Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Water Boarding

Californiaman

By Californiaman
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

tulsaslim

tulsaslim

Posted
Posted

 

As I said' date=' Bullsh!t...

 

http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Report_Card_on_American_Education

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

 

Obama voters...

 

 

Vote by Age

18-29 (18% of the voters) 66% Obama 32% McCain

30-44 (29% of the voters) 52% Obama 46% McCain

45-64 (37% of the voters) 50% Obama 49% McCain

65 and Older (16% of the voters) 45% Obama 53% McCain

 

Who are the traditional democratic voter blocks? Who are the traditional republican voter blocks? Is it really your contention that the dem voter block is smarter or more educated than the repubs voter block?

 

 

Why don't you just summarize what all that crap says? I don't have time to read it so just highlight the main points and give your references.

[/quote']

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply
KSG_Standard

KSG_Standard

Posted
Posted

Tulsa,

 

I thought my response would be easy for an enlightened liberal such as yourself to read. The first 3 links are sites that provide the education rankings by state, and the fourth link is a CNN election map that shows which states voted for obama and which ones for McCain. These links easily knock down your statement about the "smartest" states voting for obama and the "dumbest" for McCain.

 

The fifth link is a series of video interviews of obama voters after they have voted....it's very revealing.

 

Since the links are there, it's already sourced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tulsaslim

tulsaslim

Posted
Posted
Tulsa' date='

 

I thought my response would be easy for an enlightened liberal such as yourself to read. The first 3 links are sites that provide the education rankings by state, and the fourth link is a CNN election map that shows which states voted for obama and which ones for McCain. These links easily knock down your statement about the "smartest" states voting for obama and the "dumbest" for McCain.

 

The fifth link is a series of video interviews of obama voters after they have voted....it's very revealing.

 

Since the links are there, it's already sourced.[/quote']

 

I've spent the last half-hour pouring through your sources and haven't found a single article, graph, or table that supports your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
axuality

axuality

Posted
Posted

 

'sanctity of life'. You've heard that. Sanctity of life. You believe in it? Personally' date=' I think it's a bunch of ****. Well, I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other 'cuz God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the land, vengeance is mine. Millions of dead mother****ers. Millions of dead mother****ers all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. 'You believe in God?' 'No.' *Pdoom*. Dead. 'You believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'You believe in my God? 'No.' *Poom*. Dead. 'My God has a bigger **** than your God!' Thousands of years. Thousands of years, and all the best wars, too. The bloodiest, most brutal wars fought, all based on religious hatred. Which is fine with me. Hey, any time a bunch of holy people want to kill each other I'm a happy guy.

 

But don't be giving me all this **** about the sanctity of life. I mean, even if there were such a thing, I don't think it's something you can blame on God. No, you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. You know why? 'Cuz we're alive. Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred. You don't see Abbott and Costello running around, talking about this ****, do you? We're not hearing a whole lot from Musolini on the subject. What's the latest from JFK? Not a goddamn thing. 'Cuz JFK, Mussolini and Abbott and Costello are ****ing dead. They're ****ing dead. And dead people give less than a **** about the sanctity of life. Only living people care about it so the whole thing grows out of a completely biased point of view. It's a self serving, man-made bullshit story.

 

It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll feel noble. Life is sacred. Makes you feel noble. Well let me ask you this: if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that. 'Cuz, I mean, even with all this stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don't practice it. We don't practice it. Look at what we'd kill: Mosquitos and flies. 'Cuz they're pests. Lions and tigers. 'Cuz it's fun! Chickens and pigs. 'Cuz we're hungry. Pheasants and quails. 'Cuz it's fun. And we're hungry. And people. We kill people... 'Cuz they're pests. And it's fun!

 

And you might have noticed something else. The sanctity of life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says 'Save the tumors.'. Or 'I brake for advanced melanoma.'. No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, E. Coli bacteria, the crabs. Nothing sacred about those things. So at best the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole ****ing thing up! Made it up! The same way... thank you.

[/quote']

 

Wow, you seem to have a huge issue with self-esteem, guy. (or girl) Someday you'll

understand that cynicism, which you have down really well by the way,

is born of a lack of self-worth. With this in mind, I'd bet $500 that you're a Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
axuality

axuality

Posted
Posted

 

Then apparently you do not know how to differentiate a Hypothetical question from a statement.

 

I got a story i think you and your little friend Caliman would enjoy.

 

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin' date=' would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”[/quote']

 

OKAY!!!!!!!! Fool, you made a valid point. In fact, it is the same point that any

thinking person should point out about the common belief in God. I believe in God, but not

the same God that would allow children to suffer or husbands and wives to

divorce, or allow man to "go to hell" because of sin.

 

The God I believe in does all the 'good stuff' that the God of CaliforniaMan (whom

I respect greatly) does. But the God who I believe in created Man as idea, not matter.

 

The God I believe in has no consciousness of matter and did not create matter.

Therefore since God, the only Mind, created all which exists (as I believe),

then the existence of matter must be a lie, or false belief.

 

There's obviously a lot left to explain there, but that is the unexplained resolution

of your very valid point about the mistaken conception of what God is.

 

Because as you point out, the common conception of God must deny the fact

that if He created man capable of 'sinning', then God is actually responsible for

all the sin than man can do.

 

If the Bible is not studied with an eye to what is MEANT as opposed to what is

SAID, then these inadequate explanations of God are going to result.

 

And CaliforniaMan, all respect to you. I have no beefs with ya, as I think you know. :^o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Californiaman

Californiaman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks I appreciate it Axuality.

My "Hypothetical" reply earlier in the post was based on the idea of creation.

It's about my children, how I perceive them, and how I know they fall short of my expectations and sadly how I might fall short of their expectations.

My view is of God is very complex indeed.

Your point about Man as an "idea" is interesting and worthy of some contemplation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fool on The Hill

The Fool on The Hill

Posted
Posted

 

Wow' date=' you seem to have a huge issue with self-esteem, guy. (or girl) Someday you'll

understand that cynicism, which you have down really well by the way,

is born of a lack of self-worth. With this in mind, [b']I'd bet $500 that you're a Democrat.[/b]

 

 

So when are you gonna mail me those $500? Your logic is flawed just because someone does not agree with you it does not make them a Liberal or a Democrat, I do not understand why you guys look at things in Black & White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Allen

James Allen

Posted
Posted
The Geneva conventions ONLY apply to Prisoners of War' date=' not Enemy Combatants, try some facts and logic!

[/quote']

 

KSG, I've used this argument against libs many times. They are incapable of looking this up, or they refuse to look it up because it is evidence that their stance on terrorism is WRONG. Also, I HARDLY see logic used on this forum. You and Neo and very few others use logic. The rest devolve into Christian bashing, America bashing mindless zombies who don't even know the meaning of LOGIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Allen

James Allen

Posted
Posted

Another thought about all this. The same people who are so against causing ANY discomfort to the terrorists are the same people who will go absolutely apesh8t when you take a stance against late term abortions. THe same people who are so ardently against executing murderers are the same ones who are so ardently FOR killing babies in the name of a woman's right to choose.

 

It makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homz

Homz

Posted
Posted
Another thought about all this. The same people who are so against causing ANY discomfort to the terrorists are the same people who will go absolutely apesh8t when you take a stance against late term abortions. THe same people who are so ardently against executing murderers are the same ones who are so ardently FOR killing babies in the name of a woman's right to choose.

 

It makes no sense.

Do realize your gross generalization is both self serving and offensive? Just wondering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fool on The Hill

The Fool on The Hill

Posted
Posted
Another thought about all this. The same people who are so against causing ANY discomfort to the terrorists are the same people who will go absolutely apesh8t when you take a stance against late term abortions. THe same people who are so ardently against executing murderers are the same ones who are so ardently FOR killing babies in the name of a woman's right to choose.

 

It makes no sense.

Here's another question I have: how come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did this happen, that we passed chickens in goodness? Name six ways we're better than chickens... See, nobody can do it! You know why? 'Cuz chickens are decent people. You don't see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No, you don't see a chicken strapping some guy to a chair and hooking up his nuts to a car battery, do you? When's the last chicken you heard about came home from work and beat the **** out of his hen, huh? Doesn't happen. 'Cuz chickens are decent people.

 

But let's get back to this abortion ****. Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say 'we have two children and one on the way' instead of saying 'we have three children?' People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process. Continuous, just keeps rolling along. Rolling, rolling, rolling along.

 

And say you know something? Listen, you can go back further than that. What about the carbon atoms? Hah? Human life could not exist without carbon. So is it just possible that maybe we shouldn't be burning all this coal? Just looking for a little consistency here in these anti-abortion arguments. See the really hardcore people will tell you life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Which is usually a few moments after the man says 'Gee, honey, I was going to pull out but the phone rang and it startled me.' Fertilization.

 

But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than more than one period is a serial killer! Consistency. Consistency. Hey, hey, if they really want to get serious, what about all the sperm that are wasted when the state executes a condemned man, one of these pro-life guys who's watching cums in his pants, huh? Here's a guy standing over there with his jockey shorts full of little Vinnies and Debbies, and nobody's saying a word to the guy. Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...