58 Forum Posts by "theDeity"
I think readers of this topic would be interested in this video:
Lucky we haven't had an Armenian in here yet...
At 4/18/07 01:37 PM, JoS wrote: My question is so? Does iran not have the rigth to give weapons to whom ever they want, just like the US has the rigth to give weapons to whom ever they want? So what if they are arming our enemies, we are theirs...with chemical and biological weapons.
Iran is fighting a proxy war. They are giving weapons to the Taliban with the intent that those weapons will be used to kill coalition forces. THAT is why they do not have the right to give weapons to the insurgents.
At 3/28/07 10:32 PM, Dre-Man wrote:
Bush bold face lied about Iraq having nuclear weapons, and so did Cheney. And lying about something like THAT (a statement that could send our country to war) is a hell of a lot worse than whatever Clinton lied about.
HE DID NOT LIE!
How many fucking times must this be repeated until it gets into your skull?
Intelligence agencies around the world believed that he had WMD's you retard, it's not a lie if you genuinely believe it to be true.
Maybe you should do some background before you post these things, so you don't look like an idiot.
That TV special has so many holes in it that you could sink a ship... and this is coming from someone who is doubtful of GW.
The producer of the film used out of date and data he knew of which to be false just to make a claim. Even Channel 4 News is distancing themselves away from the movie and producer.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives /2007/03/swindled/
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_p ropaganda_the.php
How can people say we have failed in Iraq?
1. Saddam put to death.
2. Democracy in Iraq.
3. Support for democracy in not only Iraq, but other Middle Eastern Nations.
4. Rebuilding have been successful for the most part.
5. Americans show support in actions taken against Iraq
...and many more that I really don't care to list.
At 3/19/07 11:38 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I've begun to question what's good about even the theory. It works on paper, yes, but I'm not sure if I'd even consider it "brilliant". If it was possible to destroy the whole "mankind" aspect, maybe it'd work, but then what's the point of being human? We'd be puppets, only more directly so.
It's not even that great in theory because someone who was smart (I'm not saying those who created Communism were not smart btw) would realize a system such as the one they designed would stagnate the economy and would be extremely prone to corruption, and ultimately failure.
At 3/20/07 09:47 PM, Begoner wrote:At 3/20/07 09:44 PM, Memorize wrote: The only programs he's cutting into are those who are underperforming.Because that always makes them perform better. Here's a news flash for you: if you gut a program's funding due to the fact that it's not "performing well," it's certainly not going to perform better.
Aren't you the one who gave us the whole story about the dude who died because he couldn't bear to amputate his toe?
When an employee is underperforming and it is clear that he/she is just a waste of resources and money, you fire them. You don't let ineffecient and underperforming programs keep running and leaching money from the government (which could go to much better places) just because there is a minute chance that it will perform better.
At 3/20/07 08:33 PM, Begoner wrote: Both those sites are objective; however, bias in the media happens to be predominantly, if not wholly, conservative, and so they cannot cite examples of liberal bias.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA *wipes tears* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Thanks for the laugh.
At 3/20/07 08:28 PM, Begoner wrote: No, I simply stated that the majority of troops who are physically involved in "securing the peace" are below average in terms of intelligence. I am sure that there are some bright lights in an otherwise bleak landscape; unfortunately, however, they are few and far between.
Where are you getting your facts from? Oh, right, I forgot, you were pulling shit out of your ass again. I'm sure you've met so many troops who are involved in Iraq and abroad.
We are simply accelerating Iraq's descent into anarchy by stationing more troops in the nation; by withdrawing them, we will have taken the first step away from imperialism and towards a real solution. However, a peaceful and speedy resolution to Iraq's woes seems quite improbable at this juncture, regardless of the course pursued by the US. There is no dichotomy between staying, thus giving Iraq a chance and leaving, thus letting Iraq go to the wolves. Many people believe that the best way to help Iraq would be to leave; I am one of them. Of course, that's speculative, as the situation in Iraq is highly volatile and resistant to thorough analysis.
Even though there was an 80% drop in insurgency strikes with the increase in troops? Withdrawing our troops would lead to chaos in Iraq and would strengethn those who seek to destroy democracy. And hey, it looks like what America is doing is working. Not only is democracy working in Iraq but it also is having a "splash" effect on other, surrouding Muslim countries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html
At 3/20/07 08:12 PM, Begoner wrote: I don't feel like refuting that particular theory right now. However, sites such as these expose the blatant conservative bias in the mainstream media. I am not saying that the "brainwashing" is the intended goal of the gigantic corporations which control the media, yet it is a consequence of ceaseless bombardment of viewers with hard-right economic propaganda (look at the media coverage of the WTO protests in Seattle [1999] for example, or the kind of publicity Chavez gets in the US).
http://www.fair.org/index.php
http://mediamatters.org/
How can you even say that? You refer to media coverage of an event 8 years ago as evidence of conservate media bias, as well as Chavez. I hope you understand that even liberal news coprporations (CNN, NBC, etc) will not always run liberal news stories.
If you brought your head out of your ass for maybe 5 minutes you would see that most big media outlets not only have a media bias, they wave it like a flag.
Mediamatters... how can you cite that? It's entire existance wholly relies on pointing out conservate stories in the media. Both sites youe cited are liberal propaganda machines and are not even remotely objective.
Of course, what I've said has been reiterated to you many times already.
Here's hoping this time you'll see the truth.
At 3/20/07 08:09 PM, Begoner wrote:
It is a well-established fact that corporations pay their employees the minimum possible wage such that they will be able to retain them. Thus, companies purchase labor at a price that is significantly less than its true value and the workers are grossly exploited. Free enterprise invariably leads to inequitable conditions for the working class as they are consistently given much less than the worth of what they produce. This precludes the working class from accruing sufficient wealth in order to start their own business (or, perhaps, they are repelled by the moral abhorrence that starting business entails). In either case, they are attached, like parasites, to corporations for their very survival and livelihood. This is certainly not to their benefit. Individual simply contributes fuel to keep this vicious and disgusting cycle running along smoothly.
Minimum skills, minimum labour, minimum training, minimum education, (dare I go on?)minimum wage. Such is life. The fact is that we as a society need different working classes.
Why should McDonald's pay an employee more than $7.50 (approximately minimum wage here in Canada) for flipping burgers, where the amount of products he might move an hour might not even exceed $10 in what McDonald's payed for them?
At 3/20/07 07:33 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:At 3/18/07 11:11 PM, SolInvictus wrote: explain to me exactly how will pulling coalition forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan help the situations in either of these countries and increase America's popularity and support in the Middle-East.They won't, it's just to pull the plug on our massive fuck-up.
i need a good laugh.
What, pull the plug on the tub of shit above America that will crash down on your heads if you pull out?
America needs to stay in Iraq. Why can't you see that?
This reminds me of a website I once visited.
At 3/18/07 02:13 PM, emmytee wrote: But global warming IS caused by humans, and here's why:
1: You accept it s true that humans are emitting lots of CO2, right?
2: This graph IS correct.
Yes, that graph is correct, but there is something Al Gore did not show you.
Watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ROpkcESEXPc&mode=r elated&search=
At 2/15/07 07:55 PM, Durin413 wrote: If they don't want to get pregnant, THAN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE FUCKING SEX!!!!!!!
seriously, do people like not know the link between sex and pregnancy? And keep in mind that even a baby is still parasitic. It lives only through another being or beings (the parents). Does that mean that the parents should be able to kill their kids whenever they want to? Keep in mind that a baby does bring health risks (all those diseases infants tend to get, some can be spread to mommy and daddy, especially if never had before) and restricts what they can do (gotta supervise the baby, no more going alone on cruises etc, unless they can hire a surrogate, who then has to deal with the same problems.
So by your logic, its ok to kill children. Good going Begoner, and may God have mercy on your soul.
What's more important? The rights of a woman, or the potential rights of a potential child?
As pointed out before, outlawing abortion just opens the door for back door abortionists and dangerous methods that pose significant health risks to women. Rape, incest, failed contraceptives, etc. are all reasons for abortion.
To be terribly blunt, unwanted babies ruin lives and help kickstart the cycle of poverty so prevelant in our society. 16 year olds shouldn't be forced to destroy their future just because of a mistake.
We'll all take a leaf from Britain's book and ship 'em all off to Australia, of course.
A bit of a hyperbole, but that's the idea, yes. That seems to be what the facts point to.
At 1/31/07 11:46 PM, packow wrote: Diety, do you know your rights?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3484 210767977900670
Talked with my lawyers about that, actually. See, the woman reported that she saw us both throwin around a hatchet. Also, the fact that my friend ran (he was caught about 40 minutes later, by the way, they had to take out the dogs and everything) didn't help much. Trust me, it's not as easy as saying "officer, I don't consent to any searches."
It was about 2:00 p.m. I had got off work and me and a buddy sparked a couple joints. We were feeling pretty high and as we left the parking lot that we blazed in, we spotted a short bus. Now, I work at a paint store and had paint in my backpack. Spray paint. And there was a short bus. Now, nobody really likes short buses. So, we walk up to it. Test the back door. Turns out it's open. We climb in and begin to unleash hell on that short bus... hehe. After about 2 minutes, my buddy finds a hatchet in the short bus. He picks it up, asks me if he should take it. I said yes. It seemed like a good idea... at the time. We get out of the bus, no problems, seems everything is fine.
So we're walking up Victoria Park (it's a street) and we see some of those big political lawn signs. My buddy whips out the ol' hatchet and gives it a throw. It misses the sign by about a foot. He runs and picks it up, throws again, misses. The hatchet lands 2 feet away from me. I laugh and pick it up. I throw it at the sign, and it goes right though. He picks the hatchet back up, puts it in his jacket, and we keep walking, ready to call a friend to meet up with.
So I'm at the phone, making the call. My buddy is standing watch. JUST as I complete the call, he walks up to me. All I hear is him say "yo man i think were caught" and I look over my shoulder and theres the fucking police 10 feet away from us sirens going and everything.
My buddy jets and before I know it I get speared by a police officer (I had a bike and they thought I would bike off, they were alreay chasing him with the cruiser). I get booked for possession and intent to sell (I had my scale and grinder with me, and the weed was packaged in dime bags... wasnt going to sell a fucking nug of that shit either).
Turns out some lady got scared by the hatchet and called the cops.
Moral of the story? Don't throw hatchets around at 2 in the afternoon.
There are different explanations for what "omnipotent" really means and how it applys to God. Many argue that there are many things that God cannot do, but that He is still omnipotent.
Could God deny himself?
Could God create a triangle with angles that do not add up to 180?
Can got make 1+1=15?
1) If God is not omnipotent, then [insert name of Abrahamic religion] has lied or is mistaken
Ok.
2) If God were not omnipotent, then there should be something I can do which God cannot do
Sounds fair.
3) I can make a table
Still good.
4) God can make a table
Ok.
5) I can make a table God has not made
How do you know that? As Ray Comfort is fond of saying, that is an absolute statement. To validate such a claim, you must know every table in the physical (and metaphysical, since we're talking God here, folks) world. Also, just because God hasn't done something doesn't mean he can't do it. To be omnipotent doesn't mean that you've done everything there is to do. It just means that you can do it, if you so desire it. Also, Ray Comfort is an idiot.
6) God cannot make a table God has not made
Why not?
7) Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent
Call them, or even better, go down there and start yelling. That shit shouldn't happen.
A very controversial issue, something that has recently (well, not *that* recent) flared up on the news again (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisre view/2006/11/white_scholarsh.html, http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/21/ richards.email/index.html).
After reading an article put forth by a professor at the University of Western Ontario, and reading some threads on these forums and others, my beliefs about race being only "skin deep" have been challenged.
I would like to hear your opinions on the topic.
Here is the article, for anyone interested. I highly recommend it.
I'll leave it at that then.
Holy shit you're a dumbass. YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A WORLD WIDE FLOOD! I'm not the one being hard headed and arrogant, you are.
Quick question: The majority of the scientific community does not believe that the "great flood" occurred. Do you think this is unreasonable?
It takes a true ignoramus to stare evidence straight in the face and disregard it.
I guess some people never learn
People vote for a candidate because he/she represents their interests. If that person is constantly changing his/her opinion, then voters feel they are being misrepresented. Also, a flip-flopper can be disastrous for special-interests groups. They don't donate thousands of dollars to your campaign for you to turn around and shit on them when they get elected.
That's my thoughts, anways.
Keep laughing, even when you're burning in the fiery rath of hell, just keep laughing.
I'll take my chances.
Actually, it is. And because we're arguing religion here, let's just say God took a big straw and sucked it all up, shall we?
I see. Well, that clears it all up then!
Explain why all continental sediments show exact similarities to ocean floor sediments, go ahead.
Here's some stuff on rocks and sediments and such.
http://www.kjvbible.org/sediment.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/flood-report.html
If it's more atheistic bullshit, no thanks.
Typical christian bullshit. What do you do when evidence looks at you straight in the face? Why, throw it out the window, of course!
