moonbattery logo

Mar 18 2012

Open Thread


Compliments of Zappatrust.

115 Responses to “Open Thread”

  1. SR says:

    #Occupy Blames The American Dream & Police For Violence in THEIR Camps

  2. Bob Roberts says:

    Shortly after Obama was elected, even before he took office (it actually may have been before he was elected, I can’t actually remember), I basically made the case that he picked Biden to insulate himself against being impeached – after all, as bad as he might turn out to be, Joe Biden as President had to be worse, right?


    I’ve completely changed my mind – did so after less than a year of Obama.

    As bad as Joe Biden running the White House might seem or actually turn out to be, it would be an improvement from the clown we’ve got doing it now.

  3. Scott says:

    UN and Planned Parenthood encouraging spread of HIV

    “Sometimes people choose not to have safer sex. If this is something you and your partner agree to, then it is your choice.”

    “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status,” they learn, with a list of reasons that includes the possibility that a relationship may end. “You have the right,” they are advised, “to decide if, when, and how to disclose their HIV status.”

  4. Ummah Gummah says:

    The make-believe tyranny of photo ID

    For Attorney General Eric Holder, life must present a hellish vista of pervasive racist practices.
    Wherever he goes, people are required to show identification. When cashing a check. When signing up for a library card. When boarding a plane. When entering certain office buildings. When checking into hotels. When (in the case of the youthful-looking) buying a beer or cigarettes, or entering a bar.

    The tyranny of the photo ID is so all-encompassing that people can’t enter Holder’s own Justice Department without showing one.

    Read more:

    And they took the “case” against Photo ID for voting to the UN. Betcha can’t enter there either sans photo ID.


  5. Ummah Gummah says:



    Look what I found at


    No wonder these guys can’t balance a budget.
    The agit-prop “artist” conveniently forgot 8%.


    Libs do everything by feeeeeeeeleeeeeng.


  6. Ummah Gummah says:


    We all know that LIEberals love the moslem brotherhood and their military wing al qaeda.

    Thus it comes as no surprise that.. media critique sounds like it ‘was written by Media Matters’

    Read more:

    Who knows.. I wouldn’t be surprised.

    At the very least AQ and MB types are busy surfing 5th Columnist LIEberal sites in their quest for Slow Jihad.


  7. Unger says:

    An editorial in Scientific American for a one worked government to combat people opposed to the idea of climate change.

  8. FrankW says:

    Might just be me but I believe this is another example of the religion of peace.
    Quick question though, how come the feminazi’s and their supporters are not defending this girl? Bammy found time to call some chick that was insulted, he should have time for one that was assaulted.

  9. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    That picture is even more dismal in the liberal’s mind considering that they reject the notion of wealth CREATION
    If we were to create more wealth now, that scale would have to be traded in for a LARGER ONE

  10. Momster says:

    I could accept Maxwell Smart–at least I am sure that he loves our country and would try to protect it.

  11. What the Mailman Knows about Ayers and Obama

    The goal of the left is to transform America into a Communist nation. This plan has been nurtured for ages, Obama is their best success yet, after the failure Clinton administration.

  12. Reminder:

    “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day” Jacques-Yves Cousteau, oceanographer and humanist, The UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991, page 13

  13. CNN, CNN breaking news, and Anderson Cooper have been caught red handed creating staged CNN war room scenarios:

  14. StanInTexas says:

    Greetings, Moonbats! Took a little time off, but it’s good to be back.

    Lao, before you get all hot and bothered about my return; please read the following, in reference to your epic meltdown in the Open Thread below…

    So Cal Tax Revolt Coalition (SCTRC) is the original home and organizers of San Diego tea party events and activism, including the first local tea party on February 27th, 2009, annual Tax Day Tea Parties, and over 40 rallies, protests, petition drives, film screenings, and educational seminars.
    We are not affiliated with, nor have we worked with the newer organization titled “San Diego Tea Party.” We are not familiar with self-proclaimed “spokesperson” for that organization, Michael John Kobulnicky of Lemon Grove. He has never been an organizer, speaker, or volunteer for our company or events. We do not know what his actual involvement is with the other tea party organization. We are not familiar with the Mission Valley Tea Party that Kobulnicky reported to have founded.

    As in your past attempt to smear the Tea Party with some random bit of news, this one also turns out to be a total media fabrication.

    I know you are incapable of apologizing for your lies on this board. It is sufficient that the rest of us know that you have no credibility.

    Have a nice day!

  15. TED says:


    10. Gold plated condoms

    9. Paying for Bill Clinton’s vasectomy.

    8. Needed to replace her convertible’s shock absorbers.

    7. John Edwards was in town…I’m just sayin.

    6. Smoked $50 Cuban cigars after sex.

    5. EPA issued a new tax on “toxic fluids cleanup”

    4. She had a habit of tipping the abortion doctor.

    3. Hired a P/R firm to promote her body as a “womb with a view”.

    2. Had to pay off Michelle Obama to make sure that oral sex didn’t fall under the “food police”.

    1. It’s that dang Obamacare. He said the rates wouldn’t go up but as usual the prez is a lying SOB.

  16. StanInTexas says:

    TED, the REAL #1 reason Sandra Fluke’s birth control is so expensive…

    She has to go all the way to Spain and Pompeii to buy and use it…

  17. AC says:

    Free speech is now a felony – Judge Andrew Napolitano explains

  18. AC says:

    More than 30 million Chinese still live in caves

    So much for that “to each according to his need” part.

  19. StanInTexas says:

    Of the two people pictured above, I would prefer Don Adams, the actor who played Maxwell Smart. He was a United State Marine who served on Guadalcanal and later as a Drill Instructor. He unquestionably LOVED this nation, unlike the pathetic chickenhawk pictured to the LEFT of him!

  20. Frolicking with Muslims says:

    A new PPP poll, a dimocrat organization has been asking republican primary voters, Do you believe in evolution, or not?

    (43% do not, 41% do and 16% apparently did not understand the question.) (-click on full results)

    The question about evolution of course, has nothing to do with primary choices, rather it’s just a cheap way of making conservatives look stupid.

    The atavistic “disbelief” in the fact of evolution is a nail-studded 2-by-4 with which liberals can slap conservatives.

    But evolution is not like the global warming scam where there is trumped up science cynically used to manipulate global economies.

    Evolution is a fact and forms the foundation for molecular biology and our understanding of all natural phenomena.

    And until conservatives do some reading and educate themselves, liberals will completely control this conversation thereby relegating conservatives to a flat earth.

    The only reason BO has not disparaged conservatives on this is probably bc muslims are rabid anti-evolutionists.

    Evolution is a cudgel to beat conservatives with now and as muslims become more powerful in the U.S., conservatives will unwittingly become allied with them in their common ignoble cause.

  21. Fiberal says:

    There may of course, be no conversation of any kind now that BO has in place an executive order to declare martial law.

  22. AC says:

    TSA blueshirts aggressively grope wheelchair-bound three year old on his way to Disney; Gropenfuhrer John Pistole deflects, promises less aggressive treatment for those who pay $100

  23. StanInTexas says:

    Frolicking with Muslims,

    The question itself tells you all you need to know about the intent of asking it…

    “Do you BELIEVE in evolution?” If evolution was scientific fact, as you state, then belief would never play into it. No one asks if you BELIEVE in gravity or math.

    Evolution is a THEORY.

  24. Bob Roberts says:

    Scott says: March 19, 2012 at 12:43 am
    [quoting from his source]:

    “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status,” they learn, with a list of reasons that includes the possibility that a relationship may end. “You have the right,” they are advised, “to decide if, when, and how to disclose their HIV status.”


    Actually that’s not the case. I know at the state level (Thirty-four states have prosecuted HIV positive individuals for not disclosing HIV status and exposing another person to HIV), and apparently at the federal level (I’m having trouble finding specific statutes), here in the U.S. at least, and in some other countries, it is a crime (criminal transmission of HIV, murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault) not to disclose your HIV status if it is positive and you know it.

    However, wouldn’t you know it, in 2010 under the Obama administration, the White House strategy of discouraging the disclosure of HIV status and the suppression of prosecutions related to this was announced. Their logic? Here’s a quote: “…the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [criminalizing HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment.”

    Only problem is that, as with everything coming out of the White House since B. Hussein was elected, THIS IS A LIE. Nobody is “criminalizing HIV infection”. What is criminal is to knowingly engage in unsafe sex when you know YOU are ALREADY infected, thus risking the life of your sex partner.

    Yet another blatant example of obvious dishonesty on the part of this moonbat administration.

  25. Bob Roberts says:


    Politico reveals that Democrats, knowing they can’t run on their record, will instead stoke an imaginary war between the sexes, among other things. The point is to distract voters with a continuous smear campaign based on falsehoods that the Democrats count on the press not to point out.

    Another solar plant stalled by the feds – see why.

    You have to wonder where President Obama got the research for his recent speech including the disparagement of Rutheford B. Hayes.

    Future generations will laugh at us for taking him seriously.


    Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt

    Please closely read Sunday’s front-page article on the breakdown of negotiations between Obama and Boehner/Cantor before the debt ceiling votes. It reveals three stunning [facts]:

    1. Obama intentionally lied to the nation at his prime time address when he said the Republicans insisted on a “cuts only approach” when he knew full well Boehner and Cantor had already accepted over $800B in tax increases.

    2. Obama is a TERRIBLE negotiator. He combines great arrogance with great timidity and ignorance. A truly awful combination in an executive.

    3. Reid and Pelosi are merely “useful idiots” for Obama and they had no influence in one of the most critical domestic issues to come up during the Big O’s presidency.

    To see this actually reported by the Post is stunning.

  26. Bob Roberts says:

    Ignore that first link above – editing error.

  27. Bob Roberts says:

    Frolicking with Muslims says: March 19, 2012 at 7:42 am
    A new PPP poll, a dimocrat organization has been asking republican primary voters, Do you believe in evolution, or not?

    (43% do not, 41% do and 16% apparently did not understand the question.)


    Seriously? I doubt the results of that poll are accurate, at least as presented. I’d like to see the questions and how they were answered. I smell a rat.

    Certainly there are those, from all parties, who refuse to believe we’re related to or descended from apes and monkeys but, as misstated in your post (evolution is not a “fact”, it’s a theory, but it’s a theory firmly supported by a large amount of evidence), there is no doubt that evolution occurs and is the most likely explanation for the life we see on Earth, at least at this point.

    However, another important point is that evolution, creationism (not the “strict” kind, but the REAL kind) and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.

  28. Jeff says:

    @ Frolicking with Muslims.
    I have to disagree with you. Evolution is a theory, an article of “faith”. It can not be proven scientificly; conducting an experiment, publishing the results, and having others to conduct the same experiment to verify the results. Too many people have a their own reasons to make the “facts” fit the theory.
    There is no way to prove that certain things actually happened so many millions/billions of years ago. One can look at the fossil record and see what they want to see. So just for grins and giggles, Tell how a 4 chamber heart evoloved into existance?

  29. Bob Roberts says:

    LOL! HE’s a buffoon even among his own ilk!

    Obama spewing carbon dioxide to attempt to show an effort to bring down gas prices. All his claims about his efforts to date have been blatant lies. Not sure how he thinks this will help him.

    NOTE: They give the amount of fuel Air Force 1 will burn and they mention: The president’s support aircraft, including the C-17 cargo jets that carry his armored limousines and additional vehicles to cities before his arrival, will each burn a comparable amount of additional jet-fuel. Multiple support aircraft precede and follow him wherever he goes.

  30. J says:

    Michael Moore Heckled at Occupy Rally{1D337FDF-889F-4AE3-8D76-9878F38BB1CD}&title=Michael-Moore-Heckled-Occupy

  31. whosebone says:

    beck and oreilly refuse to report a group of professional law enforcement personnel have investigated obamas birth certificate and selective service records and proved both are fraudulent documents……its almost as if they are trying to protect obama…..weird huh?

  32. Bill T says:

    Tax payer funded Spring Break!
    Obama’s daughter spends springbreak in Mexico

  33. Dr. 9 says:

    The answer is not impeachment. The real answer is something else, something to do with a tall tree and a strong rope.

  34. SR says:

    LOL!! Obama blamed troubles on Fox News, book says

  35. Frolicking with Muslims says:


    What you believe has no bearing on what is factual.

    Belief is a subjective function dependent on time, culture, education and a host of other factors.

    You may believe in UFOs, ghosts and telepathy, but your criteria for those beliefs are purely subjective.

    Alternatively, you may not believe in “worm holes” in time and space, but you would probably need to qualify your belief in order to substantiate such a bias.


    (This “belief” criteria, BTW is simply semantics erroneously injected into a field science.)

  36. StanInTexas says:

    Frolicking with Muslims,

    Thank you for making my point for me.

    It is the PRO-evolution people that keep demanind that we all BELIEVE in evolution. Yet when we ask why we have to beleive in science, we are told that evolution is factual and settled and that we are stupid if we do no BELIEVE in it.

    Evolution is a theory, which is unproven.

  37. FrankW says:

    Frolicking with Muslims,
    where is the proof?
    I can prove gravity, I throw a ball in the air, it returns. I can prove Newton’s third law, I can even prove Boyle’s law.
    Until unassailable proof exists all creation theories are just theories.

  38. Frolicking with Muslims says:

    Jeff says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Evolution is a theory, an article of “faith”. It can not be proven scientificly;

    Actually, I’m not sure why so many people do not understand what a theory is. I’m also unclear as to why that misunderstanding should then be used as a basis to reject a theory. Moreover, I do not understand why that set of misunderstandings is only applied to evolution.

    A theory first and foremost is (certainly in science) not an “article of faith” in the way you probably mean it.

    ….conducting an experiment, publishing the results, and having others to conduct the same experiment to verify the results.

    Yet you would probably accept the conclusions of one observatory that there is a planetary system orbiting Alpha Centauri.

    And if a talking pig walked into the room and had a conversation with the dinner guests, you would probably not require another talking pig to insure that at least some pigs could talk.

    There is no way to prove that certain things actually happened so many millions/billions of years ago.
    Correct. But science never “proves” anything, science only provides the means to collect data that allows for predictions to be made accurately.

    While we cannot “prove” that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred, the genes shared in the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals suggest that they did.

    One can look at the fossil record and see what they want to see.


    So just for grins and giggles, Tell how a 4 chamber heart evoloved into existance?

    Changes in DNA.

  39. StanInTexas says:

    Frolicking with Muslims, we understand what a Theory is. It is NOT proven science. It is not a FACT.

  40. Frolicking with Muslims says:

    Bob Roberts says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:36 am

    …there is no doubt that evolution occurs and is the most likely explanation for the life we see on Earth, at least at this point.


    But the point of my post is that conservatives while picking and choosing the science that they will believe or will not believe do so without any basis whatsoever when it comes to evolution.

    This opens up conservatives to a world of credibility hurt, is fundamentally wrong-headed, and parallels the worst part of liberalism when trying to foist on children one kind of creation “science” or another, for real biology.

  41. Frolicking with Muslims says:


    You don’t sound like it.

  42. StanInTexas says:

    Frolicking with Muslims, a theory is not settled science. That means your statement about it being a FACT is not true.

  43. Frolicking with Muslims says:


    Non”believers” have no falsifiable criteria against which evolution can be tested to their satisfaction.

    Read what I said about “proof”.

  44. Frolicking with Muslims says:


    That organisms evolve is a fact.

  45. J says:

    SEIU Admits Using Occupy Movement To “Redistribute Wealth And Power”…

  46. StanInTexas says:

    Frolicking with Muslims, OK now prove that new species evolved from other species.

  47. J says:

    Video: Welfare Queen Admits, “I’m Here Tryin’ To Get Some Obama Bucks!” – Support Him Because He “Gives Me Stuff”…

  48. Frolicking with Muslims says:


    What part of speciation would you accept as evidence that new species have evolved?

  49. StanInTexas says:

    Frolicking with Muslims, Darwin tried AND FAILED to explain the origin of species. Evolution has tried and failed to answer that same question.

    How about using the scientific method to prove your case.

  50. J says:


  51. J says:


  52. J says:


  53. Frolicking with Muslims says:


    Sure. What do you want me to “prove”?

    What is your acceptable level of evidence?

  54. StanInTexas says:

    Frolicking with Muslims,

    Are you serious? You claim evolution is a fact and you want ME to tell you what to prove?

    Thank you for admitting that you cannot prove evolution, that it is just a theory (NOT fact), and that you BELIEVE in evolution.

  55. Fiberal says:

    I’m asking you what you are asking for.

    Evolution is a big area. Pin something down or say good night.

  56. FrankW says:
    And I thought atheists just did not believe in God, supposedly according to them they are not anti-religion, just do not want to be bombarded by it.
    I get that holy water is created by some method of blessing, how do you create un-holy water, bathe michael moore in Hollywood sewer run-off?

  57. StanInTexas says:

    Mixed up your names there Fiberal.

    I asked for proof that new species “evolved” from other species. I even asked that you use the Scientific Method to prove your case.

    Your turn.

  58. Fiberal says:

    Nope. A courtesy. Just in case you haven’t been following my “Frolicking” joke.


    First of all speciation can occur by splitting gene pools.

    So far so good?

  59. StanInTexas says:

    Explain further, WITH EXAMPLES and proof!

  60. Fiberal says:


    When individuals representing a single gene pool are separated by geography, eg., they tend to adapt to their specific and relative locations. Such adaptation may be due to different environments.

    The adaptation of species to different environments can result in different characteristics, such as changes is shape, size, physiology, coat color, etc.

    These changes may take place over many generations and during that time, the different relative environments may change.

    These factors produce divergence across space and time.

    Are you still there?

  61. StanInTexas says:

    I’m still here, Fib.

    I hear “can” and “may” and other quisling explainations. What I have not seen is PROOF or FACTS.

    And I did not ask you about adaptive changes, I asked you to prove a new species. Finches that grow longer beaks in dryer months have adapted, but they are still finches.

    I hope you can do better than “can” and “may”!

  62. Fiberal says:


    The Rift Valley Lakes of east Africa support hundreds of species of what are called Cichlid fish.

    “Species” was defined by the inability of the fish to breed viable offspring.

    Further, each species is specialized for a distinct food source. This occurs bc they each occupy different ecological niches presumably as a result of competition in the lake.

    Some eat algae, some are bottom feeders, insect feeders, etc.

    Their genetics indicate that the cichlid species are more related to each other than fish from other lakes, so they must have shared a common ancestor at some point.

    Thirty-three species of cichilds were screened for a specific DNA sequence (called a retrotransposon) which was highly conserved across each species.

    In other words, an identical retrotransposon (transposons are parts of DNA used to spontaneously move sequences of DNA around a chromosome -all living organisms have them) were found in all the different species of fish. This indicated a common ancestor, geographic separation and the evolution or divergence of the species over time.

    Further research developed a phylogenetic tree using common DNA sequences associated with the specific transposon which traced to the first common ancestor.

    The tree indicated that cichlid speciation took about 14,000 years.

    Lead researcher was a guy named N. Okada.

  63. Fiberal says:

    Now as for a reproducible lab experiment, two species of fruit flies can be made by starting with a common fly group genome, and feeding one group maltose (adapted) or another group starch (adapted) for a year.

    At the end of the adaptation period, the number of matings between maltose-maltose flies and starch-starch files are high and what would be expected.

    The number of matings between maltose-starch flies are low with very low numbers of viable eggs.

    This experiment is an example of speciation in process. A kind of “dose-concentration” model.

    Originating researcher is D. Dodd.

  64. StanInTexas says:

    OK, so let me see if I understand this…

    A fish in Africa has some of the same DNA markers as some other fish. And these different fish have differnt ADAPTIVE characteristics.

    So they “must” share a common ancestor. Or the DNA “indicates” a common ancestor.

    And yet they are all still fish.

    Fib, you just went a long way and only explained adaptive changes. And it is all speculation at best.

    At least you avoided my trap with trying to prove evolution by the Scientific Method, which you obviously know cannot be done!

  65. Fiberal says:

    I should point out that the feeding of the maltose or starch adapted flies represents continual breeding of many generations over the year.

    Fruit fly breeding cycle is ~2 weeks.

    We share about 45% of our genes with fruit flies.

  66. Fiberal says:

    Okay. So now you just moved the goalposts.

    We started off here:

    StanInTexas says:
    March 19, 2012 at 1:57 pm
    “…I asked you to prove a new species.”

    For which I presented two examples of speciation.

    You are now asking for an example of a transition between species—correct?

    And you moved the goal posts. Correct?

  67. StanInTexas says:

    You didn’t prove anything about a new species. You talked about fish that became fish and flys that became flys.

    Maybe fish that became amphibians, or reptiles that became birds?

    Darwin’s theory was on the origin of SPECIES. So get me from amoeba to man, Fiberal. And use PROOF from the Scientific Method.

  68. Fiberal says:

    And BTW they are in fact still fish. But they are different species of fish.

    So what does it mean when they can be demonstrated to have evolved from a common ancestor?

    It means that evolution is a process by which new species come about.

    But now you what you want is a longer timeline that takes prohibits observation of living species.

    Then under those conditions, you want to see a transition between two species.


  69. Fiberal says:

    So get me from amoeba to man

    Can’t do that. Man did not evolve from amoeba.

    However, the receptors (CD8+) that amoeba use to detect food sources share a DNA sequence homology with human leukocytes – one of our immune cell scavengers.

    Now that’s pretty interesting, huh?

  70. StanInTexas says:

    Fiberal, your examples only work if you start with a fish or start with a fly. I understand adaptive changes. Gold’s Gym and 24-Hour Fitness would not exist if adaptive change was not possible.

    I want you to prove to me where the fish and the fly came from ORIGINALLY! The ORIGIN of the species, remember?

  71. Fiberal says:

    on the phone -get back to you

  72. StanInTexas says:

    “Now that’s pretty interesting, huh?”

    Earlies, you claimed that man shares 45% of our genes with fruit flies. By that statement alone, did we evolve from fruit flys?

    Hey, we’re all carbon-based so that PROVES it, right?

    {/sarcasm off}

  73. J says:

    Dem Congressional Candidate Arrested For Aggravated Assault Is Bipolar & Suffers From Narcissistic Disorder

  74. J says:

    Dem Congressional Candidate Arrested on Aggravated Assault Charges – Threatened to Shoot Up Store

  75. lao says:

    Waaaaaaaa!!! J and Gateway Pundit are claiming that ALL Democrats are Bipolar, suffer from Narcissistic Disorder AND they are all guilty of Aggravated Assault!


  76. lao says:

    Waaaaaaaa!!! That guy claiming to be a Democratic Congressional Candidate is not a REAL Democrat!!!!!


  77. JT says:

    Waaaaaaaa!! Lao’s a doche-bag!!!!! LOL


  78. Fiberal says:

    “I want you to prove to me where the fish and the fly came from ORIGINALLY! The ORIGIN of the species, remember?”

    Well, that’s not what you started with and that was not what Darwin was addressing in “On
    The Origin of Species
    by Means of Natural Selection,…”

    But I will address this.

    Are you still there?

  79. Fiberal says:

    BTW what Darwin studied was the evolutionary relationships between species and how natural selection worked toward speciation – a topic I covered above.

    A lot of ground has been covered since the discovery of the gene and DNA.

    In fact, your real argument should be with Gregor Mendel, James Watson and Francis Crick.

  80. Bob Roberts says:

    Just so I’m clear, to J and everyone else posting, KEEP IT UP, the more the better. If someone thinks you’re posting too much or things that aren’t interesting, they can just skip over them.

    I’m surprised, though, nobody is complaining – we had a few whiners here and lao is real big on whining about every little thing, including multiple posts.

    StanInTexas says: March 19, 2012 at 6:20 am
    I already posted that exact link and quote and lao (apparently) simply either ignored or completely failed to comprehend it.

    In any case, I think we can let that story go. I’m expecting a few things will come out shortly, unless they just let the whole situation die since the things that I’m expecting to come out are the type the biased media normally won’t print – they really have a problem with admitting they got it wrong.

    lao says: March 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm
    Waaaaaaaa!!! J and Gateway Pundit are claiming that ALL Democrats are Bipolar, suffer from Narcissistic Disorder AND they are all guilty of Aggravated Assault!

    lao says: March 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm
    Waaaaaaaa!!! That guy claiming to be a Democratic Congressional Candidate is not a REAL Democrat!!!!!

    Or maybe we can’t let the story go.

    Listen lao, nobody said the guy wasn’t a conservative. I don’t know if he was a registered Republican or, more likely, a Libertarian or some such, maybe Constitution Party? Haven’t asked that question yet. We’ve also freely admitted he WAS affiliated with one of the local “Tea Party” affiliated groups although, as even you admitted, then made a very public point of trying to deny, he hasn’t been affiliated with them for some time for reasons which are not being fully explained in the media – and it’s not my place to break the news to you, though it’s difficult not to do so! At the same time, I’m enjoying how big a fool you’re making of yourself. Still haven’t figured out about that “other” conservative group you scooped us all by finding out he was the Founder, President, CEO and Chairman of the Board? Still don’t know why “THEY” haven’t disavowed him yet? Brain working overtime to figure that out?

    So yeah, I see where you’re going with your latest two nonsense posts (2:49 & 2:50) WHEN ONE (or better, NONE) would do… but you’re really only reflecting back on your own nonsense with those two posts.

  81. Bob Roberts says:

    StanInTexas says: March 19, 2012 at 2:39 pm
    From your posts I am led to believe you don’t believe in evolution.

    Perhaps you’re a more “strict creationist” who believes that the plant and animal kingdoms were essentially created, more or less “as we see them today”?

    Am I right about that?

    You’re certainly not alone, though your arguments really could use some review as they are, and don’t take this too hard, utter nonsense.

    Nobody’s saying humans evolved from a fruit fly, for instance, but you seem to be suggesting that or challenging someone to prove it.

    There are plenty of reasons sensible people continue to refer to evolution as a theory. It has significant holes and, as you pointed out, we simply don’t have the evidence that can trace the complete evolution of ANY current species – for obvious and simple reasons which, if you want to discuss them, I’d be glad to share.

    However, solid science exists which proves the basic underpinnings of evolution theories. Where the atheists and such are wrong is that this same evidence supports, does not in any way refute, both creationism and intelligent design.


    I challenge anyone to provide ANY PROOF that an “intelligent designer” didn’t “create” the universe and allow it to “evolve” into what we see today.

    Just as I may not be able to prove that beyond any doubt, they cannot DISprove it beyond any doubt.

    So you see, it comes down to faith and what each person chooses to believe.

    Now I’ve been called all sorts of names for pointing this out, but it’s one of many arguments, not the best, but one worth pondering:

    Suppose there is no God. What are the consequences of believing there is a God in that case? One hopes you would lead a better life, be better to yourself and those you meet in life and, when you die, expecting to go to God in the afterlife, instead you would just cease to exist.

    So, basically, you still win because you were a better person, had a better life and those you came into contact were also better off because of your belief.

    Now let’s look at the other case. Suppose you don’t believe in God and maybe you lead a good life still but, based on what I’ve seen generally of those who don’t believe in some positive God at least, chances are you won’t lead that good a life, won’t be that good to yourself and won’t be good as you might otherwise have been to others you meet along the way.

    Then you die and find out the hard way you were wrong. There is a God, you chose wrong and now, for eternity, you will pay for your mistake perhaps?

    So I ask you – using a common liberal argument, what would the prudent person do given those two basic scenarios? Which would they argue would be the safe, sensible, ONLY choice to make?

    Funny how their logic breaks down when it comes to this question.

  82. Bob Roberts says:

    While lao’s last two posts (in case he made another while I’m typing this I’m talking about those @ 2:49 & 2:50) are utter nonsense, they do tend to go towards showing how much lao has in common with Clinkingbeard.

    You know – bipolar disorder, manic episodes, narcissism, megalomaniac… the list is quite long!

  83. Bob Roberts says:

    Ummah Gummah says: March 19, 2012 at 1:49 am

    Did you catch that?

  84. Fiberal says:

    Nobody’s saying humans evolved from a fruit fly, for instance, but you seem to be suggesting that or challenging someone to prove it.


    I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. What he is saying is “how did a fish get here?”; “how did a fly get here?”

    But what he is doing is roping me in by moving the goal posts of “proof” for evolution by orders of magnitude.

    He started with speciation. He now wants to be shown how a fly or a fish (or man) just suddenly appeared from another species entirely.

    Of course that’s nowhere even close to how species evolved, but its a fair question.

    The problem is, is that he’s not really interested in the answer. Of course, he dismisses the details of speciation, a primary mechanism for evolution, without discussion.

    Now what he’s doing is setting up conditions for which “proof” starts to trend towards chemistry and the fossil record and ultimately, speculation.

    Since science cannot get to demonstrating in a lab (using empirical criteria) a video of a species deriving directly from another species, answers about original species require inference from the fossil record, the heirarchical organization of characteristics, cladistic models, common genetic elements and how genomes that fit all the available evidence.

    Since this is difficult bc it gets into actual science, then it is all dismissed as speculation or guesswork.

    That is, “theory”.

    Then victory can be declared.

    (I think he’s gone anyway).

  85. Fiberal says:

    And BTW that’s how they always end this discussion.

    Very sporting.

  86. J says:

    Bush Was Blamed For Gas Prices By The Left, But Obama Gets A Pass, Hypocrisy? Yes!

  87. Bob Roberts says:

    Why do companies invest overseas, manufacture overseas, etc.

    Unions and TAXES!

  88. son of a preacher man says:

    Ever hear the expression when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?

  89. Bob Roberts says:

    Fiberal says: March 19, 2012 at 3:55 pm
    I disagree, it is NOT a fair question.

    It is, in fact, a straw man.

    New species come about very slowly and, due to the tectonic nature of the Earth’s surface, along with the difficulty of preserving fossils generally, most of the steps are erased or impossible to find.

    Now it has been CONCLUSIVELY demonstrated that mutations do occur and even accumulate. It’s also been CONCLUSIVELY demonstrated that you can arrive at a reasonable estimate of when two currently living species diverged. This another part of how, much to the chagrin of those on the far/religious right, we know we are closely related to some other simians.

    We also know that many things one might not even consider helped us to evolve – for instance, who would have thought those who developed a taste for meat would do better than those who remained strict vegans. And yet it happened.

    But the most important thing I can share to those discussing the merits of evolution vs. intelligent design vs. creationism is that if we all just stop arguing and stop thinking it becomes perfectly obvious that evolution could be the process of intelligent design chosen by a creator. There is no reason one theory of our origin has to exclude the others – all three can work together to explain how we got here.

    The real question is why.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy