You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Oh great....Palin brings dinosaurs up to 2000 BC, and bring them all the way into this age of moral relativism....what next "future dinosaurs"?
You'll have to be more clear, because it looks like in your post that you accuse Palin of "bringing up dinosaurs to 2000 BC". Care to post the evidence of that, so that I can shoot it down as a lie very quickly?
You'll have to be more clear, because it looks like in your post that you accuse Palin of "bringing up dinosaurs to 2000 BC". Care to post the evidence of that, so that I can shoot it down as a lie very quickly?
As for moral relativists, you haz some.
Actually I was off by 2000 years. According to a witness, she stated she believed that dinosaurs and man were here together about 6000 years ago (about 4000 BC, not 2000 BC). Her evidence was she saw photos of man's footprints inside those of dinosaurs.
Quote:
The LA Times reports:
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.
Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.
The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.
Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska's schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.
But kidding aside, I did some research and I believe this to be a bogus story. She was born into a Catholic family and later became a Pentecostal Christian. It doesn't appear she's actually a "literal creationist", but it's fun to pretend she is (She seems like she would be, no?)
Actually I was off by 2000 years. According to a witness, she stated she believed that dinosaurs and man were here together about 6000 years ago (about 4000 BC, not 2000 BC). Her evidence was she saw photos of man's footprints inside those of dinosaurs.
But kidding aside, I did some research and I believe this to be a bogus story. She was born into a Catholic family and later became a Pentecostal Christian. It doesn't appear she's actually a "literal creationist", but it's fun to pretend she is (She seems like she would be, no?)
So: you put up your source, and then debunk it? Don't worry, I was about to debunk it for you. It's not fun to pretend to; you're just engaging in furthering a misimpression, and you're doing it on purpose.
So: you put up your source, and then debunk it? Don't worry, I was about to debunk it for you. It's not fun to pretend to; you're just engaging in furthering a misimpression, and you're doing it on purpose.
Mike (and I know why, and what you are)
It's false, RMichael, and I know it, and you admitted it. You don't seem to mind that it's false, because it doesn't matter to you: to you, it's propaganda, as that's what you do.
It's false, RMichael, and I know it, and you admitted it. You don't seem to mind that it's false, because it doesn't matter to you: to you, it's propaganda, as that's what you do.
Mike (blech)
I don't know it to be false, but like you, I believe it to be false. No one in their right mind could think dinosaurs were roaming around 6k years ago. I posted a play on words, connecting a couple threads for fun around the dinosaur theme and you asked for a source to "shoot down".
I quick linked where the rumor started and clarified that "Here's where the rumor about Palin's odd dinosaur beliefs probably began but I don't believe the guy".
Propaganda you're giving me more credit than I'm due.
I would say that although I didn't agree with a lot of what Obama said, (IE, we need to respect peoples constitutional right to abortion, just ignore the parts of the constitution we will have to ignore to implement my policies on healthcare and the economy.) Obama won the debate. McCain didn't focus on the severe problems with Obama's issues. He never once said that Obama's tax plan is a net increase (IE a net loss for the american people). He came off as amatuerish.
McCain was the smug one? Obama was laughing at McCain's replies. That is smug and condescending. If he pulls that crap during diplomacy, we're in trouble.
I think McCain had two strong points in the debate....
a) I am not George Bush.
b) When Obama disagreed with free trade to Colombia, he said it was because of the terrorism being perpetrated by groups against Colombian labor leaders. McCain countered that Obama wanted to sit down for unconditional talks with Hugo Chaves, who supports terrorism.
Obama was calm and eloquent, but expressing ideas like... we need to make american automakers make affordable, fuel efficient cars that foriegn countries want to buy... Ummm.... How ya gonna do that Barak? He's got a lot of nice, broad sweeping Ideas about trade that he cant back up.
And I wanted to cry when he wated to stop china from "manipulating" the value of the yuan. This was one of the things that the Bush Administration asked for. (Huh, I guess Barak has some common ground with the Bush administration.) However, the tresury department has sited on numerous occasions that China does not fit the profile of currency manipulation, it simply has a fixed value.
By the by, the trade discrepency with China has not hurt american manufacturing. They have had a fixed currency since 94. Most of the goods we import from china are goods we could not produce as cheaply here regardless, and have classically come from "lower wage" countries... so them unfixing thier currency would simply cause inflation here... way to go, Barak/Bush! Brilliant!
I just think it's bizarre that Barak Obama has many of the same misconceptions as the american people.
Like...
-The government can force detroit to make cars people want to buy
-the government can force insurance companies to implement policies that would put them out of business.
(I'm not talking things like secured premiums... That makes sense. I'm talking about things like forcing companies to take on high risk clients or clients with pre-existing conditions, and not charging them retarded amounts of money. If thats the case, everyone would wait untill they got sick to get insurance. Brilliant.)
-the government can fix our schools by throwing more money at the problem at the federal level.
(McCain was right on the money here, saying that if we already have the highest funded schools in the world, maybe more money isn't the answer.)
-Higher taxes put more money in the economy.
-You can tax businesses with impunity, because they can afford it.
-You can tax the rich as much as you want, because they can afford it.
__________________
In hiding from teh interwebz gestapo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by splby
BrickyardZ shows no mercy. just fyi...
Last edited by 03BrickyardZ; 10-16-2008 at 05:30 AM.
I would say that although I didn't agree with a lot of what Obama said, (IE, we need to respect peoples constitutional right to abortion, just ignore the parts of the constitution we will have to ignore to implement my policies on healthcare and the economy.) Obama won the debate. McCain didn't focus on the severe problems with Obama's issues. He never once said that Obama's tax plan is a net increase (IE a net loss for the american people). He came off as amatuerish.
McCain was the smug one? Obama was laughing at McCain's replies. That is smug and condescending. If he pulls that crap during diplomacy, we're in trouble.
I think McCain had two strong points in the debate....
a) I am not George Bush.
b) When Obama disagreed with free trade to Colombia, he said it was because of the terrorism being perpetrated by groups against Colombian labor leaders. McCain countered that Obama wanted to sit down for unconditional talks with Hugo Chaves, who supports terrorism.
Obama was calm and eloquent, but expressing ideas like... we need to make american automakers make affordable, fuel efficient cars that foriegn countries want to buy... Ummm.... How ya gonna do that Barak? He's got a lot of nice, broad sweeping Ideas about trade that he cant back up.
And I wanted to cry when he wated to stop china from "manipulating" the value of the yuan. This was one of the things that the Bush Administration asked for. (Huh, I guess Barak has some common ground with the Bush administration.) However, the tresury department has sited on numerous occasions that China does not fit the profile of currency manipulation, it simply has a fixed value.
By the by, the trade discrepency with China has not hurt american manufacturing. They have had a fixed currency since 94. Most of the goods we import from china are goods we could not produce as cheaply here regardless, and have classically come from "lower wage" countries... so them unfixing thier currency would simply cause inflation here... way to go, Barak/Bush! Brilliant!
I just think it's bizarre that Barak Obama has many of the same misconceptions as the american people.
Like...
-The government can force detroit to make cars people want to buy
-the government can force insurance companies to implement policies that would put them out of business.
(I'm not talking things like secured premiums... That makes sense. I'm talking about things like forcing companies to take on high risk clients or clients with pre-existing conditions, and not charging them retarded amounts of money. If thats the case, everyone would wait untill they got sick to get insurance. Brilliant.)
-the government can fix our schools by throwing more money at the problem at the federal level.
(McCain was right on the money here, saying that if we already have the highest funded schools in the world, maybe more money isn't the answer.)
-Higher taxes put more money in the economy.
-You can tax businesses with impunity, because they can afford it.
-You can tax the rich as much as you want, because they can afford it.
And did anyone else notice how Obama said that he wanted to expand domestic drilling? He voted against it in the senate, and I was under the impression that he vehemently opposed it.
__________________
In hiding from teh interwebz gestapo.
And did anyone else notice how Obama said that he wanted to expand domestic drilling? He voted against it in the senate, and I was under the impression that he vehemently opposed it.
He is against it, and always has been - he is, after all, the most liberal Senator in Congress.
Moral Relativists find it perfectly acceptable to lie about anything to gain their goal.
I just think it's bizarre that Barak Obama has many of the same misconceptions as the american people.
Like...
-The government can force detroit to make cars people want to buy
-the government can force insurance companies to implement policies that would put them out of business.
(I'm not talking things like secured premiums... That makes sense. I'm talking about things like forcing companies to take on high risk clients or clients with pre-existing conditions, and not charging them retarded amounts of money. If thats the case, everyone would wait untill they got sick to get insurance. Brilliant.)
-the government can fix our schools by throwing more money at the problem at the federal level.
(McCain was right on the money here, saying that if we already have the highest funded schools in the world, maybe more money isn't the answer.)
-Higher taxes put more money in the economy.
-You can tax businesses with impunity, because they can afford it.
-You can tax the rich as much as you want, because they can afford it.
McCain would have made a lot more headway in his campaign using your talking points brick...all the conspiracy and guilt-by-association crap is only playing to the base. The Indies want to hear more about the things you posted. He tried to make a few points like this in last nights debate but does a poor job explaining them succinctly. I think that is where all the grimmace's are coming from, he know's all the above, just can't spit it out for some reason.
Colombia's police chief said Monday that documents recovered from a slain rebel leader's computer reveal financial ties between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Colombia's largest guerrilla group, including a recent message that mentions US$300 million in Venezuelan support for the rebels.
The official, Gen. Oscar Naranjo, didn't say if there was any indication in the Feb. 14 message that Venezuela actually delivered this money to the rebels.
Another document found in the laptop belonging to slain rebel leader Raul Reyes suggests financial ties between Chavez and the rebels dating back to 1992, Naranjo said. At the time, Chavez was jailed in Venezuela for leading a coup attempt, and was plotting the comeback that eventually led to his election as president in 1998.
"A note recovered from Raul Reyes speaks of how grateful Chavez was for the 100 million pesos (about US$150,000 at the time) that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, delivered to Chavez when he was in prison," said Naranjo told a news conference.
In a perfect world the UN would move in and verify the quality of these allegations, and begin an investigation. You can stop laughing now.
Is anyone actually surprised Chavez supports terrorism? The only people who would even claim disbelief are those who have put political ideology ahead of logic regarding Chavez. It is sad there are so many of those folks.
I don't believe anything will come of this, but I am starting to the think the silence from Washington means there are a lot of people who do hope something happens. Columbia has both its eastern and southwestern border to defend with troops massing on both, and there could be as many as 10,000 US troops in Columbia right now as "trainers" for the Columbian military. If Venezuela conducted an air strike, one can imagine there are many who would absolutely love to send in the F-22As to clear the air space, and blow all those shiny new Russian fighters Chavez bought the last few years to hell. It would be hard for Chavez to stay in power once his military is humiliated for one of his political statements, which is why I expect nothing will happen.
Do you have a single bit of trouble believing this, Kut? His persona screams this.
Except for the "Chavez supports terrorism" comment, which is flat-out false. But hey its the "magic" word to prove someone is a bad guy...
...unless insurrections are considered "terrorism"
That one is actually fairly well documented. Chavez is a nasty guy for other reasons, but he definitly is involved in the guerilla/terrorist style combat in colombia, the same combat which Obama uses as his excuse to not have free trade with Colombia. (Remember, the rebels ideology aligns more closely with Chavez than the Colombian government.)
It's just kind of bizzarre that Obama would punish a country for the acts of people in the country, and sit down with a leader who basically does the same thing. It's mostly about partisan politics, I know, but that doesn't justify it not making sense.
__________________
In hiding from teh interwebz gestapo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by splby
BrickyardZ shows no mercy. just fyi...
Last edited by 03BrickyardZ; 10-16-2008 at 06:33 AM.
Chavez is as crazy as they come, he's a kook and it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, but c'mon Columbia's making these claims as well as a Venezuelan defector. Though ones ears may "perk up," but one has to recognize the obvious bias from these sources. There's no solid link, so that makes it an allegation, not fact...
__________________ Gun Totin' Liberals: Left of Center But Always on Target
That one is actually fairly well documented. Chavez is a nasty guy for other reasons, but he definitly is involved in the guerilla/terrorist style combat in colombia, the same combat which Obama uses as his excuse to not have free trade with Colombia. (Remember, the rebels ideology aligns more closely with Chavez than the Colombian government.)
It's just kind of bizzarre that Obama would punish a country for the acts of people in the country, and sit down with a leader who basically does the same thing. It's mostly about partisan politics, I know, but that doesn't justify it not making sense.
A guerilla insurrection cannot be labeled as terrorism... and I agree, he has a "well-documented" history of supporting guerilla groups.
__________________ Gun Totin' Liberals: Left of Center But Always on Target
