom looks in the answer book to make sure I'm right or worng, and if I'm wrong and she knows squat about it, she'll try to help. That's as much of a teacher I have, not counting the communtiy college. I'm not taking there this semester though.

posted by  jedimario

I said, an animal would have to add things to it's genetic code, which is impossible except through mutation, and as far as I know, there hasn't ever been a mutation that was overall good for the mutant.

Well, I've told you all I can pretty much I suppose. And what do you mean, fission between two atoms that began cell production?

posted by  jedimario

Well, we can't start charging people for that kinda thing, so how about sales tax?

posted by  jedimario

No of course not, why would an extra toe be negative? This cat would live as long as any other cat.
But if this mutation showed to be extraordinarily useful, like say a cat with 6 toes can climb better then a normal cat. Well this would mean the 6 toed cat could escape predators easier, or get food that was up in the tree better... that would mean that the 6 toed cat would have a better chance of survival, the normal cats would then started to die off in numbers, they didn’t breed as much because they were all dieing too fast (either not being able to get to food, or getting caught by predators). This is natural selection part, which is a big part of evolution.

The future:
So 300k years after the first 6 toed cat appeared, there are now over 500million of them and no normal cats left, these new cats live mostly in the trees eating small mammals that live in the trees, and they are able to avoid the predators that live below.

Boom there’s evaluation.

Now a mutation doesn’t have to cause harm to the mutant... say a human was born with an extra arm... the extra arm is now in his genetic code and it turns out that the extra arm is beneficial, he’s able to survive when others couldn’t, then he would pass on this genetic material on too his offspring who would then have the extra arm... see same thing.

Evolution is no more then a mutation that was the one that survived... if the mutation doesn’t benefit the animal it doesn’t survive and the mutation is lost for ever. This is why evolution takes millions of years... sometimes it takes time for a mutation to occur that is beneficial.

The other way is of course is if the same species lives in completely different climates causing them to adapt differently (This is your Microevolution) which over a long time turns to macro as perhaps species A is more adapted to survival over all then species B which dies off... now all that is left is species A. after finding fossils of species B its named as a dead cousin of the still living species A.


This should all have been in your basic biology.. Unless of course you just decided it was crap and didn’t read it or learn it.

I could be a teacher… I’m teaching stuff to a 16 year old that I learned in 7th grade. :laughing:

I’m not saying your stupid at all, because obviously the things you wanted to learn you have... but you just didn’t get the full benefit of an impartial learning experience... which luckily you will get at your local CC.
Oh and my school did cover creation... not in depth but they said another theory is... but because there’s a thing called division of church and state (and school is a state institution) they are on a tight leash on what they can teach about stuff that’s talked about in a religious book.

Edit: the only time other religious believes were covered was in Mythology which I think is total bullshit, if your going to try to tech creationism as a science you should teach all the religions of the worlds believes... other wise keep it out of science and keep it in mythology. Because as far as I’m concerned Christians believes are as realistic as the myths about Zeus and Hera.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Actually it was, and it gave VERY good arguments against macroevolution. I'll dig taht up when I have more time.

Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion. It just says something designed us rather than we came from random processes. It could've been alieins according to the theory. It doesn't specify a maker.

posted by  jedimario

[QUOTE=jedimario

Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion. It just says something designed us rather than we came from random processes. It could've been alieins according to the theory. It doesn't specify a maker.[/QUOTE]

So something designed us? Sounds like mythology to me. No way to prove it, no way to disapprove it… well here’s some Intelligent design for you, Human race was crated by genetic engineering to be a slave race to mine gold. Once the gold was mind the aliens released us and taught us basic farming and other agricultural skills.

Now that’s part of a religion… no way to prove it and no way to disprove it, either way its still a story.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Why isn't all the gold gone then? :laughing: I'm not trying to start another argument, just pointing that out. You're right, science can't show us who designed us. Enter the whole faith thing again.

posted by  jedimario

And faith isn’t science! And you cant teach it in school as fact, its fine in mythology but not in the science room. Faith cant be taught, and it shouldn’t be tried.

and actually that story takes place in the middle east, no gold there now... maybe there was some in the past. also that story comes from a society that was here long before the Christian bibles time line starts.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Well I suppose you got me there, but intelligent design has as much scientific credibility as macroevolution if you look at the real facts.

Well it seems like if something could come to earth, biuld humans, get all the gold out one rigion, and leave, they'd be able to get it from all the regions. Why wouldn't they? It's a pointless argument though...
Also, there isn't a whole lot of lane in the Middle East that would be very useful in agriculture is there? Tell me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't know for sure.

posted by  jedimario

Well the story is that they took natives (Neanderthals) and spliced their own dna with the natives, thus creating us… so its possible that they only created enough to mine there.

I mean this story has as many holes in it as any of the modern day religions.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Everyone remembers the constitution, but nobody cares about what it says unless theyre on trial.

posted by  OombaIsBack

ok, not all mutations are bad, look at darwin's theroies, that is how humans are today. I am german. it is proven that the origin of peopl came from one of two places, africa, or the middle east, it might even be both. Ok so why dont i look like a middle eastern? why dont i look like an african? evolution baby. My ancestors lived in a climate were it was cold, and were strength was needed to hlp cut down trees etc etc. So whenever a person "muatated" to become bigger, stronger, and larger (to keep warm when it was cold) that person survived to make kids that had the same muatnt genes as him. THus, i am a living, breathing "mutant"

you need to go buy a impartiall biology book, sit down, and read. It is bio 101 that macro evolution occured, other wise, there would be not half the material in that book you should buy. You just have a warped view on what a mutation is, just b/c it is a mutatuion it is not bad, all mutation means is "change" not "change for the worse"

some are bad, some are not, thats why when a bad mutation occurs, that species dies out/dosent reproduce as often. When a mutation is benifical (many things that buigs insects, even humans as my example showed have devolped) the species continues and keeps mutating.

EDIT: sorry, forgot to explain FUSION (thats what i meant sorry about that). thats when two atoms bind and merge, creating a new molecule. This is also called binding, connecting, blha blah. When the first carbons connected the created the bulding block of life. For instance, you know that food you eat? it is made up of Carbon, hydrogen, and water, nothing else (unless things are added when the food is processed) are cells are mad eup of only up to 6 elements or so, and these are the most basic elements P, K, Na, C, H, O (the ones i can rember, to lazy to get my bio book out)

posted by  ride3k

So people with no money to buy stuff shouldn't be allowed to use the parks?... otherwise it's government enforced charity, and you've already told me you're against that.

posted by  windsonian

Stretching it a little are we?

posted by  jedimario

But, you see, those things, skin color, body build, that's all MICROevolution. And both of theose things probably have more to do w/ enviroment than genetic code anyway!

I still haevn't gotten an exambple of a good mutation, except for maybe the cat thing, which might not be as good as FieroKid portrayed it to be. That "opposable thumb" could get in they way just as well as it could help the animal if you ask me.

posted by  jedimario

yeah, that's right, when it suits your point, it's right, but when it doesn't, then it's a stretch.

Your exact words were:



.... And also, you're telling me I'm stretching things when you said that the UN is (possibly) the most corrupt organisation ever....?

I've told you 100 million times not to exaggerate.

posted by  windsonian

Dude! Those mutations entered the genetic code, which is why people today are still black even tho they live in Michigan, and white people are still white in south Africa... its in the code, if a family of white people live in south Africa for say 10k years, each generation would start getting darker and darker to adapt to the climate... eventually that would be entered into the genetic code and thus being evolution... and one last time you cant have micro evolution with out Marco... at least you cant admit the existence of one and not the other, its like saying there’s cup cakes but no real cakes.


Sure there are lots of them, a group of geckos moves into a cave system to hunt various insects that live there... its hard for them to see, a few generations down the line a mutant child is born with bigger eyes and better eye sight. That gecko is able to eat more so he grows bigger and stronger then the other geckos, now he’s able to pass his seed on more then the other male geckos so his children have bigger eyes, and they survive more then the others and pass on their genetic code... eventually the original geckos die off and this mutant species with the bigger eyes is all that’s left.

posted by  TheFieroKid

And that folks is how you turn a political conversation into a religeous debate. :laughing:

posted by  97Talonchik

no, no, no

micro evolution is when say one person or a small group evolves, macro is when that one person gets more mates, thus more children and thus affects an entire gene pool. Ill give a good example, Humans and whales. Both of these have devolped from a comon ancestor, as proven by bone and DNA structure. But these two mamalas have adapted to thier enviorment by micro evolution. Then the most adapted ones find more mates, lets say b/c they can move around better. B/c these ppl had mutated genes, thier genes are passed on to the next generation, depeneding on independant assortment. Now more of the "mutants" are spreading thier gametes and producing more children. Now the entire gene pool changed from the one amphibious creature (the human/whales ancestor) into to new species, adapt at thier own enviroment. That my friend is MACROevolution

i suggest you go read up on bio a bit more man, homeschooling is never ever enough, pub schools/riv schools are the only place to get correct, impartial info buddy

posted by  ride3k

Didnt read any of the thread except this page.

but your first example is wrong. use and disuse was how it was thought to be long ago, but isnt how it works. If you lose your right arm, your son will still have his right arm. if he loses his right arm by chance, his son will still have a right arm. Genetic mutation comes before the fact. but your second example is exactly right.


wow, read throught some of this random thread. 2 separate debates going on lol.

Science is never fact, evolution is not proven. it is a theory. but you guys dont know what a theory is. A theory can NEVER be proven, only disproven. a scientific theory is actually the opposite of how "thoery" is used in the english language, in context it means a hunch, but a scientific theory is not a hunch. A theory only explains how or why things happen, it predicts something, makes sense, has not been disproved and are testable. evolution, plate tectonics, and gravity are all just theories.


Evolution itself is only debated by the craziest of evolutionists. The mechanisms that cause a species to evolve is what is mainly being debated.

posted by  shev

Moron I didn’t say he lost an arm or any of that shit! I said the gecko mutates ... **** I just explained it if you didn’t bother to read it then I’m not explaining it to you!
Both my examples use mutation, not any thing about losing… obviously if your cat loses its tail to an accident its offspring are still going to have the tail.


That’s why it’s called SCIENCE! Because it is fact! (Great now we have another of one these crazies in the house).
If you don’t believe in Plate Tectonics or gravity then you are a moron, and I don’t apologize for calling you a name (which I usually disapprove of) but if your trying to say these basic laws (not theories) are not true then there is no other word for you.
That’s why its called Newton’s LAW of Gravity!

posted by  TheFieroKid

I did read it. The mutations come before the fact. The mutation occurs when the dna is replicated. never does something occur, and then is added to the organisms dna to make it happen. Your example implied that over time something was changed directly because of the environment. Mutations are completely random, its natural selection that drives evolution forward. Environment directly affects natural selection. although environment can cause an increase in mutations through radiation or even bacteria, it never makes the mutation something specific.



:doh: I think you need to take some science classes before criticizing and calling anoyne a moron. A theory is never a fact, no matter how true it seems to be. science is always evolving, new things are found all the time that can either strengthen or disprove a theory. you first need to know what a theory is buddy. Here you go, read up a tad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)



I was not talking about newtons law of universal gravitation, but GR, general relativity, which is a theory incorporating Newtons laws. plate tectonics is not a law. heck, heliocentrism is a theory.

Im not disputing whether any of these theories are right or not, im simply correcting you, and telling you what a theory is.


Edit: oh yeah, BTW your =/= you're

"your" implies posession, "you're" means "you are". it may help while calling someone a moron to have a tad better grammar.

posted by  shev

:laughing: the irony...


Evolution is not taught as fact, it is taught as a theory. it IS a theory.

posted by  shev

Why are you arguing over semantics?

posted by  TheFieroKid

http://h1.ripway.com/parkerlily/CF/Funnies/Mrt.bmp

posted by  97Talonchik

Hillary is just another bloke of the Democratic Party (See Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy).

I still think it's funny she's trying to act so moderate now that she announced her presidential run for 2008 even though she's a bleeding heart liberal, one of the biggest liberals in the Senate in fact.

She wont make it past the primaries, at least, if the Democrats want to try and win. She gets even poor Democrat support right now.

posted by  thunderbird1100

you are the most retarded piece of crap i have read on this forum, besides newyorker... maybe.

lest start off with your statment about science not being fact. Ok, please explain to me how observations are not fact. I see a car drive by, i observe it is moving, psh, the car is moving <<<< that OBVIOUSLY isnt a fact

ok moving on, Theroies can be PROVEN, thats when the become LAWS, when they are diproven, they cease to exist, Newton origanly had a Theroiy of gravity, it was proved and thus became a law. Now, that law still can be disproven though, just b/c its a law, dosent mean it cant be disproven.

next up,


WRONG DUMBA** a mutation CAn occur before the fact, or it can occur DURING replication, or even when no replication is occuring at all, how the hell do you think peopl get cancer? cancer is a point mutation of the oncogene, a gene that is in a dormant state, meaning not replicating. Now, the replication has nothing to do with a point mutation, it could happen, but generally it is caused by an outside source. His thought on white peopl living in africa evuntally becoming darker skinned is extremely true. The sun's radiation alters someones genes to produce more melanin, thus causing thier skin to darken. There is a chance that this mutation can occur in a gamete producing cell, and a gamete might have this new melanin producing gene, thus this new gene can be transfered to the new child. This is evolution

Fiannly, there is one thing agreed upon, yes evolution is still a theroy, but as are technology prgresses we are getting closer and closer to proving evolution, we have yet to find any evidence to disprove evolution, none, zip, zero. But we have found tons to support it




now i know the gramar is bad, and unless your a friggen english teacher and it makes u orgasm to correct gramar, dont even bother, its the internet and no one cares


EDIT: just so you know, your own source helps me out,

posted by  ride3k

Well that's using your middle school science class knowledge to the fullest :thumbs:





ok lets talk about newtons laws then. Laws are not facts. Newtons laws and "facts" were proven false, mass, time and distance does vary with velocity. newtons laws were of course seen as absolutely true at the time. thats why I said the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, which incorporates his laws. theories explain laws and make them approximately "true".


Scientific facts are not facts. facts are facts. this is a little conplicated, as the english language implies different meanings than science does. just like how theories are used in context, but try to stay with me on this. some things are facts, like the car moving observation. ok thats a fact, but why it's moving is not. kind of like evolution. Evolution is fact. it has been ovserved, an example, domesticated dogs. wow, artificial selections, the dogs have evolved, its a fact. but the theory behind it is not a fact. theories can describe facts and laws. Theories also use facts, darwins theory of natural selection uses facts such as the fossil record as evidence.





youre just wrong. im going to quote a few sites.













ya.... that actually helps me out. just because they are seen as laws does not make them laws. just being laws does not make them fact. scientific facts are not facts, and can be proven false.

posted by  shev

The UN is full of a bunch of corrupt politicans and nations. We shouldn't have to answer to it. Matter fact, we should withdraw from it.

Long-term alliances always led to something bad, and the UN certainly has gone down the tubes. Why do we need to be in the UN? For them to tell us what's against our best intrerests? We are America, we dont need outside opinion on military matters.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Actually, we are more affectionally called a Constitutional Republic rather than a Democratic Republic.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You have to understand liberals sometimes like to interpret the constitution loosely to fit their agenda (see abortion, apparently a baby inside the womb is part of the womans body and her "Right" to have an abortion is protected by the right to privacy amendment...) and sometimes in this case strictly to fit their agenda (apparently the government is NEVER EVER allowed to get a little more info than they were before even if it's for a good cause like preventing terrorist attacks), both extremists on both sides do this. Very eloquently sometimes too.

posted by  thunderbird1100

@@@@???????@@@@@@?????@@@@@@@???????
@@@@@?????????@@?????????@@@@@@@???????
@@???@@????????@@?????????@@????????????????
@@????@@???????@@?????????@@????????????????
@@????@@???????@@?????????@@@@@??????????
@@???@@????????@@?????????@@@@@??????????
@@??@@?????????@@?????????@@????????????????
@@@@@?????????@@?????????@@@@@@@???????
@@@@???????@@@@@@??????@@@@@@@??????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
@@@@@@@@@???@@?????@@????@@@@??????@@@@@@@??????????@@@@???????@@@@???????< br /> @@@@@@@@@???@@?????@@????@@@@@????@@@@@@@?????????@@??@@??????@@@@@?????
??????@@??????????@@?????@@????@@???@@???@@?????????????????@@????@@?????@@ ???@@????
??????@@??????????@@?????@@????@@???@@???@@????????????????@@??????@@????@@ ????@@???
??????@@??????????@@@@@@@????@@??@@???@@@@@??????????@@@@@@@@????@@????@@?? ?
??????@@??????????@@@@@@@????@@@@?????@@@@@?????????@@@@@@@@@???@@???@@????
??????@@??????????@@?????@@????@@??@@????@@?????????????@@???????????@@???@ @??@@????
??????@@??????????@@?????@@????@@???@@???@@@@@@@???@@????????????@@??@@@@@? ????
??????@@??????????@@?????@@????@@????@@??@@@@@@@??@@?????????????@@??@@@@?? ?????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
@@@@???????@@@@@@?????@@@@@@@??@@??@@
@@@@@?????????@@?????????@@@@@@@??@@??@@
@@???@@????????@@?????????@@???????????@@??@@
@@????@@???????@@?????????@@???????????@@??@@
@@????@@???????@@?????????@@@@@?????@@??@@
@@???@@????????@@?????????@@@@@?????@@??@@
@@??@@?????????@@?????????@@???????????@@??@@
@@@@@?????????@@?????????@@@@@@@???????????
@@@@???????@@@@@@??????@@@@@@@?@@??@@

...Took me like 30 minutes to make :laughing::cool2:

posted by  chris_knows

Let me guess ... everyone but the US?


You should have to answer to it, so long as you ARE in it. At least you made the point that you should withdraw, but until you do, of course you should answer to it.



Not planning on only getting married once then?

posted by  windsonian

I find it odd he says that... after all its not like we haven’t been allies with Britain since the war of 1812. If that isn’t long term I don’t know what is.


There’s far too much babble from him to respond, it’d take me weeks.

posted by  TheFieroKid

And I'll go ahead and say we should kick them out and start turn the UN HQ into the Pentagon. Well, maybe not that second thing...:laughing:

posted by  jedimario

No, not everyone but the US. But certainly many "big nations"...I mean come on, they had nations in there like IRAQ with Saddam still in power and many european nations selling him nuclear capabilities for oil (see France). Then the UN tells us not to invade Iraq? WTF...Fu*k you guys!

I dont think we should have to answer to it as long as were in. See, this is America, we have rights not to have to respond to certain authority if we choose to. You dont have to like the president, you dont have to do what he says, you dont have to like the UN, we dont have to do what they say.

Actually plan on getting 2 or 3 divorces in fact, like I said, long term alliances led to bad things:laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Cant respond to three or four measly sentences....pathetic:orglaugh:

What a typical Democrat plan, accuse accuse accuse. Put down...offer no solution.:clap:

You should join your fellow democrats in congress. Would blend right in.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Sorry, but this is factually wrong. For example, gravity is a force, not a theory. What CAUSES the force is the subject of theory. Plate techtonics is a fact, there are various thories on how it ultimately works, and as we learn more, those theories are refined. But the movement of the plates are fact.

Science works. We are using it to converse right now, being able to predict, and use repeatedly things that you cannot see (electrons) and how they work at the atomic level (how elecrtons can be moved, directed and change phosphors to create the words you are reading right now). the fact that we can make machines on an atomic level prove that some theories of science do become facts.

posted by  ChrisV

I thought it was an acceleration, don't you need mass for there to be a force:mrgreen:
...here's a question .... is there gravity with no mass for it to act on? It's like the universal law of gravitation (or whatever that thing with the big G is called), in a 1 hand clapping context.:laughing:

posted by  windsonian

So who decides which authority you do and don't have to obey?

Why are you even in the UN if you aren't going to obey them? If you claim that the UN has no authority, and you plan on deliberately disobeying it, then you shouldn't withdraw, you should be expelled.

(btw, I'm not saying the US should be expelled, I'm saying that if they want in, then they should recognise the authority of the union).

posted by  windsonian

mmm and the rep’s never do any of that.

Also you cant respond because you know its true, we’ve had a long standing alliance with Britain and it hasn’t backfired yet... so your statement is false.

posted by  TheFieroKid

Good old Republicans, always wanting total control of everyone. I'm all for stopping terrorism, but at least do it a legal way.

Patriot act is bullshit.

posted by  OombaIsBack

That could well be the smartest thing you've ever said..... makes sense, don't it?

posted by  windsonian

For the 6 billion people who live outside the US, can someone actually inform us what the differences are between the two major political parties?

posted by  Wally

The law.




Why are we in the UN? I have no idea. It benefits us in no such way IMHO and I personally think we SHOULD withdraw. I cant withdraw us from the UN because well, I dont have that authority. But I still feel we have the right to do what's best for us even if the UN says we shouldn't.

If the UN wishes to expell us, GREAT! It'd probably be a faster way of us getting out of there than us withdrawing ourselves.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The repubs dont offer any plans? Where have you been the past decade?

They have offered social security reform and tax reform just recently to name two plans. Both of which the Democrats pulled out the good ole "go against anything Bush supports" plan. Democrats arent there to obstruct everything trying to be reformed or passed and THEN not offer any plan themselves...They can obstruct all they want, but at least offer a half ass solution.

I cant respond to what? I respond to anything. What do you wish for me to respond to?

We've had a long standing alliance with Britain, sure if you count less than a century a "long standing alliance". That's laughable as far as true historic alliances go. What TRUE alliances do we really have today with any major nation? Britain is just about it. The French have used us time and again and they never offer any support. Germany, well, you know. Australia is usually there, but to tell the truth arent a huge help. So what are we getting out of being in the UN? Please, enlighten us all.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Wow, typical Liberal propaganda. Yup, them Nazi Republicans are out to know even our sex lives!!

Patriot Act does have some scary provisions. But it still has yet to invade any U.S. Citizens rights. So I dont see any major wrong in it. And again the Democrats bitch and whine about it, and still offer no solution other than trying to delay its renewal as long as they can (see obstructionist).

OH and by the way, I'm no Republican.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Well that may be a little awkward seeing as the thing was dreamed up by Roosevelt and Winston Churchill when formulating the Atlantic Charter. Then seeing the obvious opportunities John Rockefeller donated the land for the buildings.

I think you will find the UN has served the US business man very well in economic terms.

posted by  Wally

In real life, not really any major differences. Hence why I call them "Republicrats".

But in theory...
Republicans http://www.gop.com/Issues/
Click on the certain issues to find out their stance.

Democrats
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Again click on the certain issues to find out their stance.

Also two other major political parties coming up in the system are the Libertarian and Green parties.

Libertarians
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

Greens
http://gp.org/platform.shtml

I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian. Hope all the links provide you answers.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Things dreamed up 50 or 60 years ago doesnt mean they are of good purpose today. The UN did serve somewhat of a good purpose for a while. But for the past few decades has been nothing but a hotbed for corruption. Not to mention the main idea behind the UN was to ocunter the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact has been gone for what? 15+ years now. Time for us to get out of the mess.

BTW - I posted some party info for you above.

posted by  thunderbird1100

It's not really an authority then if it's not legal though, is it?

posted by  windsonian

it wasnt to combat the warsaw act buddy, it was to prevent the uprising of any one contury, and if the US withdrew from the UN, the UN would disentegrate and all hell would break lose, b/c no one would fear the wrath of the US b/c withdrawing from the UN is the equivalnt of saying "we dont give a rats ass about foreign politics and foregin affairs"

posted by  ride3k

Maybe if they kicked France out of the security council, bravehearts could get on with the job. :mrgreen:

posted by  Wally

So are you saying that the time between 1814 (end of the war) till 2006 is less then a century?

You want dem. ideas? well its dated (04 or 05) but still vaild and shows we do have ideas, its just the right is never listing to them.

[
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041211-091020-9288r.htm

posted by  TheFieroKid

You misunderstand. A cop telling you you're under arrest for breaking a law is an authority you must obey. A cop telling you you need to strip for him to molest you is an authority figure you dont have to obey and have a right not too.

See the difference?

You dont have to do what the president says if you dont want too. If he says we need to conserve energy so only leave your lights tured on in your house for 12 hours a day you dont have too, you can leave them on 24 hours if you so please. But if he signs into law a bill stating no single american is allowed to have lights on in their house for more than 12 hours and you have yours on for 16 hours and get caught, then you must obey the authority figure as you did wrong and broke the law.

The UN gives advice, they aren't the law.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You see, it funny you say this nonsense. You honestly think if we withdrew from the UN the world would go nuts? Hell no, many nations would be rejoicing (France, Germany...). IT's stupid to think if we withdrew from the UN the world would go insane. The world doesnt need a pat on the back from America, take care of yourselves.

The UN was created right after WW2 and Germany split into West/East Germany....about the same time the Warsaw Pact was created, go figure! West Germany = UN, while East Germany = Warsaw Pact. The original main point of the UN was to have the free nations band together against the communist nations. Well, we all know what happened to those communist nations...:laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

They'd take advantage of the situation and whine and whine about it imo.

posted by  jedimario

You really dont know your history. The war of 1812 was when we the U.S. tried and failed to take Canada. In 1814 (two years after you claim we have this long standing alliance BRITAIN BURNED DOWN THE CAPITOL IN D.C. Wow, some alliance...tard.

Lets move on in history shall we? Ever heard of The American Civil War? Brits didn't help both sides. Matter fact the north hated Britain because only less than 40 years earlier they burned the capitol and the north had high tariffs and didnt support free trade with other nations like the South did. Matter fact two of the South's main crops (Tobacco and Cotton) were mainly exported to, you got it, Great Britain. So you can see who Britain would rather support. NOT the Union (or United States). The South recieved much support from the brits in terms of supplies (guns, shoes, leather good, hospitial appliances, uniforms...you name it, it was manufactured in England and shipped to the Bahamas where Confederate ships would pick it up and run through the U.S. Navy blockade to get them to the war effort. On top of that, since the U.S. Navy weas blockading the south, the south built most of its warships IN England...some famous ships like the CSS Alabama was built in Liverpool and the CSS Shenandoah was built in Glasgow. Guess what, the crews were mostly BRITISH, with CSA officers. Many BRITISH ships were even ceased by the Union during the war.

So, let's see, does the British fighting AGAINST the U.S. count as an alliance, still? Clown.

So let's move on, the first major conflict the British wholeheardtly supported (rather the U.S. supposrted THEM) the U.S..... That's right you guessed it. The Great War (aka World War I). When was that smarty pants? That's right, 1914-1918. What is 2006 minus 1914 (Americans didnt get directly involved until 1916-1917)...less than a centruy, THAT'S WHAT!

Now that you've been educated, go pinch yourself and eat some fish-n-chips.


....Dumbass.

posted by  thunderbird1100

That's all France has been doing the past 90 years "please help us United States, we need you". Then screw us over every time.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Time for another....
http://home.nc.rr.com/inbedwithhomer/owned.jpg

posted by  jedimario

Funny quote. Weren't you still in diapers a decade ago?

posted by  97Talonchik

Seeing as he's in college....:roll:

posted by  jedimario

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Yeah sure honey, when I was 9 years old a decade ago...

At least have a decent attempt at TRYING to insult someone. Calling them an infant when they are clearly YEARS older than that stage is quite asinine.

I said a decade because that's approximately how long the Republicans have been in control of Congress. Although I'm sure you wouldn't have ever thought of that, oh no. Rather just come up with an inane "you're a baby" wasted bandwith post.

But anyways since we're on the petty stupid insults...

Isn't that about the time you said "Daddy, Mommy; why am I bleeding down there, im not cut."

posted by  thunderbird1100

I know, some people are truely pathetic on these forums.

Don't know simple U.S. history, yet they can vote. They should have a test administered before you vote and have to get a 60% to pass on U.S. history to be able to vote. On top of that each 10% bracket should be awarded more than 1 vote. Hence...
90-100 = 4 votes
80-89 = 3 votes
70-79 = 2 votes
60-69 = 1 vote
below 60 = STFU and dont complain about who is elected, moron

It's morons like that who elect dumbass leaders.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Hmm, while I definately agree you should have to be so smart to vote, there isn't really a practical way of determining the smartness of someone. For example, who will amke the test? No one would ever agree on that. That's just one problem.

posted by  jedimario

Oh I'm just blowing smoke. not being for real, just showing the stupidity of some people who elect the leaders in our free world.

posted by  thunderbird1100

:laughing: Sweetheart, I wasn't trying to insult anyone. If I wanted to insult you I would. Congrats, you're no longer in diapers but you continue to think you know all about the government and its preceedings. Besides that, you're what 18-19 years old? The majority of those involved in this thread are around 16-21 years old. Point of the matter, the rest of us don't really give a shit.

P.s. No 10 years ago I was the one thinking I knew everything about everything (at 16), then I lived in the real world and realized how entirely wrong I was.

posted by  97Talonchik

When did I claim to know all about anything? Oh, I guess you inferred me correcting such idiots like fiereo about history as me acting like a know-it-all, that's cute. What's wrong with correcting somebody when they spew a bunch of unsubstansiated BS? Afterall, that's what ChrisV is all about, so is he a know it all too?

I said I was 19. Why would even waste your breath saying "the rest of us dont really give a shit" when I'm the one who touts the name "I dont give a shit"?

I've been living in the real world for years honey, it's nothing new. You dont have to act like you're all more mature and shit...you're only 5-6 years older. Not a big difference at all.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I think you misunterstand the meaning of the word "authority".
If the policeman is not allowed, under his powers, to make you strip, then he doesn't have the authority.


you tell her not to "act all more mature", and call her "honey", which is obviously a way to try to talk down to her ... and don't say it's not.... and I am aware that she did the same thing, but in retaliation

posted by  windsonian

No i dont misunderstand the term authority for cripes sakes. Look at what I posted agian...

The policeman is always an authority figure, but if he is in the wrong than he is not THE authority (the law).

I called her cute names because she called me cute names, simple as that. Didn't mean to talk down or talk up to anyone.

posted by  thunderbird1100

There is a difference between authority and authority figure the way you explain it.

So the policeman is not the authority now - which does not support this.

posted by  windsonian

Your Message