Page 21 of 32 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021222324252631 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 639
  1. #401  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I think my avatar agitates people.
    Others may find it mildly erotic....
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  2.    #402  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Others may find it mildly erotic....
    gawd knows I do.

    For some of the others, finding it mildly erotic may be what's agitating them.
  3. #403  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I think my avatar agitates people.
    Your avatar is great! Never agitated me. (I assume it's a picture of you. Is this correct?)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #404  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Very factual indeed, perhaps you should look into it, and try understanding what it is you actually believe in. It sounds like you would be very surprised.
    I'd invite you to present evidence for any of the assertions you've made. Pick one, any one. I'd be happy to discuss them with you. Look forward to your response.
  5. #405  
    Wow, get busy for two days and an initially somewhat silly thread takes on several more lives of it's own. There's a lot of pent up frustration (much of it directed at "religion", or should I more correctly say "anit-religion").

    I'm hoping I can suggest some things to think about (some hinted here but not addressed to the level I would have hoped they would have been adressed).

    Left vs right and conservative vs liberal might rightly be called "labels". Religions are a set of beliefs commonly held by a group of people, usually based on faith. (This is my definition as opposed to a dictionary definition.) I believe it is the "faith" part that Kenanator objects to - and in many ways it's reasonable to start with this objection and see how it works. I think the process of identifying what's real and what's not is the branch of science we call "philosophy". Some might hesitate at calling philosophy a science, but the reality is that even "science" is based on our best and most educated guesses/observations of the phenomena around us. Philosophers can argue night and day and still not be able to draw what "normal" people would call "reasonable conclusions".

    My point here is that even philosophy and science need to start somewhere and find understanding of our world through the use of both observations and logic. When we find things that we can't explain, it doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means we either don't understand them or that maybe we are not capable of understanding them. We experience the concepts of "now", "before", and "after" (in other words: "time") which we can understand as human beings. Our observations teach us principles of cause and efffect, but we cannot understand the concept of "an ultimate causer". Based on our understanding, the best our mental understanding and physical observations can tell us is that if something has to be before something else, then our limited logic has to extrapolate an "infinity" backwards in time that always existed. Our limited understanding also seems to want to imagine an "end" but logic shows such ends to be just a way to bound our understanding in some way. In other words, what comes after the end if we believe that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. At this point logic tells me that matter always did and always will exist. Since this is beyond my understanding, I rely on what other inhabitants of this planet have observed and learned on this same quest. It is not illogical to look at our known history and the published beliefs of various peoples in order to see which of these are most likely to better explain the world I live in than I can do myself. These beliefs beyond explainable physical phenomena could be correct or they could be "myths" of some sort. Some people dismiss these "myths" without giving them much thought (because thinking them all through is too hard). Some people find sets of beliefs that work well based on their understanding (or the common understanding of a group of affiliated people). This is what I'll call our "religions" of the world. Some people are content with choosing a religion without giving it much thought. Others, after much thought, give up on all religions because they observe many sets of beliefs each which seem to contradict one-another. People either find a religion which gives them more meaning and purpose in this life (including a belief that they will have another form of existence beyond their earthly life for eternity). There are sets of philosophical arguments for the existence of a God, but I don't know all of them. I figured out the simplest of these arguments on my own several years ago as a child. They call it "Pascal's wager". It's logic is that if I believe in a God who does not exist, and I die, I've lost nothing - while if there was a God who wanted me to love and be with him, then I will be there forever. There's the counter-side of the argument that I still neither win or loose if I choose not to follow a God that does not exist. So in summary, I'll either not win or win by believing in God, while I'll either not win or loose by not believing. Therefore, if I choose to believe, I either win or do not loose, which to me is the best alternative (provided I can still lead a satisfactory life on Earth).

    I'm sorry if I went on too long with the above arguments. My main point was to show my logic and where it's led me so far. There's a Philosophy professor named Peter Kreeft at Boston College who's written books and published some MP3s (available on the internet) that describe all of the arguments for the existence of God. Kreeft became a Catholic after first going down the philosophical route and then sorting through various religions to find which made the most sense.

    Let me close this post by saying that anyone wishing not to be converted should ignore everything I said above. Thank you for allowing me my right to free speech. Of course it's my preference if you listen to and consider what I've said.

    peace,
    --
    Bob
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  6. #406  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So you have hard evidence that there is not?
    Cute. I don't recall that I said either way. Lets look at my post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    As usual youre cherry picking statements and using them out of context. A+ for consistency.

    BTW you dont look terribly bright using a Michael Moore film as a reputable source. What's your next trick. Claiming Avatar proves there is intelligent life on other planets?
    Nope I didn't state an opinion either way nor did I imply one. And you don't have hard evidence that there is so it's a draw. I asked a question of dr dave relating to his use of Sicko as a reputable source. Do I need to explain further or are you able to follow along?

    Since I know you'll try to run this into the ground as me saying I don't believe in life elsewhere, I'll state my opinion on the matter.

    IMO it is stupid for us to assume we know anything about what's "out there" with any amount of certainty. The same as it's stupid and arrogant of us to assume we can claim to know what will happen on this planet in 50, 100, 500 1000 years. We can guess, but we won't know until we get there. Same with other planets. Until we explore every planet in the universe no one can say there is no other life. I for one think it's probable there is someone else out there. I think it only probable that there would be given the vastness of space. Hell we have evidence of civilizations on earth evolving separate but similar so why not other planets.
    Like Carl Sagan said (paraphrase) If we're alone it would be an awful waste of space.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  7. #407  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Cute. I don't recall that I said either way. Lets look at my post.


    Nope I didn't state an opinion either way nor did I imply one. And you don't have hard evidence that there is so it's a draw. I asked a question of dr dave relating to his use of Sicko as a reputable source. Do I need to explain further or are you able to follow along?

    Since I know you'll try to run this into the ground as me saying I don't believe in life elsewhere, I'll state my opinion on the matter.

    IMO it is stupid for us to assume we know anything about what's "out there" with any amount of certainty. The same as it's stupid and arrogant of us to assume we can claim to know what will happen on this planet in 50, 100, 500 1000 years. We can guess, but we won't know until we get there. Same with other planets. Until we explore every planet in the universe no one can say there is no other life. I for one think it's probable there is someone else out there. I think it only probable that there would be given the vastness of space. Hell we have evidence of civilizations on earth evolving separate but similar so why not other planets.
    Like Carl Sagan said (paraphrase) If we're alone it would be an awful waste of space.
    WOW! Other than your snarky comments, we agree on something! Have great weekend, new bff!!!!
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  8. #408  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    WOW! Other than your snarky comments, we agree on something! Have great weekend, new bff!!!!
    LOL... same to you.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. #409  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, you can stretch the common definition for your own purpose if you want, but as I said--they key feature to being a cult is that it is out of the mainstream, and that does not rightfully describe any major religion. I think what your real purpose is to make a cheap shot, by likening major religions to things like the Heaven's Gate cult. It strikes me as somewhat dishonest.
    It's an accepted cult but a cult nonetheless. Whether it's mainstream or not, imo, is irrelevant.


    No, it was your claim that Logic can address this--proving or disproving. I said it couldn't. I'm not trying to prove something, so how is it that I'm grasping at straws. I asked you to do what you claim can be done, and you haven't.
    Of course I have, however I never expected you to accept it. If you did, you would see religion the way I see it. You admitted the belief in a supreme being is illogical but at the same time is claiming that logic can't disprove it????

    I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that I'm trying to prove anything to you. I'm not. I'd suggest however that you believe a great many things without having any "proof" that they exist.
    I never said you were trying to prove anything. I said the burden of proof is with you, not me. I don't expect you to try to prove it because I KNOW you can't.

    You BELIEVE a great many things on faith just like everyone else, I suspect. Do you believe any scientific theories? Have you run those numbers yourself? Do you even understand the science behind those theories, or are you simply believing what someone else tells you and trusting that their claims about the facts are true? Now, please don't mistake what I'm saying--I'm not saying these things aren't true--I'm asking how the mechanism by which you believe something is any different from what someone does in believing something else.

    This is the same ridiculous argument I've encountered over and over. Science is based on actual research and experiment. It's not built on a foundation of faith. The mechanisms are very different. And please, I have no reason to doubt the mechanisms by which a scientist may arrive at a theory.

    By your logic, I can simply say I strongly believe an alien spaceship is hiding behind the asteroid Eros gently nudging it in a collision course with earth. And because it can't be proven (as in we can't send a spaceship to investigate), it should be considered a possibility. How ridiculous does that sound?

    Now, I'm sure you will say "But there is proof or evidence." Sure--there may be, but have you examined this evidence or do you simply accept that it is true? Now, I'm sure you have actually experienced some things--like gravity obviously--you can experiment with that on your own. But many other things you accept, I'm guessing you haven't even attempted to "prove" in any way to yourself.
    Here you are again trying to equate Religion with scientific method. Sorry but here you are really reaching.


    So, my point is--simply stating that people have no proof is not disproving anything. That seems to be what you are resting your entire position on this.
    No, my point is, the existence of a supernatural all poweful being is simply not logical. Which means, he/she/it cannot exist as far as I'm concerned.

    Sure. I say the same thing about secular movements--I don't think they should be able to enact laws that go against a majority view (including mine). It seems to me that you are creating an artificial distinction in terms of the effect it has on a third party. I asked this before, and I will again, does it matter to you if something is enacted that harms you if it is Religious or Secular in its origin? Is it acceptable for a secular idea transformed into law harms you or infringes on your rights, but unacceptable if the same thing is done if its origin is a religious idea?
    I don't know why you keep thinking that I'm ok with other forms of rights encroachment or restrictions. Didn't I state clearly that NO encroachment is ok? Yes I have a beef with Religion but it doesn't mean I give the OK to everything else that may encroach on other's rights.

    I suggest that there is no difference--it either infringes on my rights or not--the reason that led to it is irrelevant.
    Well there's one more place where you and I differ. I care about the reasons as well.

    How many wars have been fought over non-religious reasons? How many people died as the result of Communism in the 20th Century? That's an atheistic system. Additionally, blaming Religion is really not terribly accurate in many cases--first, Religion and the State are highly intertwined in other cultures and in history, so you can be sure that there were secular political reasons that went hand in hand with these so-called "religious" wars.
    So if blaming religion isn't terribly accurate, I'm going to assume it's 'somewhat' accurate? You're basically saying, well communism, and secular differences caused a lot of deaths too, so it's ok to give the many more deaths caused by religious beliefs over the centuries a pass.




    Well, I guess that literally is true--of anything, Religious or non-Religious. You and I do not have the right to encroach on anyone else's rights.


    Where did I say we did?

    Your statement about "despite the source" is valid in my view. What if I had a totally secular position on Abortion that led me to want to ban it? Is that any better? No--as you say, it is or isn't valid despite the source.
    Read above, I hate having to repeat myself.




    The point is that WHAT a law or government action does is what is important, not what someone's reasoning is for advocating it.
    Like I said before, I care about both but yes the end result of what the law does is more important.



    The fact is, we don't restrict what people think or believe--religious or not. Its not something you can control. The PRODUCT of those ideas are what we can address as acceptable or unacceptable.
    I clearly stated 'political influences'. I know we can't restrict people's beliefs and I'm not advocating that we should. However we could and should restrict political infuences of relgious GROUPS.

    Differing political views most definitely divide and perpetuate hatred. Proof of that can be seen everywhere.
    True but the difference is, it is healthy to our economy and the State's well being to have differing political views, and we cannot progress, or our form of government exist without politics. However the same can't be said for religion.

    Yes, I saw one where the media treated this candidate with kid gloves. For every instance of negative, how many instances of positive coverage were provided? If these things were so damaging, then how exactly did he end up winning not only the primary, but the general election? I suggest it is obvious that these things were NOT damaging, or balanced off by a much greater amount of fawning adoration.
    Well the question of the whether the negative coverage was damaging or not is an entirely different debate altogether.

    However, your initial claim was that there was hardly any negative coverage which simply wasn't true.

    Yeah, I think you kind of did allude to that, which is why I asked for clarification? Is Christianity just a label for Obama or is he an actual Christian--in your opinion?
    The same can be asked of ALL so-called Christians, not just Obama. For many, just the label is proof enough. If I took that stance, then yes he's a Christian. However, for me, actions speak louder than words. Being a 'true' Christian isn't easy if the Bible is to be taken at face value. I don't believe anyone's truly Christian, (or Muslim or Catholic etc). It's just too much to live up to. Are you a 'true' Christian? Personally, I doubt it.




    Really? Why? Where does it say that Religion is to be a lesser basis for anything?
    Where does it say it shouldn't? It's my opinion.

    Where does it say that it must be separate from other "social ideologies?"
    Where does it say that it shouldn't be? See above.


    Correct, Religious belief is not a logical matter. You however are making the mistake of then saying that no belief borne from a Religious origin can be logical.
    Seems like you are contradicting yourself here.

    That is a fallacy. Likewise it is a fallacy to claim that non-religious based beliefs are somehow inherently logical.
    I never claimed that. There is a such a thing as flawed logic. However religion isn't based on any kind of logic.




    You've mentioned the Majority several times. Are you aware that the Majority of Americans are Christians? Not that I think that should mean anything in particular--just that you are making an argument that doesn't favor your claim.
    Because they label themselves Christians doesn't mean they are automatically ready to give up their rights to whomever.

    I believe Murder is wrong and our laws reflect that. I cite religious belief as my source. Is that view illogical? Should we dismiss this, because it has a Religious basis?
    hmmm, you believe murder is wrong because God said so? Well, I have a hard time buying that. So if your Religion supported murder, would you agree?To me, common sense would be the primary source and that's the source I actually believe fuels your belief.



    Well, that's your choice whether to believe in a religion or not. What I'm saying is your choice isn't a reasonable basis for demanding that others make that same choice.
    Why do you constantly put words in my mouth? While I would certainly like religion to magically disappear, I never demanded that others not believe in religion. My main problem with it is its possible influence on our laws and the consequences. If you want to believe and practice every religion on earth I could care less.... unless it becomes a problem for me.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  10. #410  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post

    If true, that's fine. Many don't. I am looking at you, Mormons!!!

    I'm not one, I'm just curious what you mean here.
    Just call me Berd.
  11. #411  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It's an accepted cult but a cult nonetheless. Whether it's mainstream or not, imo, is irrelevant.




    Of course I have, however I never expected you to accept it. If you did, you would see religion the way I see it. You admitted the belief in a supreme being is illogical but at the same time is claiming that logic can't disprove it????

    ...snip
    You know logic is a man-made construct. Many things besides religion are illogical. Love, for example defies logic in many of not most cases. Do you rail against it's existence too.

    Speaking from 30+ adult years experience as an atheist I know the logic card all too well. Problem is that faith makes the illogical possible all the time. If enough people believe in something it can become real.
    Trust me friend, you would do well to learn that logic doesnt answer all. Even though logically it would seem that it should.
    To your point, logic would indicate that believing in a supreme being of any sort would be a mistake and yet the majority of people on this planet believe in a supreme being. Surely you don't suppose yourself to be more intelligent than all of them? Many of the greatest minds of our time were/are people of faith. The odds that you are somehow smarter than all of them is pretty far fetched don't you think?

    Have you ever been told if you want to accomplish something, you should visualize it? Same thing as faith, pretty much. Just on a smaller scale.

    I am curious, what great injustice has been put upon you by someone's faith or are you just trying to prevent that from happening?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. #412  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    But the argument against religion can be explained as I see it. Everything in our world and universe is a product of cause and effect. Nothing has ever appeared from nothing, and there is nothing that is capable of doing that. Science has proven that. Religion states that "god" made man, well who made god? It is not logical that he just appeared out of nowhere from nothing. That does not happen in our universe. I am not saying that I can not explain the "impossible". I am saying the "impossible" can not exist. I am saying that there is no such thing as "impossible".
    I do know, especially given the size of our universe, that we are a speck of dust.
    I don't even know how infinitely small we may be. How big is the biggest? Where's the end of universe? Science says it's expanding. When was it smaller? Where did it come from? Did it just suddenly appear out of nowhere? What's outside of the universe? How big is outside the universe? Is there something bigger than the biggest? Is size Infinite? What is the smallest? Is there something smaller? That's just looking at things 'Physically'.
    How about Time? Will it ever end? Did it ever begin?

    Us humans are so smart? So informed? So learned? Go back just a hundred or so years, and how intelligent, or informed was science? It wasn't too long ago that 'science' figured if meat was left out it would grow worms.

    I can't explain God, just as a cat doesn't recognize the other cat in the mirror.
    Just call me Berd.
  13. #413  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    You know logic is a man-made construct. Many things besides religion are illogical. Love, for example defies logic in many of not most cases. Do you rail against it's existence too.

    Speaking from 30+ adult years experience as an atheist I know the logic card all too well. Problem is that faith makes the illogical possible all the time. If enough people believe in something it can become real.
    Trust me friend, you would do well to learn that logic doesnt answer all. Even though logically it would seem that it should.
    To your point, logic would indicate that believing in a supreme being of any sort would be a mistake and yet the majority of people on this planet believe in a supreme being. Surely you don't suppose yourself to be more intelligent than all of them? Many of the greatest minds of our time were/are people of faith. The odds that you are somehow smarter than all of them is pretty far fetched don't you think?

    Have you ever been told if you want to accomplish something, you should visualize it? Same thing as faith, pretty much. Just on a smaller scale.

    I am curious, what great injustice has been put upon you by someone's faith or are you just trying to prevent that from happening?
    ???? The majority of people at one time in history believed the earth was flat, were they right? They also believed the earth was the center of the universe among other things.

    Majority belief does not equal reality or truth just because. Also I have a very hard time believing you're an atheist.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  14. #414  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    You know logic is a man-made construct. Many things besides religion are illogical. Love, for example defies logic in many of not most cases. Do you rail against it's existence too.
    I don't see love as being illogical at all. It is a natural reaction we have within our bodies to promote the mating process.

    Speaking from 30+ adult years experience as an atheist I know the logic card all too well.
    So you are an atheist? Welcome aboard!

    Problem is that faith makes the illogical possible all the time. If enough people believe in something it can become real.
    So if we get enough people to believe that elves are real long enough, it will come true?

    Trust me friend, you would do well to learn that logic doesnt answer all. Even though logically it would seem that it should.
    To your point, logic would indicate that believing in a supreme being of any sort would be a mistake and yet the majority of people on this planet believe in a supreme being. Surely you don't suppose yourself to be more intelligent than all of them? Many of the greatest minds of our time were/are people of faith. The odds that you are somehow smarter than all of them is pretty far fetched don't you think?
    There are many of the greatest minds of all time that were also atheists. Here is a list of a few of them with their own quotes on the subject.

    Have you ever been told if you want to accomplish something, you should visualize it? Same thing as faith, pretty much. Just on a smaller scale.
    Again, I just visualize a million dollars and I will get it?

    I am curious, what great injustice has been put upon you by someone's faith or are you just trying to prevent that from happening?
    I know this was not directed at me, but I want to answer it anyway. I have never had an injustice put upon me, I just do not want religion and government mixing.
    Last edited by Kenanator; 02/13/2010 at 01:48 AM.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  15. #415  
    Kam...
    I have said I dont care what someone believes. But when the entire GOP scoffs at global warming, because the bible says so,(which it doesn't btw), that effects me. When gays can't get married because the bible says so, that effects them. Using someting like murder is a swipe at sillyness. We know without the help of god, that we shouldn't do that.


    "Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Actually, hearing voices and having people accept that, is whats outside of unreasonable."

    I think you might be taking things a bit too literally.

    KAM

    When someone says they fasted for 3 days and god told them to run for office, that is outside of unreasonable. When my president goes to the ranch for a month, to pray about going to war, thats unreasonable. When Palin stands in front of her church, and asks them to pray because this war is Gods plan, that is unreasonable. When A congressman states global warming is fake because the bible says so, that is unreasonable.
  16. #416  
    KAM....I'm going to ask some questions to try and understand you better.
    Do you believe that everything in the physical world is defined and understood?
    Is there anything outside of the physical world? That's a bit open of a question, but are thoughts for example physical? Can they be quantifed physically?
    Much here isn't understood. Our world for the most part is quite fake. Look at atoms, 80% space, yet they comprise everything, so everything becomes only 20% reality. Colors dont really exist, yet to us, they are very real. They have discovered that bacteria in seperate dishes, know when the other is being fed. That plants feel and communicate. There is much we dont understand, I think most is beyond our understanding.


    Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    ...What's your next trick. Claiming Avatar proves there is intelligent life on other planets?
    Well, literally there is more evidence of extraterrestrials then there is of god, not to mention alot of physical evidence of something helping us here......
    I believe in ancient astronaut theory, but I would never involve that in my policies.

    I think people forget that liberals are christians to. They just seem to keep it out of they're politics.
  17. #417  
    Sorry for no recent visit. Your question, was any of that serious? Yes. Now tell us all how he was more qualified then her? Tell us where his administrative experience came from? Where did his business experience come from? A community organizer, trouble maker to be more descriptive. Where did he get? Did he ever have a real job? Look at his record in the local legislature, the federal senate. Where?

    Now tell all of us how he was more qualified than her. Tell us all who has the better mind - one who reads from a teleprompter and has no idea what he is saying, or one who has a few notes on the hand and does not require a teleprompter. Tell us.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Oh wow, none of that was serious, right? I believe you should have a seat.
  18. #418  
    I dont know why we keep talking to you guys anyway. I have said alot of things across several threads, and much is ignored by you guys. Then I seem to get caught in this answering a silly sentence that one of you picked out, while you ignored many valid points that were brought up. I see this not with just me, but several of us. It seems the majority of the right here, only have sarcastic comments and more questions to offer. But perhaps this is why ya'lls political leader bar has become set so low.
  19. #419  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Sorry for no recent visit. Your question, was any of that serious? Yes. Now tell us all how he was more qualified then her? Tell us where his administrative experience came from? Where did his business experience come from? A community organizer, trouble maker to be more descriptive. Where did he get? Did he ever have a real job? Look at his record in the local legislature, the federal senate. Where?

    Now tell all of us how he was more qualified than her. Tell us all who has the better mind - one who reads from a teleprompter and has no idea what he is saying, or one who has a few notes on the hand and does not require a teleprompter. Tell us.
    Considering our choices was hope and change, compared to joe the plumber and drill baby drill, yes he was very much the better choice. Mcain and Palin spoke about nothing during their campaign. I even remember Mccain saying the economy was fine, while it was collapsing.
    And you can't honestly believe Palin has the better mind do you? Why is she hiding in a no media or recording device, teabagger speech. She also QUIT her position as governor, she QUIT. Did I mention she QUIT her job as governor. Her husband is a seccesionist. By definition she is a terrorist. She's had witches prayed off of her. She perhaps claims her daughters child. She's a hypocrite. She couldn't name her favorite founding father, while talking about them. She couldn't name anything she liked reading, then thought she was attacked with that question. She couldn't understand why africa was a continent.

    1. "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

    2. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." –-Sarah Palin, in a message posted on Facebook about Obama's health care plan, Aug. 7, 2009

    3. "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

    4. "Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―" --Sarah Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

    5. "We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. ... We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation." --Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in Greensoboro, N.C., Oct. 16, 2008

    6. "[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008 (Watch video clip)

    7. "They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire ... I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing *******,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there." –Sarah Palin, attempting to rationalize why it's okay for Limbaugh to use the word "*******" but not Emanuel, FOX News Sunday interview, Feb. 7, 2010

    8. "Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." –Sarah Palin, pushing a conspiracy theory that "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of coins by the Obama administration (the change was made by the Bush administration in 2007 and was later reversed by Congress, before Obama took office), West Allis, Wisconsin, Nov. 6, 2009

    9. "Ohh, good, thank you, yes." --Sarah Palin, after a notorious Canadian prank caller complimented her on the documentary about her life, Hustler's "Nailin Paylin," Nov. 1, 2008 (Read more about the prank call, watch the video and see the transcript)

    10. "I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." --Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009

    She also thought the vice president ran the senate.



    Even Glen Beck looked at her like she was an *****.

    She didnt know what the bush doctrine was.

    I can keep goin if you want.
    Anyway, you can't honestly say she has the better mind can you?

    I would've loved to see her stand there against the democrats, like Hussein Obama did. She can't answer anything thats not prescreened and written for her. Obama does q&a's unscreened, often. So if you honestly believe that, I can't be mad at you, because medically there must be a reason for it.

    Now You Tell Us.
  20. #420  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Well I dont think Diane Fienstein has a chance at the presidency. But by your analogy, then it is quite ok for your main man obama to use teleprompters, as did bush. Thanks for clearing that up after all this time.
    Well your interpretation of my "analogy" would be wrong to some extent. While I have never said Obama should not use a teleprompter (not sure how many times I've attempted to explain this), nor did I ever say Bush didn't, I have simply stated that I cannot say Obama is a great speaker when he cannot make a speech, no matter how short it will be, without using a teleprompter. He is constantly called a great speaker, and I simply think it is better to call him a good reader (I used to say very good reader until he stumbled with corpsman, I mean, "corpse man"). His reading skills are a little in doubt now. Obama my "main man", huh? Good one!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Posting Permissions