|
Post by RAF on Nov 23, 2009 14:35:24 GMT -4
Palin's mouth, not "liberal spin," is how I judge that woman. Exactly...and the more she talks, the worse it gets. As long as Jason has a place to spout his nonsense, he doesn't seem to be concerned about his credibility.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 23, 2009 14:31:17 GMT -4
I am saying that the generally poor public perception of Palin in particular seems to me to be idealogically based... So you simply can not see that Palin is an idiot? Gee...where to begin...how about her "flip-floping" on the bridge to nowhere? ...or how she believes that dinosaurs and humans co-habited the Earth. ...or her naive belief that being physically close to the Soviet Union somehow gives her insight into international relations. The list is literally endless, but I'll stop there for now...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 20, 2009 21:26:38 GMT -4
Poor, stupid Sarah Palin...it must be a conspiracy to silence her. Notably, even the McCain "camp" is calling the claims made in her book, lies... She's as stupid as a bag of hammers...actually, that's an insult to hammers. What actually scares me is the number of Palin followers who are appearently just as stupid as she is. ...oh, and nice how you attempted to divert attention from the criticism of Fox News...no one noticed that little "slight of hand."
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 18, 2009 14:45:14 GMT -4
So which would it be God or a charismatic leader? Are they one and the same? If the leader says that god "told him so", how would the followers be able to tell the difference?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 18, 2009 14:00:17 GMT -4
Well I for one wouldn't engage in suicide bombings against civilian targets. So if your god ordered you to attack civilian targets, you would disobey your god? ..and don't answer with "that couldn't happen". A charismatic religious leader can talk his followers into doing anything.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 7, 2009 12:44:17 GMT -4
This doesn't mean that God made him blind in order to show off, but rather that God was able to use his blindness to both create a lesson and in the end bring a gift into the man's life. Had He not allowed the man to be blind, both opportunities would have been lost. Fine, then there should be no difficulties in simply praying a lot and getting cured... right??...oh wait... Always an "out". An opportunity for what?...to show how much of a sadist god is? I'd rather worship satan than worship an insane god...although the point is moot since neither exist. How am I so sure of this? I simply look to the behavior of gods followers and the irrational twists and turns they will take in order to preserve their irrational beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 24, 2009 15:58:34 GMT -4
So is this chain yanker the "best" the hoax "community" has to offer?
I am not impressed...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 19, 2009 14:47:23 GMT -4
Would literally dancing on Bill Kaysing's grave be considered tacky? ;D Only if you do it with an armfull of cats. Just realized...I'll be vacationing on the 20th...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 27, 2009 17:03:00 GMT -4
So why don't you tell us how you could possibly know that "gay people have no hope of ever having long term happiness"? What scientific study is that based on? Because nearly the entire board is prejudicial on the subject and won't listen to anything I have to say, so there is little point in trying to say it. Sorry if this is "adhomin- ish" but you are such a cry baby. Man-up and come to the realization that you may not be "right" on every subject you have an opinion on... sheesh... You, yourself brought up this subject. Personally, I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to discuss this topic since the argument you present has exposed your "true" self...irrational, illogical, biased, and narrowminded. Your "true self" isn't a very nice person.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 22, 2009 9:15:01 GMT -4
...we might decide we have a cut-and-dried case of proven science here, but who decides when the case has been proven? Are you comfortable with non-scientists making scientific decisions? I know I'm not...but perhaps you have different "criteria" for determining scientific "truths".
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 20, 2009 17:45:49 GMT -4
...intellectual cowardice. Ok...I'll admit that was a bit "too much", but at the very least, Jason is guilty of flame-baiting. He's done it before, and I'm sure he will do it again...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 20, 2009 17:30:11 GMT -4
I not only have a differing opinion, I have differing experience. I know a number of homosexual couples, and they are some of the happiest relationships I have ever seen. What do you base your opinion on, and what makes you a qualified judge of what will make people happy? Largely irrelevent to the current discussion. If you must discuss my views on homosexual behavior, I suggest you first read through the 42-page "Should Homosexuals have the right to marry?" thread in the "Beyond Belief" section, where I lay them out at some length. If you then still want to discuss the subject I suggest you start a new thread. I may or may not show up - I'm not certain if I want to don my asbestos underwear again. Typical... you bring up an irrational idea, and when you discover you can not support that idea, you want to drop it... That is intellectual cowardice.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 20, 2009 17:06:28 GMT -4
Are you saying that when someone stridently presents an opinion that is perceived by others as being based on hatred or bigotry. Emphasis mine... Oh I see...it is my "perception" that is faulty... right...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 20, 2009 17:03:35 GMT -4
I am saying that homosexual relationships will not lead to lasting happiness... Now just how would you presume to know this?? Homosexuality is something that you have NOT personally experienced, yet you can "judge" that people will not be happy if they are in a homosexual relationship? That's called hypocrisy. This sounds an awful lot like "they are too stupid for their own good, and it's up to us to save them." Call it what you want, but when others "stupidity" can have a potential effect on the future health of my child, then there really isn't any other "choice".
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 20, 2009 11:54:49 GMT -4
Presenting a conflicting opinion is called disagreement, not censorship. That would be fine if all opinions were "created" equally...they are not. When you have a opinion which is not backed up by objective evidence, when it is obviously the "product" of narrow minded hatred...when that opinion is presented "as if" it were a reasonable opinion...presented to others in a "I'm right, you're wrong" manner...well, if that isn't an attempt at censoring those with rational opinions, I don't know what is...
|
|