The "death" of the Republican Party will "save" America.

[daveman]

The "death" of the Republican Party That means their terrible and destructive policies will have to end.

So your message is just kill us all.

Like the Bolsheviks did?

Dead Czar family

Death to grownups, hm? That leaves who to be the adults?

The left's go-to solutions:

1. Tax it.

2. Regulate it.

3. Kill it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

BTW, the Hebrew term re’em is translated unicorn . . . in the King James Version by a 15th-Century scholar. A better translation is ox or wild ox. There's absolutely nothing in the context of the original Hebrew that would suggest, let alone require, that the Hebrews actually believed in unicorns, especially since unicorns are the stuff of pagan mythology. LOL! We know this today for certain from archeological discoveries, coupled with the fact that in most instances the original context clearly alludes to a beast of burden. The Hebrew term tannin is variously rendered dragon, whale, serpent, sea-monster and the like in translations depending on the context. In other words, the Hebrew term merely refers to any number of large land or sea creatures that did actually exist. From drawings linked to some of the scriptural passages discovered in archeological digs we know that in some instances the term was used to denote elephants or whales. We just don't know in every instance precisely what species the term referred to, and in other instances the term doesn't refer to any actual earthly creature at all, but an idea. Metaphor.

Ye of little knowledge: open mouth, insert foot. What other unlearned foolishness are you walking around with in your head about the Bible? Shut up. You're not qualified.

Here's the problem with that theory. I call it the "Guys who did the King James Version didn't know what the word meant, so they threw one in."

I think that the problem is, "Wild Ox" is a concept that a 16th century guy probably would have known, as would be "Whale". Not only that, but there was also the mention of Satyrs, but Biblical apologists will admit that they were really talking about Wild Goats.

The one you can't get around is Giants. The bible claims that there were giants walking around. No mistake on that one.

So again, if we can't trust that part of the translation, how can we trust any of it?

This is the only portion of your last post worth responding to for the sake of biblical accuracy, the rest of your stuff being incoherent obscenities drooling down your chin and soiling your blouse, as the profound ramifications of just a few of my simple statements fly right over your head.

Oh, wait. That bit of nonsense about science must be challenged as well. I'll get to that momentarily.

First of all, there's nothing to get around. You still don't comprehend what is in fact a very simple matter. Any given text and any given translation of it are not the same thing. Doh! The degree of reliability of any given biblical translation is contingent upon, for starters, the quality of the attending historical, cultural, hermeneutical, anthropological and archeological knowledge on hand.

For example, from archeological discoveries we now know that the Bible does not give us any certain age of mankind or of the Earth at all, as previously thought from prescientific calculations based on biblical genealogies that were wrongfully believed to be inter-chronological. Nor do these genealogies obtain to individual persons who lived anywhere from a few-hundred to several-hundred years. These errors of trans-hermeneutics, of course, have nothing to do with the integrity of the original text itself. The Hebrews knew that they were intra-chronological, i.e., intermittent and entail the lineages of prominent patriarchs representing hundreds of years of subsequent offspring that emerged from their loins, but we didn't know what biblical scholars had suspected since the 18th Century for sure until after these archeological discoveries confirmed their hypothesis.

(Speaking about centuries, I note in the above that I wrote "15-Century scholar". That's a typo. The King James translation was published in the early 1600s, hence 17-Century scholar. Didn't catch it 'til I read your "16-Century" thingy.)

Dude! The Hebrews were not talking about unicorns. The 17-Century scholar believed that unicorns once existed and superimposed his musings on a generic Hebrew term! The same sort of dynamic alternately applies in one form or another in the other cases as well. Doh! Original Text. Translation. Not the same thing. Today we know that certain creatures never existed beyond the legends of mythology. The prescientific translator of the Bible didn't know that. He actually believed they did. That's all we're talking about here.

Why does this have to be explained to you all over again? You're not just ignorant, but dense. Intellectual extrapolation is not your strength, is it?

(You're worse than my fundamentalist brothers and sisters who still hold to Usher's falsified genealogical calculations. They do so in innocence, as a matter of inter-generational teachings that mistrust science. But these are irrelevancies I'm quite sure God overlooks relative to their sincere devotion to what matters, the heart and soul of the Bible's moral and theological truths.)

Hence . . .

Here's the problem with that theory. I call it the "Guys who did the King James Version didn't know what the word meant, so they threw one in."

There's no theory to speak of, no real mystery of any significance whatsoever. LMAO! We know precisely what the prescientific translator was thinking and why. That historical scholarship is totally unrelated to the original text. That's another era of history altogether. *snap* Post-scientific translations render the pertinent terms correctly, and a number of publications include supplemental commentary, which in this case would tell the modern reader all about the generic nature of the original Hebrew term and the likeliest creature denoted in actuality depending on the setting.

Idiot! What you need to call this non-existent theory is the "Imaginary-JoeB-Bird-Brain" theory and leave the rest us out of it, given that we're thinking no such stupid thing.

There's nothing sacrosanct about any given translation; rather, the goal is to revise them, ever-striving to make them more perfectly reflect the meaning of the original text, more at, the actual intent and understanding of the ancients. The more we uncover about the past, the better the translations become; that is to say, the better our understanding of the original text becomes, as there's really nothing of any real importance wrong with the King James Version. It remains the most beautiful English translation and may still be read with the latest discoveries about the past in mind.

You seriously can't grasp this rather rudimentary dynamic of discovery and revision?

As for the giants of Genesis, we still don't know what the ancients are talking about with any certainty. There are a number of perfectly reasonable hypotheses that have yet to be falsified or confirmed.

So?

So again, if we can't trust that part of the translation, how can we trust any of it?

There's no "we". There's just you. Original Text. Translation. Not the same thing. Only bird brains spouting psuedoscientific and pseudo trans-hermeneutical claptrap think we rely on the translation.

LOL!

Once again, shut up! You don't know what you're talking about. You're not qualified.

 

[francoHFW]

Primitive societies were very tolerant of gays- It was only when Religious charlatans discovered a way to make money out of hate that they were persecuted. Jesus never said anything against them.

Nobody's defending Stalin. The Romanovs were schmucks to the people, blew it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It was your question that was unadulterated babble and bullshit.

Were you asking me why Judeo-Christianity teaches that homosexuality is immoral, so that you might properly understand the spiritual and theological ramifications of human sexuality according to that system of thought? You know, as a matter of academics.

No. Of course not.

No, of course I wasn't. I was asking if you had any reason to selectively get upset about THAT part of the bible when there are so many others you ignore.

Bull. You weren't asking me that question at all. You asked my why I thought homosexuality is immoral . . . insisting that I do so without appealing to God's authority as if that were possible.

And, no, of course you weren't asking a reasonable question as Mac foolishly stated.

The only sensible question along this line would have been "why [does] Judeo-Christianity teach . . . that homosexuality is immoral, so that [I, JoeB] might properly understand the spiritual and theological ramifications of human sexuality according to that system of thought?" This is true since that is the only basis on which I asserted the claim.

Thank you for confirming my assessment of your idiocy and that of Mac.

YOu aren't stoning your neighbors for working on Sunday, or calling them unclean for eating a pork and shrimp eggroll, or getting terribly upset wealthy people aren't sharing all their wealth with the poor. You've come to accept that the world is going to do these things, and gosh darn, you just aren't going to get upset about it.

But man, let gays try to live their lives, and you are breaking out the Fire and Brimstone, baby!

Liar.

I have no problem with homosexuals doing whatever they please so long as they do not violate my rights. But I already told you that, and the fact that it is only leftists who think to impose their morality on others, especially in the schools. Indeed, you acknowledge the truth of the latter charge and tried to justify it.

My holding that their behavior is immoral is no different than you holding that my behavior is immoral, you lunatic. You don't hear me accusing you of violating my rights for simply holding that opinion.

Unlike you, I'm not bent on slaughtering those who do not share my values--your heart's desire, which you unwittingly reveal should you gain the power to do so when you prattle on about the rich not sharing their wealth with the poor. Lunatic.

Homosexuality is immoral yesterday, today and tomorrow. Period. The commands to punishment folks for certain behaviors do not theologically pertain to Judaism anymore and never pertained to Christianity.

Lunatic.

 

[JoeB131]

This is the only portion of your last post worth responding to for the sake of biblical accuracy, the rest of your stuff being incoherent obscenities drooling down your chin and soiling your blouse, as the profound ramifications of just a few of my simple statements fly right over your head.

Well, I will admit your statements were simple. They were the product of a simpleton, to be honest.

First of all, there's nothing to get around. You still don't comprehend what is in fact a very simple matter. Any given text and any given translation of it are not the same thing. Doh! The degree of reliability of any given biblical translation is contingent upon, for starters, the quality of the attending historical, cultural, hermeneutical, anthropological and archeological knowledge on hand.

Well, no, actually, it's contingent on the fact that we do not have the original documents at all. So we have no idea what the original document actually said.

Here's a fun expirament. Go to Babelfish. Translate a Bible verse from English to Greek, from greek to Italian, and then Italian back to English. I'll betcha that you will NOT get back the verse you started with or anything close to it. And that's with three langunages in modern time, with no agendas on the translations. Now, yeah, the Satyrs an Giants and Unicorns were silly, because the people translating the King James version in the 17th century probably knew damned well those things didn't actually exist. But those were the words they picked.

Dude! The Hebrews were not talking about unicorns. The 17-Century scholar believed that unicorns once existed and superimposed his musings on a generic Hebrew term! The same sort of dynamic alternately applies in one form or another in the other cases as well. Doh! Original Text. Translation. Not the same thing. Today we know that certain creatures never existed beyond the legends of mythology. The prescientific translator of the Bible didn't know that. He actually believed they did. That's all we're talking about here.

But we don't know that. In fact, we can be pretty sure that by 1620 or so, people knew the existence of unicorns or Satyrs was unlikely. Keep in mind, they got the best minds to translate the bible. They had to. Also keep in mind that they weren't translating from the Hebrew, they were translating from Latin. In latin, they would have used the same word- Unicornus - derived from the Greek word, Monocerus, both of which means - One Horn. Going back to the Hebrew, you have the original word, "re'em", an animal that has not been identified to this very day.


But here's the more important question- WHy did God let the translators get it wrong to start with. I mean, this would have been a little more important than making sure Tebow wins that football game. People were going to read this and make moral choices based on this shit. And the very fact we have about 500 flavors of Christianity, most of them starting out using the KJV, tells me it was a pretty important detail to get right the first time.

You seriously can't grasp this rather rudimentary dynamic of discovery and revision?

As for the giants of Genesis, we still don't know what the ancients are talking about with any certainty. There are a number of perfectly reasonable hypotheses that have yet to be falsified or confirmed.

So?

Well, no, we know exactly what they were talking about because when talking about Giants, they gave very specific dimensions of how tall they were. King Og of Bashan was 8 Cubits tall- or 11' 10" Goliath was 9' 7".

The tallest documented person was Robert Wadlow (1918-1940) who was 8' 11", and his tall frame cause him all sort of medical problems, requiring braces to stand.

So again, if we can't trust that part of the translation, how can we trust any of it?

There's no "we". There's just you. Original Text. Translation. Not the same thing. Only bird brains spouting psuedoscientific and pseudo trans-hermeneutical claptrap think we rely on the translation.

LOL!

Once again, shut up! You don't know what you're talking about. You're not qualified.

Again, there is so much absolutely silly shit in the bible beyond what I've listed, it's really hard for a rational, 21st century man to treat it as much an authority on anything.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Primitive societies were very tolerant of gays- It was only when Religious charlatans discovered a way to make money out of hate that they were persecuted. Jesus never said anything against them.

Nobody's defending Stalin. The Romanovs were schmucks to the people, blew it.

Nonsense. Some pagan societies, religious charlatans like you, embraced homosexuality. It was an accepted practice among some of the Middle Eastern idolaters of Old Testament times, for example. These same societies were quite hostile to Abraham and his offspring through the centuries because the latter did not share their depraved attitudes and practices. Tolerance had nothing to do with it. It was merely part of what they were. Period. They routinely had no tolerance for the people of God.

Lefty is forever making himself out to be tolerant when we know that he has absolutely no tolerance for those who disagree with him.

Jesus condemned homosexuality every time he confirmed the authority of the prophets. It's laughable to suggest that Jesus believed homosexuality to be anything but an abomination. Jesus never directly spoke about homosexuality because its immorality was a given, a well-established fact of Judaism, beyond all dispute.

Your insinuations regarding Jesus' assessment of homosexuality, that he shared the view of pagans, is beyond absurd. It's the stuff of political jargon. But the matter is one of historical, hermeneutical and theological scholarship.

And JoeB clearly is defending Stalin or at the very least attempting to ameliorate or justify his atrocities.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So what you have are horseshit numbers that are all over the feild, that a lot of people died in either the Russian Civil War or World War II.

It's war, dumbass. People die in wars.

And the real numbers, save those killed in WWII, which really were high, aren't anywhere near that.

No. It was not war, dumbass!

Once again you lie.

None of these estimates are war related, including the 15 to 20 million Russians he murdered. Mostly civilians. Political enemies. I'm talking about the people he slaughtered for years mostly before the war and the additional five million he killed throughout Eastern European after the war, you know, more political enemies of the state. I'm talking about the victims of the Great Purge and The Subjugation, not the casualties of war.

We know they were born. We know they disappeared. Shut up!

As for the Russian civilians he killed, the reason the 15 to 20 million number is murky is because Soviet officials destroyed the official documentation attesting to many of these people's existences. However, the existence of approximately 7 million are directly accounted for via documentation that escaped destruction, birth certificates and other official documents preserved by counter-operatives and gotten out of Russia. We also have the court documentation for many of those who were tried, of course, on trumped up charges and executed out right or died in prison. Also, some of the information about these was gleaned during "The Thaw" of Khrushchev's tenure.

So we have you denying the slaughter of 7 million that are beyond all reasonable dispute! But I suppose that number's too large to be a tragedy for you, just a statistic. Right?

Approximately 6 to 7 million of the "erased" are known to have existed based on the cross-referenced accounts of family members, letters, bills, regional censuses and, yes, the word of defectors, moles and operatives.

Stalin created a special "erasure group" of several hundred that hunted down the official documentation of the people he killed and destroyed it. He even had a staff consisting of several dozen whose sole job was to sit at tables and ink over the names of the people he killed on censuses. While all other official documentation of their existence was destroyed, he did not always destroy these. Instead, they were returned to the various regional offices of record, blacked out names and all! Stalin took particular pleasure in this. Naturally, he did this to instill fear and obedience.

As for the other 6 to 7 million, that estimation is based on uncorroborated, second-hand accounts coupled with a mathematical probability of reliability. These include the unknown millions believed to have died in the man-made famine campaigns, and the erasures of the inhabitants of whole villages that were raised and buried, plowed and planted over. Several hundred-thousand of these were finally corroborated from official records after the fall of the Soviet Union. Clearly, certain VIPs in intelligence defied Stalin's orders, hid documentation of the massacres, the orders, the reports of the various operations and then, under Khrushchev, who hated Stalin, stored them with the rest of the regime's secrets. The mass graves that had not been heavily built over and could be located were unearthed.

Further, there is no justification for continuing to hold, torture, deprive and, consequently, kill the common line soldiers of a defeated and subdued nation for 10 years. There is no justification for rounding up defenseless, unarmed civilians of a defeated nation and killing them for sport and revenge.

I'm talking about those this paranoid, psychopathic narcissist murdered out of spite and for pleasure.

I'm talking about a monster who missed being on the other end of the Allies' wrath only because he was played by Hitler in a treacherous scheme to violate and divvy up Poland, a monster who didn't liberate Eastern Europe from that other monster's tyranny, but stole millions of people's lands and lives. Hell, I didn't even count the million or so members of the various armed resistances he killed, those who struggled to throw off his occupation after the war.

This sick bastard murdered his own wife! Personally. With his own hands. The official story: suicide. You know, the wife who feared and loathed him, as did his children, the people who, unlike the propagandized "rabble", knew him to be a cruel and abusive monster, prone to unpredictable outbursts of rage. The man who psychologically terrorized the members of his own family, that benevolent father looking down at the children gathered around him as shown in drawings plastered on the walls of villages and cities. He was a true psychopath in the clinical sense from youth, a man without a conscience, lizard eyes, devoid of empathy or compassion, elevated to a position of leadership over the barbaric Bolshevik hoard by Lenin because of his sadism, for his skills, those of an assassin and enforcer, skills plied and honed during his criminal career of robbery, rape and murder before the Revolution.

Only a sociopath would justify the life and times of this worthless, loathsome cretin of pure evil.

The best and most reliable works regarding Stalin's reign of terror and crimes against humanity are The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence and The Dewey Commission's Not Guilty.


Correction: from my notes and studies of various works on the matter I see that I misremembered an important detail. Those who died in the various gulags and detention camps are counted among the estimated 15 to 20 million Russian civilians of the Great Purge proper, not in addition to.

Sorry.

 

[JoeB131]

Primitive societies were very tolerant of gays- It was only when Religious charlatans discovered a way to make money out of hate that they were persecuted. Jesus never said anything against them.

Nobody's defending Stalin. The Romanovs were schmucks to the people, blew it.

Nonsense. Some pagan societies, religious charlatans like you, embraced homosexuality. It was an accepted practice among some of the Middle Eastern idolaters of Old Testament times, for example. These same societies were quite hostile to Abraham and his offspring through the centuries because the latter did not share their depraved attitudes and practices. Tolerance had nothing to do with it. It's was merely part of what they were. Period. They routinely had no tolerance for the people of God.

Lefty is forever making himself out to be tolerant when we know that he has absolutely no tolerance for those who disagree with him.

Jesus condemned homosexuality every time he confirmed the authority of the prophets. It's laughable to suggest that Jesus believed homosexuality to be anything but an abomination. Jesus never directly spoke about homosexuality because its immorality was a given, a well-established fact of Judaism, beyond all dispute.

Your insinuations regarding Jesus' assessment of homosexuality, that he shared the view of pagans, is beyond absurd. It's the stuff of political jargon. But the matter is one of historical, hermeneutical and theological scholarship..

Again, you still haven't given us any reason why Homosexuality is wrong other than Sky Pixie Yahweh says it is.

Sky Pixie Zeus and Sky Pixie Marduk and Sky Pixie Osiris were all fine with it.

[And JoeB clearly is defending Stalin or at the very least attempting to ameliorate or justify his atrocities.

Not justifying him or condemning him. Just pointing out that a lot of the claims are exagerated.

as a SPECIES, Homo Sapiens is rather nasty to itself. We kill our own kind over religion and politics and economics and other stupid shit that has nothing to do with survival as a species. Stalin probably killed very few people personally. Whatever happened was the result of the Romanovs and other political shit that boiled over... which is what happens when you stupidly let one segment of the population get very rich and the rest remain poor and deseprate.

In short. Shit happens! Deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

So what you have are horseshit numbers that are all over the feild, that a lot of people died in either the Russian Civil War or World War II.

It's war, dumbass. People die in wars.

And the real numbers, save those killed in WWII, which really were high, aren't anywhere near that.

No. It was not war, dumbass!

Once again you lie.

None of these estimates are war related...

Sorry.

I'm not going to repeat the torrent of bullshit, and you really need to learn how to get to a point.

Here's what most Russians think about Stalin. Hitler was coming to murder them, and Stalin stopped him and left them with the largest and most powerful Empire in the world. WHich is why he is still admired today. That's despite the attempts by Khrushev and Breshnev to "rewrite" history.

Was he a bastard? Yup.

Did he live in a time that required a real bastard?

Yup.

It was the age of bastards. FDR, CHurchill, Stalin, Mussonlini, Hitler, Chiang Chai-Shek--- every last one of them was a bastard who played fast and loose with the freedoms of their respective peoples.

And I don't get weepy about shit that happened in a place I don't live in before I was born if the people who live there now aren't terribly upset about it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You demand proof, but what you're talking about is something empirical. Right?

Are you stupid or something?

By definition God is not an empirical being. LOL! Atheists are notoriously bad thinkers, bad philosophers. But as for the empirical, the evidences of His existence are all around you. Creation. And you have before you the empirical fact that the physiology and biology of human sexuality is not homosexual.

But you don't give a damn about any of these things; as you keep telling us over and over again, you don't believe that God exists in the first place. We got that the first time.

Fine. That's your business. Live and let live.

Creation might prove a Creator if you are like, ignorant of science and natural laws, but it does not prove the Abrahamic God is the Creator.

The BIble was written by people who didn't know what a germ was and didn't know where the sun went at night. Somehow, I don't think they had any more insight to the nature of the world that I do.

First, these "problems" you keep babbling about. . . .

There is no problem except for the veiled threat you unwittingly make against Christians, you Marxist thug. I believe that God exists, and that the God of Judeo-Christianity is the One and Only true God. Period. You don't believe either. Period. The rest is you prattling nonsense, confounding the metaphysical with the empirical or wrongfully alleging that I don't know the difference.

SCIENCE

Creation might prove a Creator if you are like, ignorant of science and natural laws, but it does not prove the Abrahamic God is the Creator.

This statement is nonsensical. I said that the creation (or objectively speaking, the universe), which includes the rational forms and the logical categories of human consciousness, constitutes evidence of God's existence—accepted by billions as a sensible reason to conclude that He must be. Period. I said nothing about science proving anything about the spiritual realm behind the veil whatsoever. Your point is moot and suggests that you don't understand the nature of scientific inquiry, particularly after I told you in effect that science can only deal with the empirical. How did you fail to make that extrapolation about my understanding of things? I understand the distinction between science and metaphysics or theology quite well, thank you, as well as the limitations of both.

And as the following demonstrates, I'm pretty certain that I understand science and a thing or two about certain matters of scientific inquiry infinitely better than you: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/years-of-experience-have-shown-me-that_06.html

And given that the people who wrote the Bible were preeminently concerned with the nature of God and the vagaries of human nature relative to God's hegemony, their scientific knowledge or the lack thereof is not relevant.

 

[JoeB131]

So you believe in a bunch of illogical fairy tales... like the entire human race desended from two people and there was no problem with inbreeding, or that a flood covered the whole world, or that there were giants and other silly nonsense, because, hey, it's in the Bible.

And when something is in the bible that you can't explain, well, it's just a mistranslation. But when its something that justifies your homophobia or other bigotry, well, that's right from the creator, absolutely.

 

[Mac1958]

And when something is in the bible that you can't explain, well, it's just a mistranslation. But when its something that justifies your homophobia or other bigotry, well, that's right from the creator, absolutely.

Two others I like are, "well, it's just God's will", and my personal favorite, "it's a mystery".

.

 

[JoeB131]

And when something is in the bible that you can't explain, well, it's just a mistranslation. But when its something that justifies your homophobia or other bigotry, well, that's right from the creator, absolutely.

Two others I like are, "well, it's just God's will", and my personal favorite, "it's a mystery".

.

Yeah, some old nun used the first one at my mom's funeral.

I became an Atheist the next day.

 

[Mac1958]

.



.

 

[daveman]

So you believe in a bunch of illogical fairy tales... like the entire human race desended from two people and there was no problem with inbreeding, or that a flood covered the whole world, or that there were giants and other silly nonsense, because, hey, it's in the Bible.

And when something is in the bible that you can't explain, well, it's just a mistranslation. But when its something that justifies your homophobia or other bigotry, well, that's right from the creator, absolutely.

You, of all people, have no business complaining about bigotry from others.

 

[JoeB131]

So you believe in a bunch of illogical fairy tales... like the entire human race desended from two people and there was no problem with inbreeding, or that a flood covered the whole world, or that there were giants and other silly nonsense, because, hey, it's in the Bible.

And when something is in the bible that you can't explain, well, it's just a mistranslation. But when its something that justifies your homophobia or other bigotry, well, that's right from the creator, absolutely.

You, of all people, have no business complaining about bigotry from others.

Quite the contrary.

The religious bigots hate Gays for who they are.

I hate the LDS and other religious crazies for what they do.

That's the difference.

 

[miami_thomas]

The Republican Party is 90% white. They are not even trying to get any minority vote.
Blacks
Gays
Hispanics
Muslims
Atheists

They know this is the last presidential election where they could actually win on their policies of division, voter suppression and dishonesty. With changing demographics, there simply aren't enough of them to win future elections without enormous change.

And that is such a good thing.

Minorities aren't kow-towing to the super wealthy.

Minorities aren't against education.

Minorities love children and babies.

Minorities have already learned how to work together. Some blacks may not like the gays. Muslims may not like the atheists. And so on.

Yet, these groups have been working together to create a better country for everyone. The only group blocking progress are Republicans.

And look at Republicans policies:

Anti education
no money to modernize America's infrastructure
tax cuts and subsidies to billionaires and monster corporations
removing important regulations for business and the environment
taking the rest of the country's wealth and throwing it at the military
war
threatening other countries

The worst Republican policy being their anti education policy. Every country on earth is making it easier for it's population to get an education except white Republicans.

What Republicans are doing this time may not be enough. There are two months to the election. What if the Republican base finds out Romney has been lying about Obama's policies on Medicare and Welfare? Two months is a long time to keep a lie going. Worse, many whites don't like racism and will recoil when it becomes obvious to them what Romney is doing.

After this election, the Republican Party can only continue if they welcome minorities. That means their terrible and destructive policies will have to end.

The worst Republican policy being their anti education policy. Every country on earth is making it easier for it's population to get an education except white Republicans.


explain Democrat heavy California Dean.....top 5 to bottom 5.....and yet Democratic Gov Brown still cut the Budget.....i guess he hates Education too ....right?....

Sure we'll give huts to educate in since we are talking about the educations system of other countries. By the way, many countries still have to pay for an education.

 

[miami_thomas]

So you believe in a bunch of illogical fairy tales... like the entire human race desended from two people and there was no problem with inbreeding, or that a flood covered the whole world, or that there were giants and other silly nonsense, because, hey, it's in the Bible.

And when something is in the bible that you can't explain, well, it's just a mistranslation. But when its something that justifies your homophobia or other bigotry, well, that's right from the creator, absolutely.

You, of all people, have no business complaining about bigotry from others.

Quite the contrary.

The religious bigots hate Gays for who they are.

I hate the LDS and other religious crazies for what they do.

That's the difference.

Nope pretty sure it is the exact same thing. The difference is most religious people in this country have accepted the fact they’re differences and are willing to live their own lives and not force others to believe what they believe. Democrats on the other hand want to force everyone to believe what they want you to believe.

 

[miami_thomas]

So you believe in a bunch of illogical fairy tales... like the entire human race desended from two people and there was no problem with inbreeding, or that a flood covered the whole world, or that there were giants and other silly nonsense, because, hey, it's in the Bible.

And when something is in the bible that you can't explain, well, it's just a mistranslation. But when its something that justifies your homophobia or other bigotry, well, that's right from the creator, absolutely.

And you are a tolerant prick that wants to force people to stop believing in what you believe is a lie. But you have no proof of whether what you believe is true or what they believe is true.

 

[JoeB131]

So you believe in a bunch of illogical fairy tales... like the entire human race desended from two people and there was no problem with inbreeding, or that a flood covered the whole world, or that there were giants and other silly nonsense, because, hey, it's in the Bible.

And when something is in the bible that you can't explain, well, it's just a mistranslation. But when its something that justifies your homophobia or other bigotry, well, that's right from the creator, absolutely.

And you are a tolerant prick that wants to force people to stop believing in what you believe is a lie. But you have no proof of whether what you believe is true or what they believe is true.

You mean other than simple logic?

Let's take the Noah's Ark Fairy Tale. Absolutely no way that could have happened. The amount of water needed to cover every mountain top would be more water than we have on the entire planet. Not to mention that when this happened, all the water life would die when the salt and fresh water mixed to a level where they couldn't survive.

Furthermore, if the oceans got high enough to cover every mountain, the people and animals inside the ark would either freeze or suffocate to death because the air would be too thin.

We then have the problem of the animals themselves. Beside the fact that there are one million animal species, all of which would have to be preserved on the Ark, you would need food for them as well. And each of these species would then have to descend from a single mating pair... serious problems with inbreeding. Then you have to explain if all the animals were on the ark, why the marsupials all went to Australia, or even how they got there without a land bridge.

All that illogic aside... here's my biggest problem with the Noah Story.

God decides to correct HIS screwup by killing every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth, along with every other animal. I realized this was wrong long before the other stuff, and when I asked a nun about it, the old hag said all those babies deserved to drown because they were " WIIIIIIIICKED."

Now, all this would be laughable, if there weren't people out there who really think that there arent any dinosaurs left because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.