PDA

View Full Version : Elections Matt Damon on Palin


irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:07 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/anxkrm9uEJk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/anxkrm9uEJk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The meat of it is this quote:

"I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. That's important.. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's going to have the nuclear codes. I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. Or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, we can't have that."



Can we skip the Hollywood=liberals generalizations and the ad hominem attacks please?

L.A. Chieffan
09-10-2008, 11:09 PM
Matt Damon keeps a private jet

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:09 PM
I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. That's important.

No, it's not.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:10 PM
No, it's not.

Thank you for the out of context quote mine.

It is definitely important if she has access to nuclear codes. It's an intelligence test.

L.A. Chieffan
09-10-2008, 11:11 PM
I've seen Matt Damon sitting in his office spinning a ****ing menorah.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:11 PM
I think it's obvious that Damon doesn't read snopes...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp

alnorth
09-10-2008, 11:11 PM
http://www.panicmanual.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/damon_team_america.jpg

L.A. Chieffan
09-10-2008, 11:11 PM
No, it's not.

Silocks dating somebody from the ACLU

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:12 PM
Thank you for the out of context quote mine.

It is definitely important if she has access to nuclear codes. It's an intelligence test.

It's not relevant to nuclear codes at ALL.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:13 PM
I think it's obvious that Damon doesn't read snopes...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp
thread over BTW...


unless you want to post some ad hominem attacks on Matt... :p

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:15 PM
It's not relevant to nuclear codes at ALL.

IJ (once again) seems to be saying that if you believe even one thing he deems to be stupid, you must therefore be completely stupid.

In other words, I don't think it's relevant either.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:15 PM
I think it's obvious that Damon doesn't read snopes...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp

Her creationism isn't in question. The quotes in that article aren't accurate. Hence, why it's false.

It's not relevant to nuclear codes at ALL.

Yes, yes it is. It's an intelligence barrier. Would you consider a kid with Downs Syndrome eligible to be in charge of the nuclear codes?

I would think not. Believing the world is 6000 years old or that humans co-inhabited earth with dinosaurs is just like that, except willful.

wazu
09-10-2008, 11:15 PM
Matt Damon = Susan Sarandon.

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:16 PM
Matt you are a vile, wretched, debaucherous excuse for a human being.
(who is Matt again?)

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:16 PM
oh.. Damon? Sorry.. I've only read this last page.

L.A. Chieffan
09-10-2008, 11:17 PM
Her creationism isn't in question. The quotes in that article aren't accurate. Hence, why it's false.



Yes, yes it is. It's an intelligence barrier. Would you consider a kid with Downs Syndrome eligible to be in charge of the nuclear codes?

I would think not. Believing the world is 6000 years old or that humans co-inhabited earth with dinosaurs is just like that, except willful.

Cool it with anti-down syndrome remarks

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:17 PM
Yes, yes it is. It's an intelligence barrier. Would you consider a kid with Downs Syndrome eligible to be in charge of the nuclear codes?

I would think not. Believing the world is 6000 years old or that humans co-inhabited earth with dinosaurs is just like that, except willful.

It's not the same thing at all, and it still has nothing to do with nuclear launch codes.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:17 PM
IJ (once again) seems to be saying that if you believe even one thing he deems to be stupid, you must therefore be completely stupid.

In other words, I don't think it's relevant either.

ROFL

Why is it a me vs you thing? It's not.

Where do you draw the line on irrational beliefs? Leprechauns? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Bigfoot? Aliens? Orbiting teapots?

If you don't draw the line somewhere, anything goes. That's why it's not a your belief vs my belief choice.

Guru
09-10-2008, 11:18 PM
Matt you are a vile, wretched, debaucherous excuse for a human being.
(who is Matt again?)
See above

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:18 PM
IJ (once again) seems to be saying that if you believe even one thing he deems to be stupid, you must therefore be completely stupid.

In other words, I don't think it's relevant either.

I bet my surgeon can't tell me what the politics administration dichotomy is or why it's important, but that doesn't mean I won't let him give me a knee operation.

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:19 PM
ROFL

Why is it a me vs you thing? It's not.

Where do you draw the line on irrational beliefs? Leprechauns? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Bigfoot? Aliens? Orbiting teapots?

If you don't draw the line somewhere, anything goes. That's why it's not a your belief vs my belief choice.

As long as they are competent in the things that are required of them, they can believe whatever they wish.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:20 PM
It's not the same thing at all, and it still has nothing to do with nuclear launch codes.

It has to do with her intelligence. And her intelligence has everything to do with having access and the power to deploy nukes.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:21 PM
I bet my surgeon can't tell me what the politics administration dichotomy is or why it's important, but that doesn't mean I won't let him give me a knee operation.

That's completely different. This is basic. This belief is irrational.

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:21 PM
ROFL

Why is it a me vs you thing? It's not.

Where do you draw the line on irrational beliefs? Leprechauns? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Bigfoot? Aliens? Orbiting teapots?

If you don't draw the line somewhere, anything goes. That's why it's not a your belief vs my belief choice.

It's me vs the world!!! Nah. I just disagree with you more often, and know that it won't end up in a name calling match. I hate those.

You'd be surprised how often I start to type responses to foolishness on here and quit halfway through because it's more work than it's worth.

I don't. If someone believed in an orbiting teapot I wouldn't automatically discredit their intelligence.

Rain Man
09-10-2008, 11:21 PM
Matt Damon keeps a private jet

Does he think it was invented 4,000 years ago?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:21 PM
As long as they are competent in the things that are required of them, they can believe whatever they wish.

Right?

So, a nutjob gets the Presidency, takes an order from the talking leprechaun that says to nuke Britain?

That's okay?

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:22 PM
It has to do with her intelligence. And her intelligence has everything to do with having access and the power to deploy nukes.

I disagree.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:22 PM
That's completely different. This is basic. This belief is irrational.

in your eyes.


nice hijack of your own thread BTW.

HolmeZz
09-10-2008, 11:23 PM
IJ (once again) seems to be saying that if you believe even one thing he deems to be stupid, you must therefore be completely stupid.

In other words, I don't think it's relevant either.

Meh. I wouldn't want the nuclear codes in the hands of someone who thought the Earth was flat. Would you?

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:23 PM
Right?

So, a nutjob gets the Presidency, takes an order from the talking leprechaun that says to nuke Britain?

That's okay?

That is not within the realm of the things that would be required of the President, so no, it's not.

There's no reason to jump straight to the absurd. It's not as though she's the only person on the planet that believes the creation story, and as far as I can tell, we're all still here.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:23 PM
It's me vs the world!!! Nah. I just disagree with you more often, and know that it won't end up in a name calling match. I hate those.

You'd be surprised how often I start to type responses to foolishness on here and quit halfway through because it's more work than it's worth.

I don't. If someone believed in an orbiting teapot I wouldn't automatically discredit their intelligence.

So, anything goes?

Rain Man
09-10-2008, 11:23 PM
I don't. If someone believed in an orbiting teapot I wouldn't automatically discredit their intelligence.

How can anyone drink sun tea and not believe in the orbiting teapot?

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:24 PM
Does he think it was invented 4,000 years ago?
DaVinci invented it 4000 years ago before before he turned into BedBull...

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:24 PM
Meh. I wouldn't want the nuclear codes in the hands of someone who thought the Earth was flat. Would you?

There is clear, absolute and irrefutable evidence that the Earth is not flat.
No such evidence exists to disprove that there is a.. (I can't remember what it was now) teacup? In orbit round the Earth.

Rain Man
09-10-2008, 11:25 PM
Right?

So, a nutjob gets the Presidency, takes an order from the talking leprechaun that says to nuke Britain?

That's okay?

Leprechauns hate Britain because of the whole northern Ireland thing.

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:25 PM
So, anything goes?

See my response to Holmezz.

HolmeZz
09-10-2008, 11:25 PM
There is clear, absolute and irrefutable evidence that the Earth is not flat.
No such evidence exists to disprove that there is a.. (I can't remember what it was now) teacup?

I thought we were talking about the existence of dinosaurs, which was the original question posed.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:25 PM
I disagree.

Why?

in your eyes.


nice hijack of your own thread BTW.

How is it hijacked? It has to do with a quote in the OP...

That is not within the realm of the things that would be required of the President, so no, it's not.

There's no reason to jump straight to the absurd. It's not as though she's the only person on the planet that believes the creation story, and as far as I can tell, we're all still here.

Oh, I'm sorry, the number of people who believe in something automatically lends credence to it.

And math isn't relevant to the day to day operations of the POTUS. I guess we shouldn't count that. Or philosophy. Or, you know, any knowledge building basic courses.

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:26 PM
Leprechauns hate Britain because of the whole northern Ireland thing.

Oh, I thought that was resolved during the whole alien fiasco.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:26 PM
Why?



How is it hijacked? It has to do with a quote in the OP...

a quote from an ACTOR that was proven false!!!

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:27 PM
There is clear, absolute and irrefutable evidence that the Earth is not flat.
No such evidence exists to disprove that there is a.. (I can't remember what it was now) teacup? In orbit round the Earth.

Oh, so now we're in the business of DISPROVING things.

Hmm, how did that work out?

So, really, anything goes since no one can disprove that a pink invisible elephant is running around downtown KC?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:27 PM
a quote from an ACTOR that was proven false!!!

Link?

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:27 PM
I thought we were talking about the existence of dinosaurs, which was the original question posed.

Ah.. what? I haven't even read the original post, so.. maybe I should remedy that.

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:27 PM
Why?

I'm done. It's pointless to discuss this because neither of us are going to change our minds.

And math isn't relevant to the day to day operations of the POTUS. I guess we shouldn't count that.

Now you're getting the hang of it. I could care less if the President passed his statistics class. Hell, I bet half of Congress couldn't do that, either.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:27 PM
Leprechauns hate Britain because of the whole northern Ireland thing.

:D

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:29 PM
Link?

see post #8 :shake:

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 11:29 PM
"It's like a really bad Disney movie. 'The hockey mom...' 'Oh, I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska!' and she's the president."

LMAO

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:29 PM
I'm done. It's pointless to discuss this because neither of us are going to change our minds.



Now you're getting the hang of it. I could care less if the President passed his statistics class. Hell, I bet half of Congress couldn't do that, either.

So what should they, exactly, have a handle on?

Is a person with Downs Syndrome eligible? What about an autistic child?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:29 PM
see post #8 :shake:

Oh, the link that doesn't prove anything? And certainly not the quote in the OP.

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:30 PM
Is a person with Downs Syndrome eligible? What about an autistic child?

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a person with Downs from being elected President.

Autistic children aren't old enough to be president.

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:30 PM
Oh, so now we're in the business of DISPROVING things.

Hmm, how did that work out?

So, really, anything goes since no one can disprove that a pink invisible elephant is running around downtown KC?

Someone can believe one such thing, and be perfectly competent at another.
Much depends on how he handles his belief. If my belief in an orbiting teapot negatively affects some other action which is vital to performing some task, then yes, it is a problem.

If Matt Damon believes.. whatever he believes about dinosaurs.. who cares? That belief won't influence anything he does.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:31 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a person with Downs from being elected President.

Autistic children aren't old enough to be president.

Sorry, autistic adults?

Okay, so basically, you're definitions for a President is not based on intelligence but rather age and citizenship, like the Constitution?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:32 PM
Someone can believe one such thing, and be perfectly competent at another.
Much depends on how he handles his belief. If my belief in an orbiting teapot negatively affects some other action which is vital to performing some task, then yes, it is a problem.

If Matt Damon believes.. whatever he believes about dinosaurs.. who cares? That belief won't influence anything he does.

Umm, yes, it can.

Many people have said God told them to go to war.

You really want someone who thinks they can talk to/with a supernatural power in possession of the nuclear codes?

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 11:32 PM
At the risk of starting something, I don't think Palin literally believes the Creation story and thinks the earth is only 4000 - or 6000 years old.

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:34 PM
Umm, yes, it can.

Many people have said God told them to go to war.

You really want someone who thinks they can talk to/with a supernatural power in possession of the nuclear codes?

No, no I don't.

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2008, 11:34 PM
You really want someone who thinks they can talk to/with a supernatural power in possession of the nuclear codes?

For me, it's a requirement.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:35 PM
Oh, the link that doesn't prove anything? And certainly not the quote in the OP.
seriously?

SHE NEVER SAID WHAT MATTY IS REFERENCING!!!!


Matt is using information from a satirical blog post of FAKE PALIN QUOTES, but you want to have a serious discussion about what he said...ROFL

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:36 PM
For me, it's a requirement.

It depends on whether you mean communicate as in prayer, or communicate as in "God is telling me to SLAUGHTER YOU ALL." Or something of that nature.

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:36 PM
Sorry, autistic adults?

Okay, so basically, you're definitions for a President is not based on intelligence but rather age and citizenship, like the Constitution?

All I'm saying is that as long as they are capable of executing the duties of the office of the President, I'm fine with it.

There are many ideological issues that presidents have held that I disagree with. I disagree with her about the creation issue, but I can't see any rational reason why that prevents her from being capable of executing the duties of the president or vice president. She certainly wouldn't be the first creationist we've EVER had in the White House.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:38 PM
seriously?

SHE NEVER SAID WHAT MATTY IS REFERENCING!!!!


Matt is using information from a satirical blog post of FAKE PALIN QUOTES, but you want to have a serious discussion about what he said...ROFL

:spock:

So 1 quote in 1 chain email was proven false means she doesn't hold said belief?

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:38 PM
Matt should really stick with FVÁKyng Sarah Silverman...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WLG3S5WzHig&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WLG3S5WzHig&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:38 PM
:spock:

So 1 quote in 1 chain email was proven false means she doesn't hold said belief?

Can you prove she does?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:41 PM
No, no I don't.

Oh, well, it seems you wouldn't like GWB. Nor would you like Palin.

For me, it's a requirement.

:p

All I'm saying is that as long as they are capable of executing the duties of the office of the President, I'm fine with it.

There are many ideological issues that presidents have held that I disagree with. I disagree with her about the creation issue, but I can't see any rational reason why that prevents her from being capable of executing the duties of the president or vice president. She certainly wouldn't be the first creationist we've EVER had in the White House.

No doubt, but to elect someone that willfully stupid is asking for trouble. So, really, there's no way to adequately preempt a nutjob from gaining the Presidency and actually following through by listening to what "god" tells them? Or leprechauns? Or aliens? etc.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:41 PM
:spock:

So 1 quote in 1 chain email was proven false means she doesn't hold said belief?
:spock:

ok, I get it... someone made up a fake quote blog and you want sooooo much to believe them...


that's really kind of pathetic...

alnorth
09-10-2008, 11:42 PM
Do you have any reason at all to think she might possibly believe the earth was 4,000 years old? Otherwise we have a "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" situation.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:43 PM
Can you prove she does?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html

In November of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News described Palin's positions on social issues in a story wrapping up the governor's race:

"A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)."
And in October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:44 PM
Oh, well, it seems you wouldn't like GWB. Nor would you like Palin.

Nor do I, though not for that reason.

As a christian, I certainly think that their beliefs should influence what they do, but certainly not on the scale of starting wars.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:45 PM
Do you have any reason at all to think she might possibly believe the earth was 4,000 years old? Otherwise we have a "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" situation.

She wants to teach it in school, which means she believes it as credible. To what extent remains unknown.

Hence, why Matt Damon said we should try to find out the extent of her beliefs on that subject.

ROYC75
09-10-2008, 11:45 PM
ROFL

Why is it a me vs you thing? It's not.

Where do you draw the line on irrational beliefs? Leprechauns? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Bigfoot? Aliens? Orbiting teapots?

If you don't draw the line somewhere, anything goes. That's why it's not a your belief vs my belief choice.


Me vs you thing ....... that's been your mantra of late .You need to chill.... You are quickly becoming known as a radial more than a liberal with your beliefs.

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:45 PM
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Where in there does it say she believes the earth is 4,000 years old? She sounds perfectly rational in that quote. Now, you may not AGREE with her position, but that's entirely different than calling her stupid.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:46 PM
Nor do I, though not for that reason.

As a christian, I certainly think that their beliefs should influence what they do, but certainly not on the scale of starting wars.

And, hence, why I find it troubling to put someone into office who literally does believe they can communicate with a supernatural power. Even the possibility that they would start a war based on that should scare the shit out of you.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:46 PM
Where in there does it say she believes the earth is 4,000 years old? She sounds perfectly rational in that quote. Now, you may not AGREE with her position, but that's entirely different than calling her stupid.

Where does Matt Damon say she does?

He says we need to find out. And we do. Period.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:47 PM
Me vs you thing ....... that's been your mantra of late .You need to chill.... You are quickly becoming known as a radial more than a liberal with your beliefs.

I'm only passionate on the irrationality of religious faith.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:47 PM
Where does Matt Damon say she does?

He says we need to find out. And we do. Period.

STOP BEATING YOUR WIFE!!!!




thanks alnorth...

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 11:48 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how thoroughly people will defend idiocy.

alnorth
09-10-2008, 11:48 PM
She wants to teach it in school, which means she believes it as credible. To what extent remains unknown.

Hence, why Matt Damon said we should try to find out the extent of her beliefs on that subject.

and creationism is inseperable from the young earth concept.... since when?

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:48 PM
Where does Matt Damon say she does?

He says we need to find out. And we do. Period.

No, we don't. She's already said that she's open to seeing all sides of a debate in the quote you presented. What more could you want? At least she's being open-minded, unlike many of the views of her in here.

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:48 PM
And, hence, why I find it troubling to put someone into office who literally does believe they can communicate with a supernatural power. Even the possibility that they would start a war based on that should scare the shit out of you.

There is a difference between "communicate" and "receive direct orders that conflict with the responsibilities of this position and the oaths I've taken." It's just an excuse to wield power unconstitutionally.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:49 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how thoroughly people will defend idiocy.
I can only think you are talking about IJH because I have yet to see someone defend Matt Damon in this thread.

Logical
09-10-2008, 11:51 PM
ROFL

Why is it a me vs you thing? It's not.

Where do you draw the line on irrational beliefs? Leprechauns? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Bigfoot? Aliens? Orbiting teapots?

If you don't draw the line somewhere, anything goes. That's why it's not a your belief vs my belief choice.

Absolutely

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 11:51 PM
I can only think you are talking about IJH because I have yet to see someone defend Matt Damon in this thread.

Matt is a fine, upstanding citizen, thank you very much. :harumph:
Personal Friend.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 11:52 PM
I can only think you are talking about IJH because I have yet to see someone defend Matt Damon in this thread.

Someone who thinks the Earth is 4-6000 years old is an idiot. There is so much evidence to the contrary, from the fossil record, to carbon dating, soil samples, the KT layer, yet because people were told a fairy tale when they were children they wish to believe that over the scientific method. It's sad that people in this country are so willingly stupid.

headsnap
09-10-2008, 11:53 PM
Someone who thinks the Earth is 4-6000 years old is an idiot. There is so much evidence to the contrary, from the fossil record, to carbon dating, soil samples, the KT layer, yet because people were told a fairy tale when they were children they wish to believe that over the scientific method. It's sad that people in this country are so willingly stupid.
Where did she say that?

Linky please?!?

alnorth
09-10-2008, 11:53 PM
Someone who thinks the Earth is 4-6000 years old is an idiot. There is so much evidence to the contrary, from the fossil record, to carbon dating, soil samples, the KT layer, yet because people were told a fairy tale when they were children they wish to believe that over the scientific method. It's sad that people in this country are so willingly stupid.

Stop beating your wife!

Silock
09-10-2008, 11:54 PM
Someone who thinks the Earth is 4-6000 years old is an idiot. There is so much evidence to the contrary, from the fossil record, to carbon dating, soil samples, the KT layer, yet because people were told a fairy tale when they were children they wish to believe that over the scientific method. It's sad that people in this country are so willingly stupid.

There's no evidence that Sarah Palin believes that, so I don't see any purpose behind this thread other than vitriol.

CHIEF4EVER
09-10-2008, 11:54 PM
And, hence, why I find it troubling to put someone into office who literally does believe they can communicate with a supernatural power. Even the possibility that they would start a war based on that should scare the shit out of you.

I find it more scary that an atheist murdered more people than Hitler did when he was the head of his state. You know, your hero Joe Stalin. MOF, I don't recall Jimmah Cahtah nuking anyone and he is Evangelical. Don't let historical fact sway you from a perfectly good (albeit retarded) bigoted rant.

ROYC75
09-10-2008, 11:56 PM
Umm, yes, it can.

Many people have said God told them to go to war.

You really want someone who thinks they can talk to/with a supernatural power in possession of the nuclear codes?

Who has claimed that God told them to go to war ? Christians ? Muslims ? Terrorist ?

Link ?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:57 PM
and creationism is inseperable from the young earth concept.... since when?

YEC is a degree of creationism. So, when she wants creationism taught, the logical thing to do is ask what she believes. If she is a YEC (which she's smart enough politically to know to lie about it), it would severely impact her. Or should.

No, we don't. She's already said that she's open to seeing all sides of a debate in the quote you presented. What more could you want? At least she's being open-minded, unlike many of the views of her in here.

There isn't another side. There isn't a controversy. Period. That's why it's close minded more than open minded.

There is a difference between "communicate" and "receive direct orders that conflict with the responsibilities of this position and the oaths I've taken." It's just an excuse to wield power unconstitutionally.

No, there really isn't a difference. And I think most people would agree that god's will supersedes oaths taken in the human/mortal realm.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:59 PM
I find it more scary that an atheist murdered more people than Hitler did when he was the head of his state. You know, your hero Joe Stalin. MOF, I don't recall Jimmah Cahtah nuking anyone and he is Evangelical. Don't let historical fact sway you from a perfectly good (albeit retarded) bigoted rant.

Ah, the tired Hitler was an atheist line. When, in fact, Hitler was more Christian than anything. He even says so in his speeches.

Ah, the tired Stalin promoted atheism which led to deaths of millions. When, in fact, it was the communistic ideology and totalitarianism that led to deaths because atheism was a byproduct of the belief that NOTHING (including religious beliefs) could supersede the state).

But I digress.

Ignorance will prevail.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 12:00 AM
Who has claimed that God told them to go to war ? Christians ? Muslims ? Terrorist ?

Link ?

Jesus f*cking Christ.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

headsnap
09-11-2008, 12:00 AM
There isn't another side. There isn't a controversy. Period. That's why it's close minded more than open minded.

somewhere in that statement there is a missing link... ;)

Silock
09-11-2008, 12:01 AM
There isn't another side. There isn't a controversy. Period. That's why it's close minded more than open minded.

That simply isn't true. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the other side, you need to accept that people can hold a view different from you without being total idiots.

ROYC75
09-11-2008, 12:02 AM
Jesus f*cking Christ.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Good Grief ....... Modern day ? :rolleyes:

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:03 AM
Who has claimed that God told them to go to war ? Christians ? Muslims ? Terrorist ?

Link ?

Hmm, I can name the Crusades as one example. Many examples in history. And then GWB telling about how God told him about the war in Iraq.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.

The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month.

The revelation comes after Mr Bush launched an impassioned attack yesterday in Washington on Islamic militants, likening their ideology to that of Communism, and accusing them of seeking to "enslave whole nations" and set up a radical Islamic empire "that spans from Spain to Indonesia". In the programmeElusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

Mr Abbas remembers how the US President told him he had a "moral and religious obligation" to act. The White House has refused to comment on what it terms a private conversation. But the BBC account is anything but implausible, given how throughout his presidency Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, has never hidden the importance of his faith.


That's after:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion

Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:04 AM
Good Grief ....... Modern day ? :rolleyes:

Conveniently, history doesn't count.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:05 AM
That simply isn't true. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the other side, you need to accept that people can hold a view different from you without being total idiots.

More than willing to agree with that. However, in this case, it's simply not true. There is no creationism argument.

First, it isn't science anyway. Second, if it's a valid argument, any argument is valid because it doesn't adhere to the same rules we impose on everything else: something is believed not to have happened/exist until evidence is convincing.

That's why we don't believe in leprechauns and the like.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 12:06 AM
Good Grief ....... Modern day ? :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard of a Jihad?

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:06 AM
somewhere in that statement there is a missing link... ;)

Coming from the guy who links to snopes and thinks it disproves the OP when it most certainly didn't.

alnorth
09-11-2008, 12:07 AM
YEC is a degree of creationism. So, when she wants creationism taught, the logical thing to do is ask what she believes. If she is a YEC (which she's smart enough politically to know to lie about it), it would severely impact her. Or should.

Except in my experience YEC makes up a very small minority of people who believe in creationism.

These people arent idiots, they are aware of the evidence to some extent and go to lengths to rationalise "well, God's days arent the same as man's days, genesis really happened over eons, yada yada" etc

http://www.answersincreation.org/

Dont get me wrong, as an atheist it is all voodoo magic to me, so we are just arguing varying degrees of crazy, but we live in a highly religious nation so I cope.

Anyway, to get back on topic: when someone identifies themself as X, I dont automatically assume they are a member of the tiniest fringe extreme element of X. If someone is religious I dont assume they will burn in the next Waco. If someone is usually suspicious of scientists, I dont assume they are flat-earthers. If someone is left of center, I dont assume they are sympathetic with the unibomber. If someone believes in creationism (likely a HUGE majority of christians) I dont assume they are young-earth crazies.

Silock
09-11-2008, 12:08 AM
More than willing to agree with that. However, in this case, it's simply not true. There is no creationism argument.

First, it isn't science anyway. Second, if it's a valid argument, any argument is valid because it doesn't adhere to the same rules we impose on everything else: something is believed not to have happened/exist until evidence is convincing.

In your opinion.

Mr Luzcious
09-11-2008, 12:09 AM
No, there really isn't a difference. And I think most people would agree that god's will supersedes oaths taken in the human/mortal realm.

Well, as I recall, biblically speaking the breaking of oaths is pretty serious business..

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 12:10 AM
Except in my experience YEC makes up a very small minority of people who believe in creationism.

These people arent idiots, they are aware of the evidence to some extent and go to lengths to rationalise "well, God's days arent the same as man's days, genesis really happened over eons, yada yada" etc

http://www.answersincreation.org/

Dont get me wrong, as an atheist it is all voodoo magic to me, so we are just arguing varying degrees of crazy, but we live in a highly religious nation so I cope.

Anyway, to get back on topic: when someone identifies themself as X, I dont automatically assume they are a member of the tiniest fringe extreme element of X. If someone is religious I dont assume they will burn in the next Waco. If someone is usually suspicious of scientists, I dont assume they are flat-earthers. If someone is left of center, I dont assume they are sympathetic with the unibomber. If someone believes in creationism (likely a HUGE majority of christians) I dont assume they are young-earth crazies.

I don't think a lot of Christians believe in YEC, but I damn sure think that a lot of Evangelical Christians do.

ROYC75
09-11-2008, 12:11 AM
Hmm, I can name the Crusades as one example. Many examples in history. And then GWB telling about how God told him about the war in Iraq.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html




That's after:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion



OK, I forgot Bush. Was there any other Christian leaders that did this ?

FTR, Islamic, terrorist are out of the question in this discussion, IMHO, they are just radical movement based on ideology.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:11 AM
Except in my experience YEC makes up a very small minority of people who believe in creationism.

These people arent idiots, they are aware of the evidence to some extent and go to lengths to rationalise "well, God's days arent the same as man's days, genesis really happened over eons, yada yada" etc

http://www.answersincreation.org/

Dont get me wrong, as an atheist it is all voodoo magic to me, so we are just arguing varying degrees of crazy, but we live in a highly religious nation so I cope.

Anyway, to get back on topic: when someone identifies themself as X, I dont automatically assume they are a member of the tiniest fringe extreme element of X. If someone is religious I dont assume they will burn in the next Waco. If someone is usually suspicious of scientists, I dont assume they are flat-earthers. If someone is left of center, I dont assume they are sympathetic with the unibomber. If someone believes in creationism (likely a HUGE majority of christians) I dont assume they are young-earth crazies.

No one assumed she was. Damon clearly stated we should find out. And I agreed. Then we got onto the topic of how if she did believe in YEC, it wouldn't affect her status as a POTUS.

Basically, I think you summed up what I was saying. I think we agree here in more ways than you think.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:13 AM
OK, I forgot Bush. Was there any other Christian leaders that did this ?

FTR, Islamic, terrorist are out of the question in this discussion, IMHO, they are just radical movement based on ideology.

ROFL

First, you make yet another grammatical error. At what point do errors become something other than happenstance?

As for the throwing out Islamism, I don't understand. Is it or is it not based on Islam? Are the terrorists subscribed to a religion and that religion's "god" (ironically the same one as the Christian god) told them to carry out murder?

So, yes, they are very much included.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:15 AM
In your opinion.

No, not in my opinion. That's just how it is. Creationism isn't science.

Well, as I recall, biblically speaking the breaking of oaths is pretty serious business..

And god's will would not supersede said oaths? Interesting. God can be defeated by oaths. Who'da thunk?

Did you just recently change your avy, or is it a coincidence I bring up orbiting teapots and yours is a teapot?

Silock
09-11-2008, 12:16 AM
No, not in my opinion. That's just how it is. Creationism isn't science.

What about M-theory? Is that science?

ROYC75
09-11-2008, 12:17 AM
ROFL

First, you make yet another grammatical error. At what point do errors become something other than happenstance?

As for the throwing out Islamism, I don't understand. Is it or is it not based on Islam? Are the terrorists subscribed to a religion and that religion's "god" (ironically the same one as the Christian god) told them to carry out murder?

So, yes, they are very much included.

I was asking about Christian leaders ..... Not all religious people believe in the same God is the reason I asked .

Mr Luzcious
09-11-2008, 12:18 AM
No, not in my opinion. That's just how it is. Creationism isn't science.



And god's will would not supersede said oaths? Interesting. God can be defeated by oaths. Who'da thunk?

Did you just recently change your avy, or is it a coincidence I bring up orbiting teapots and yours is a teapot?

Orbital teapot, it just has a really nice ring to it. I've been meaning to switch it up, and I considered this a stroke of brilliance. :D

You forget that it's all God's will. It's not as if the presidential oath is out of left field and he forgot to take it into consideration, thus thwarting his will.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:19 AM
What about M-theory? Is that science?

Yes, because it is testable. It could even turn out to be false and science would be more than happy to admit it.


Creationism and "god" are not. Hence, SUPERnatural.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:19 AM
I was asking about Christian leaders ..... Not all religious people believe in the same God is the reason I asked .

That has nothing to do with anything.

Islam is included in your original question.


You've been owned. Next.

Silock
09-11-2008, 12:20 AM
Yes, because it is testable.

No, it's not.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 12:20 AM
OK, I forgot Bush. Was there any other Christian leaders that did this ?

FTR, Islamic, terrorist are out of the question in this discussion, IMHO, they are just radical movement based on ideology.

And a Christian leader who claims God told him to go to war isn't basing his radicalism on ideology?

Do you have any idea how much Hitler cloaked his rhetoric in Christianity? The United States did it during the entire Cold War (which is why we have "Under God" in the Pledge that Sarah Palin thinks is from our founding fathers). Reagan had top level advisers who were millenialists.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:20 AM
Orbital teapot, it just has a really nice ring to it. I've been meaning to switch it up, and I considered this a stroke of brilliance. :D

:)


You forget that it's all God's will. It's not as if the presidential oath is out of left field and he forgot to take it into consideration, thus thwarting his will.

I'll never get tired of mental gymnastics. :)

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:21 AM
No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Otherwise, it wouldn't be classified as a Theory. That's a requirement for consideration.

ROYC75
09-11-2008, 12:22 AM
That has nothing to do with anything.

Islam is included in your original question.


You've been owned. Next.


OK, you got me, cause I didn't type it the way I wanted it to come out.

So Bush is the only one in modern time that had a Christian faith ?

Mr Luzcious
09-11-2008, 12:22 AM
:)



I'll never get tired of mental gymnastics. :)

It's not exactly mental gymnastics if you are presupposing that God is sovereign.

Not that you would be, but I would be.

alnorth
09-11-2008, 12:22 AM
No one assumed she was. Damon clearly stated we should find out. And I agreed. Then we got onto the topic of how if she did believe in YEC, it wouldn't affect her status as a POTUS.

Basically, I think you summed up what I was saying. I think we agree here in more ways than you think.

Fair enough, but I guess my point is that I wouldnt expect any sane reporter to quiz the Democratic field if they believe in the unibomber's manifesto. The question itself would be a little insulting. I see asking Palin if she believes the earth is 4,000 years old to be equally silly and insulting.

Now, as silly as it may be, I guess I dont want to dodge the central issue, so I'll play what-if. What if Sarah Palin is in fact, a known young earth crazy? Not just sitting in the pews while her own version of reverend wright preaches, but actually speaking out about it on her own. Well, I would certainly be disappointed and I would probably not speak well of her at all to my friends. On the 0-100 scale of crazy, that would probably rank somewhere above 50, but still well below Islamic extremists.

I would still pull McCain/Palin's lever in November. If it were a primary election, a known YEC would be a deal-breaker with me. They wouldnt get my vote regardless of their other positions, because I would presumably have an alternate choice who is "good enough". A general election is a different story. We often have to make distasteful compromises and vote for lesser evils.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 12:23 AM
No, it's not.

It has predictive capabilities.

Silock
09-11-2008, 12:26 AM
Yes, it is. Otherwise, it wouldn't be classified as a Theory. That's a requirement for consideration.

No, it is not currently testable. Physicists are just now beginning to THINK they have devised a test for M-theory, and it rests on the capabilities of the LHC. Regardless, the theory existed in theoretical circles for decades, unable to be proven or tested.

Silock
09-11-2008, 12:28 AM
It has predictive capabilities.

Based purely on mathematics, and nothing empirical whatsoever. And there have been many, many theories that were mathematically elegant, but ultimately failed.

Still, we're getting a bit off of my main point, as I didn't intend to turn this into a string theory debate.

My point was that it has existed in an untestable form for many, many years, but that doesn't mean it was relegated to fantasy for a lot of scientists (although, a good number do consider it fantasy for that very reason).

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 12:33 AM
Based purely on mathematics, and nothing empirical whatsoever. And there have been many, many theories that were mathematically elegant, but ultimately failed.

Still, we're getting a bit off of my main point, as I didn't intend to turn this into a string theory debate.

My point was that it has existed in an untestable form for many, many years, but that doesn't mean it was relegated to fantasy for a lot of scientists (although, a good number do consider it fantasy for that very reason).

And yet there are multiple experiments and radiometric dating that clearly negate the possibility for a young earth.

The point is that these theories ultimately can be testable. Hard-line Creationism directly undermines that.

ROYC75
09-11-2008, 12:35 AM
And a Christian leader who claims God told him to go to war isn't basing his radicalism on ideology? OK, this is an argument that will be hard to win on either side here, here goes ...To atheist, you have a point, to the Christian believers, we disagree. Now the question remains is, was it God that spoken to him or his own personal beliefs for personal gains.

Do you have any idea how much Hitler cloaked his rhetoric in Christianity? The United States did it during the entire Cold War (which is why we have "Under God" in the Pledge that Sarah Palin thinks is from our founding fathers). Reagan had top level advisers who were millenialists.

Right or wrong, Hitler was raised a catholic but wavered to Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau radical ways and then later believed in some of the Muslim way of religion.

Hitler was a wacko ......

Jenson71
09-11-2008, 12:41 AM
And yet there are multiple experiments and radiometric dating that clearly negate the possibility for a young earth.

The point is that these theories ultimately can be testable. Hard-line Creationism directly undermines that.

Radiocarbon dating - 100% archaeologist approved!

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2008, 12:48 AM
The REAL question is....does she think dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago (by years, according to mankind)....or does she allow for "wiggle room"---as I would argue, most modern rational Christians do, and offer something like...."well, what 6,000 years or more is to God, I don't know...so I can't be sure, but this is my personal belief..."

:shrug:

Personally, I'm dubious of anyone (from any perspective) who claims THEY know the "truth".....

Silock
09-11-2008, 12:54 AM
And yet there are multiple experiments and radiometric dating that clearly negate the possibility for a young earth.

The point is that these theories ultimately can be testable. Hard-line Creationism directly undermines that.

I wasn't referring specifically to YEC. I was speaking to the more general Creationism theory.

headsnap
09-11-2008, 06:13 AM
Coming from the guy who links to snopes and thinks it disproves the OP when it most certainly didn't.
It 100% proves that the OP is a lie.

one more time
You use a celebrity in the OP who is parroting info from liberal blogs that came from a satirical blog of made up Palin quotes. Matt is running with the hard left marching orders as you also are to paint Palin as some extremist religious wacko. She never said the 4000 years quote that Matt is referencing but people like you, Matt, Hamas, etc... will run with it to try to make it stick to tear this woman down. IT'S A FLAT OUT LIE! Keep running with it though I'm sure it will be a big winner for your side, attacking religion and the beliefs of the majority of Americans out there has always been a big winner for the Democrats.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-11-2008, 07:22 AM
Matt needs to tell me if he thinks there were dinosaurs here 4000 years ago, i mean i really need to know before i go see another movie of his. After all he is in charge of shaping todays youth that sits in front of the idiot tube, he could kill us all.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 08:25 AM
At the risk of starting something, I don't think Palin literally believes the Creation story and thinks the earth is only 4000 - or 6000 years old.

And what IJH misses in his calculus is that someone can believe this just by not paying much attention to it.

Say someone plants in your mind that Plato was gay. Years later someone bring up Plato and you say "oh, the gay philosopher?" Then that someone pulls up a series of treatises that examine ancient texts and archeological evidence that suggests that Plato was actually quite the ladies man. Neither knows for certain as no one was with Plato every day to observe his sexual appetites and it certainly doesn't reflect on your analytical abilities that you held the unexamined, or even examined, thought that Plato might have been gay.

NewChief
09-11-2008, 08:28 AM
And what IJH misses in his calculus is that someone can believe this just by not paying much attention to it.

Say someone plants in your mind that Plato was gay. Years later someone bring up Plato and you say "oh, the gay philosopher?" Then that someone pulls up a series of treatises that examine ancient texts and archeological evidence that suggests that Plato was actually quite the ladies man. Neither knows for certain as no one was with Plato every day to observe his sexual appetites and it certainly doesn't reflect on your analytical abilities that you held the unexamined, or even examined, thought that Plato might have been gay.

Except that your analogy misses out on the fact that you have friends who are trying to insert the teaching that Plato is gay into the curriculum of schools everywhere and the issue of whether Plato is gay or not is a hot button political topic on which you should probably own an informed, examined thought.

WilliamTheIrish
09-11-2008, 08:31 AM
The REAL question is....does she think dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago (by years, according to mankind)....or does she allow for "wiggle room"---as I would argue, most modern rational Christians do, and offer something like...."well, what 6,000 years or more is to God, I don't know...so I can't be sure, but this is my personal belief..."

:shrug:

Personally, I'm dubious of anyone (from any perspective) who claims THEY know the "truth".....

That is the most ridiculous "beleaf" (cp spelling) ever championed. I find it difficult to beleave (cp spelling) that any forward thinking person would even offer that as an explanation.

I'd rather you simply ROYed out and said "I have faith".

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2008, 08:32 AM
That is the most ridiculous "beleaf" (cp spelling) ever championed. I find it difficult to beleave (cp spelling) that any forward thinking person would even offer that as an explanation.

I'd rather you simply ROYed out and said "I have faith".

Let me guess. You are not particularly "religious," eh? :shrug:

NewChief
09-11-2008, 08:33 AM
That is the most ridiculous "beleaf" (cp spelling) ever championed. I find it difficult to beleave (cp spelling) that any forward thinking person would even offer that as an explanation.

I'd rather you simply ROYed out and said "I have faith".

I think Kotter may be mixing up his arguments. The argument that he's talking about is usually used in reference to the creation story of creating occurring in 7 days. Many christians don't take the 7 days literally, instead saying that man's understanding of 7 days can be much different than the creator's. Others also think the 7 days is more like a metaphor, referring to 7 ages. Then there are others, and I know many of them, who don't believe in any wiggle room and believe that the 7 days is literal and precise.

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2008, 08:37 AM
I think Kotter may be mixing up his arguments. The argument that he's talking about is usually used in reference to the creation story of creating occurring in 7 days. Many christians don't take the 7 days literally, instead saying that man's understanding of 7 days can be much different than the creator's. Others also think the 7 days is more like a metaphor, referring to 7 ages. Then there are others, and I know many of them, who don't believe in any wiggle room and believe that the 7 days is literal and precise.


I'm not mixing up anything, but....yes, you've explained it as I meant/understand it. Thanks.

Cannibal
09-11-2008, 09:07 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/anxkrm9uEJk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/anxkrm9uEJk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The meat of it is this quote:





Can we skip the Hollywood=liberals generalizations and the ad hominem attacks please?

Damn he ripped her apart and not really in an overzealous way.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 09:09 AM
Damn he ripped her apart and not really in an overzealous way.

Some say Cannibal sez f@cking kids is fun, and I think he needs to address that.

headsnap
09-11-2008, 09:25 AM
Some say Cannibal sez f@cking kids is fun, and I think he needs to address that.
that Cannibal is a sick fuk!!!!


he should be banished!!!!

Cannibal
09-11-2008, 09:38 AM
Some say Cannibal sez f@cking kids is fun, and I think he needs to address that.

Only Baby Lee's kids. They said he doesn't give them enough attention. :)

PRIEST
09-11-2008, 09:40 AM
I did not read through all the post . MR Damon is spot on the is crazy stuff that this is this close to happening ( Bad Disney Movie ):clap:

headsnap
09-11-2008, 09:43 AM
I did not read through all the post . MR Damon is spot on the is crazy stuff that this is this close to happening ( Bad Disney Movie ):clap:
maybe you should read the thread... ;)

PRIEST
09-11-2008, 10:06 AM
maybe you should read the thread... ;)



Agree with it all the way to the dinosaur part:spock: . I think she was a gimmick pick to pander to the women & also note it took the Palin pick to even get Conservative's behind McCain , just my opinion

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:41 AM
It 100% proves that the OP is a lie.

one more time
You use a celebrity in the OP who is parroting info from liberal blogs that came from a satirical blog of made up Palin quotes. Matt is running with the hard left marching orders as you also are to paint Palin as some extremist religious wacko. She never said the 4000 years quote that Matt is referencing but people like you, Matt, Hamas, etc... will run with it to try to make it stick to tear this woman down. IT'S A FLAT OUT LIE! Keep running with it though I'm sure it will be a big winner for your side, attacking religion and the beliefs of the majority of Americans out there has always been a big winner for the Democrats.

You can't be that stupid. Are you? Must be.

And what IJH misses in his calculus is that someone can believe this just by not paying much attention to it.

Say someone plants in your mind that Plato was gay. Years later someone bring up Plato and you say "oh, the gay philosopher?" Then that someone pulls up a series of treatises that examine ancient texts and archeological evidence that suggests that Plato was actually quite the ladies man. Neither knows for certain as no one was with Plato every day to observe his sexual appetites and it certainly doesn't reflect on your analytical abilities that you held the unexamined, or even examined, thought that Plato might have been gay.

NewPhin pretty much nailed it in his response. I'd also like to add that in that scenario, I would most likely be persuaded. Evidence has a funny way of doing that....

I think Kotter may be mixing up his arguments. The argument that he's talking about is usually used in reference to the creation story of creating occurring in 7 days. Many christians don't take the 7 days literally, instead saying that man's understanding of 7 days can be much different than the creator's. Others also think the 7 days is more like a metaphor, referring to 7 ages. Then there are others, and I know many of them, who don't believe in any wiggle room and believe that the 7 days is literal and precise.

Well, Kotter's argument also opens up a can of worms. If we aren't supposed to take the Bible literally, then what parts do we take figuratively? If we are to take it figuratively, based on what criteria do we decide what is to be taken figuratively and what does that figurative take mean?

headsnap
09-11-2008, 11:53 AM
You can't be that stupid. Are you? Must be.
tell me, do you believe that Sarah Palin used the 4,000 years line?

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:00 PM
tell me, do you believe that Sarah Palin used the 4,000 years line?

Tell me, do you see Matt Damon saying she did?

headsnap
09-11-2008, 12:02 PM
Tell me, do you see Matt Damon saying she did?

I can't believe we're back to the 'stop beating your wife' part of this thread.


What does his quote in the thread starter say?

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:07 PM
I can't believe we're back to the 'stop beating your wife' part of this thread.


What does his quote in the thread starter say?

It says "I need to know..."

That means he doesn't know.

I thought that was pretty understood.

headsnap
09-11-2008, 12:12 PM
It says "I need to know..."

That means he doesn't know.

I thought that was pretty understood.
WOW...


where in the flying FVCH did the 4,000 years come from?!?!

is he channeling her or something?



BTW, I need to know why the monkeys keep flying out of your ass!!!

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:27 PM
WOW...


where in the flying FVCH did the 4,000 years come from?!?!

is he channeling her or something?



BTW, I need to know why the monkeys keep flying out of your ass!!!

YEC is a degree of creationism.

We know she's a creationist: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html

Therefore, we need to find out if she's the YE kind.

WilliamTheIrish
09-11-2008, 12:28 PM
Let me guess. You are not particularly "religious," eh? :shrug:

Oh I dunno. 12 years of parochial school education gives a person a pretty good grounding in being 'particularly religious'. Am I particularly religious at this time in my life? No. The church is so corrupt and money hungry that it has turned me completely away.

When I was kid all the church wanted was your soul. And they wanted you to have children so they could have their souls also. Now they want less of your soul and much more of your money.


I simply found that explanation you gave for Palin to be complete cop out. Just say she was pandering. Nobody in their right mind 'beleaves' (cp spelling) that horseshit.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:29 PM
Oh I dunno. 12 years of parochial school education gives a person a pretty good grounding in being 'particularly religious'. Am I particularly religious at this time in my life? No. The church is so corrupt and money hungry that it has turned me completely away.

When I was kid all the church wanted was your soul. And they wanted you to have children so they could have their souls also. Now they want less of your soul and much more of your money.


I simply found that explanation you gave for Palin to be complete cop out. Just say she was pandering. Nobody in their right mind 'beleaves' (cp spelling) that horseshit.

Funny, that was a lot of my findings after 17 years in a religious education environment.

WilliamTheIrish
09-11-2008, 12:43 PM
Funny, that was a lot of my findings after 17 years in a religious education environment.

To be fair, I 'beleave' my education was first rate. There was much emphasis on the three R's. Also, we were taught the Theory of Evolution right alongside our religious indoctrination. The never felt threatened by science.

I'm not sure if they still do that now.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:47 PM
To be fair, I 'beleave' my education was first rate. There was much emphasis on the three R's. Also, we were taught the Theory of Evolution right alongside our religious indoctrination. The never felt threatened by science.

I'm not sure if they still do that now.

Again, same here.

Chiefnj2
09-11-2008, 12:51 PM
Wow, I've seen that guy on the news and let me tell you if Jason Bourne doesn't feel safe with Palin as VP nobody should. He's a badass. I saw him take on countless hit men and spit vodka into the eyes of the KGB. Jason knows national security.

headsnap
09-11-2008, 12:56 PM
YEC is a degree of creationism.

We know she's a creationist: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html

Therefore, we need to find out if she's the YE kind.

your link proves nothing.

All is proves is that she is open minded to both to sides of the 'debate.'

from your link:
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:59 PM
your link proves nothing.

All is proves is that she is open minded to both to sides of the 'debate.'

from your link:

Well, here's where you're wrong.

There is no debate. No controversy.

And the fact that she thinks there is controversy highlights the fact that she thinks there's credence to creationism. Therefore, we need to find out to what extent.

Jebus, I thought it'd be really hard to find someone stupider than Roy. I've come very close.

headsnap
09-11-2008, 01:04 PM
Well, here's where you're wrong.

There is no debate. No controversy.

And the fact that she thinks there is controversy highlights the fact that she thinks there's credence to creationism. Therefore, we need to find out to what extent.

Jebus, I thought it'd be really hard to find someone stupider than Roy. I've come very close.

I believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't come close to answering ALL of the questions... we humans haven't even scratched the surface, there is still DEBATE and things to be learned.

Don't pretend that we know all, that is the ultimate folly.


great, you disagree with someone, you call them stupid... :shake:

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 01:18 PM
I believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't come close to answering ALL of the questions... we humans haven't even scratched the surface, there is still DEBATE and things to be learned.

Don't pretend that we know all, that is the ultimate folly.


great, you disagree with someone, you call them stupid... :shake:

You are stupid for believing that the snopes link disproved the entire OP and the entire thought that Palin was a creationist.

As for your insinuations, I haven't claimed to know all. However, creationism isn't up for debate. It a) isn't science and b) isn't science. There's no "teach the controversy". Period.

Furthermore, creationism isn't even related to evolution.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 01:26 PM
Well, here's where you're wrong.

There is no debate. No controversy.

And the fact that she thinks there is controversy highlights the fact that she thinks there's credence to creationism. Therefore, we need to find out to what extent.

Jebus, I thought it'd be really hard to find someone stupider than Roy. I've come very close.

To be fair, there's not a lot to see up your own ass. Sorry for Roy's sake you found him in there too.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 01:28 PM
To be fair, there's not a lot to see up your own ass. Sorry for Roy's sake you found him in there too.

I am wrong, eh?

Gonna offer evidence for it or resort to that?

StcChief
09-11-2008, 01:29 PM
F Matt Damon

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 01:31 PM
I am wrong, eh?

Gonna offer evidence for it or resort to that?

Eh, you're just a stinking liar anyway, because I think you're wrong about this and you are posting it anyways.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 01:34 PM
Eh, you're just a stinking liar anyway, because I think you're wrong about this and you are posting it anyways.

:)

Well played. I already said lie wasn't the best word.


As for the subject, am I wrong in what I said to headsnap? It seems you disagree due to my looking up my own ass....

BigCatDaddy
09-11-2008, 01:39 PM
Dang it Matt. I really wanted to see the next Jason Bourne movie to.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 01:42 PM
:)

Well played. I already said lie wasn't the best word.


As for the subject, am I wrong in what I said to headsnap? It seems you disagree due to my looking up my own ass....

That was a general observation on your rectocranial superimposition.
You said you hadn't seen anyone stupider than Roy, and I was just pointing out that, from your POV, it's pretty dark and cramped.
It's humor, maybe I suck at it.

BigMeatballDave
09-11-2008, 04:21 PM
Yes, yes it is. It's an intelligence barrier. Would you consider a kid with Downs Syndrome eligible to be in charge of the nuclear codes?

I would think not. Believing the world is 6000 years old or that humans co-inhabited earth with dinosaurs is just like that, except willful.There is a whole lot of stupid in this post...ROFL

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 04:25 PM
There is a whole lot of stupid in this post...ROFL

Really?

Do tell.

BigMeatballDave
09-11-2008, 04:35 PM
Someone who thinks the Earth is 4-6000 years old is an idiot. There is so much evidence to the contrary, from the fossil record, to carbon dating, soil samples, the KT layer, yet because people were told a fairy tale when they were children they wish to believe that over the scientific method. It's sad that people in this country are so willingly stupid.All theories. Now, if you or someone you know were around back then, provide us with some proof. Do you have a time machine? :D

BigMeatballDave
09-11-2008, 04:36 PM
Really?

Do tell.Do you really think the POTUS actually has launch codes?

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 04:36 PM
All theories. Now, if you or someone you know were around back then, provide us with some proof. Do you have a time machine? :D

Layman term for theory is not the same as a scientific Theory.

theory vs Theory. Separate things.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 04:36 PM
Do you really think the POTUS actually has launch codes?

Do? Sure, what evidence is there to the contrary.

BigMeatballDave
09-11-2008, 05:04 PM
Do? Sure, what evidence is there to the contrary.Awesome. So, this is your belief? May I call you stupid? My belief is the POTUS gives the directive to launch. WTF would he need actual launch codes? Thats military stuff.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Awesome. So, this is your belief? May I call you stupid? My belief is the POTUS gives the directive to launch. WTF would he need actual launch codes? Thats military stuff.

Oh, maybe because someone could impersonate the President's directive? I'm not claiming to know, but it doesn't really change the overall point:

You don't want a mentally challenged individual having the ability to launch nukes.

Logical
09-11-2008, 06:11 PM
Awesome. So, this is your belief? May I call you stupid? My belief is the POTUS gives the directive to launch. WTF would he need actual launch codes? Thats military stuff.You are wrong (the football) contains the launch codes and he has to send them himself. They are changed daily.

vailpass
09-11-2008, 06:17 PM
What does Tim Robbins think about this? Or Jessica Simpson? Let's tap that Hollywood Brain Trust.

The only way Matt Damon matters here is if Palin puts out an "I'm Focking Matt Damon" video.
Which would be funny.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 06:28 PM
What does Tim Robbins think about this? Or Jessica Simpson? Let's tap that Hollywood Brain Trust.

The only way Matt Damon matters here is if Palin puts out an "I'm Focking Matt Damon" video.
Which would be funny.

It only took 174 posts. Whoo!