|
|
Post by shin on Nov 7, 2005 13:56:10 GMT -5
Well hell if we had FDR in charge now I can only imagine what would happen to Joe Wilson......  Probably nothing, because Wilson wouldn't have had to have exposed any lies to begin with because FDR never lied about his reasons to go to war. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 7, 2005 16:54:03 GMT -5
RE: Post 29, by Dee.
That Democrats are scumbags does not negate or even lessen the charges against the current administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 7, 2005 17:16:17 GMT -5
Well hell if we had FDR in charge now I can only imagine what would happen to Joe Wilson...... Probably nothing, because Wilson wouldn't have had to have exposed any lies to begin with because FDR never lied about his reasons to go to war. Well according to Wilson Bush wasn't lying...he says himself he is convinced Saddam had nukes and WMDs. So who is lying? Anyway, I did go read the law that we have right now and the way it looked to me, unless old Val was covert in the last 5 years no one really broke the law. But then, I am not a lawyer so....... |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 7, 2005 17:17:48 GMT -5
RE: Post 29, by Dee. That Democrats are scumbags does not negate or even lessen the charges against the current administration. Well imo I don't think you should dismiss one and convict another, thats my point. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 7, 2005 17:33:43 GMT -5
RE: Post 29, by Dee. That Democrats are scumbags does not negate or even lessen the charges against the current administration. Well imo I don't think you should dismiss one and convict another, thats my point. Well sure, but then again, the world (and especially politics) isn't necessarily fair, is it? Subjective double-standards exist on both sides of the aisle. They are, IMO, non issues. A question: Does it necessarily make sense to obsess over the potential outcome of this trial? Let's assume the hypothetical that not only is Scooter found guilty, but probable though unprovable involvement by Dick, Karl, and GW are all but assertained in the course of the proceedings. Will that necessarily change anyone's viewpoint here? What about the opposite? It certainly wouldn't change my opinion of the administration one bit if they were completely vindicated as far as the charges were concerned. Is it not a given that the staunchest Bush advocates will support him and his agenda through the storm, just as many liberals will detest him regardless of outcome? Looking forward to the outcome of my state's gubernatorial election tomorrow. It's widely acknowledged that Jerry Kilgore, the Republican, ran just about the most negative campaign ever. Polls have Tim Kaine, Mark Warner's Lt. Governor, ahead by a slim margin. Democrats across America should see a Kaine victory as a very early referendum on Mark Warner's chances at the state of Virginia should he earn the Democratic nomination for President. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Nov 7, 2005 18:40:52 GMT -5
I am willing to bet that the viewpoints will determine whether or not such probably unprovable involvement IS assertained. It happened with the indictment, so why would the trial be any different?
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 7, 2005 18:53:10 GMT -5
Probably unprovable. Say that ten times fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Nov 7, 2005 20:47:47 GMT -5
Well according to Wilson Bush wasn't lying...he says himself he is convinced Saddam had nukes and WMDs. So who is lying? Anyway, I did go read the law that we have right now and the way it looked to me, unless old Val was covert in the last 5 years no one really broke the law. But then, I am not a lawyer so....... Well as long as it's established you have no idea what you're talking about, I think my desire to go out of my way to prove something to a creationist is pretty minimal. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 8, 2005 10:27:15 GMT -5
Well according to Wilson Bush wasn't lying...he says himself he is convinced Saddam had nukes and WMDs. So who is lying? Anyway, I did go read the law that we have right now and the way it looked to me, unless old Val was covert in the last 5 years no one really broke the law. But then, I am not a lawyer so....... Well as long as it's established you have no idea what you're talking about, I think my desire to go out of my way to prove something to a creationist is pretty minimal. ouch!  Please..... The theory of evolution is extremely entertaining. BTW have you laid claim to your ancestors in Indonesia yet? Homo floresiensis, the Hobbit. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Nov 8, 2005 14:04:50 GMT -5
Can't say that I have, Crypt Keeper. Have you laid claim to your immediate ancestors, the orangutan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 8, 2005 14:15:17 GMT -5
Stop the Press! In the news, the "actual" news!
Cardinal hands collective bitch-slap to creationists! Hear hear!
*go to actual news board*
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 8, 2005 16:53:48 GMT -5
Wait, Dee, you're a creationist? Seriously?
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 8, 2005 17:06:31 GMT -5
Not meant in a derisive way, I am just interested in meeting someone who is not completely insane who believes in the Biblical account of creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 8, 2005 21:51:45 GMT -5
Yes I am a creationist, but not a young earth creationist. The Gap theory is what I believe in. (there are a couple of versions of this theory, I will explain mine if need be). But in short, I believe the earth is billions of years old. I also believe there were other's created besides Adam and Eve (yes this is indeed Biblical).
I can name off 80 scientists in every field of science including Biology, some that are/were very well known that are/were creationists.
"I want to know His (God's) thoughts. The rest are details."
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slightest details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
"Before God we are all equally wise - equally foolish."
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man."
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation...His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 8, 2005 22:04:37 GMT -5
James Hutton (1726 -97) Chemist, founder of modern geology. -- "The result of our present enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end"
Henri Fabre (1823-1915), Biologist. He was an associate of Pasteur. -- "Without Him (God) I understand nothing; without Him all is darkness...Every period has its manias. I regard Atheism as a mania. It is the malady of the age. You could take my skin from me more easily than my faith in God."
John Baumgardner, Geophysicist, Plate Techtonics Research Analyst, Fluid Dynamics Scientist. -- "Classical Darwinism, as well as neo-Darwinism, maintains macroevolution is nothing more than extrapolated microevolution. But this extrapolation is precisely where appeals to observation stop and hand waving begins. The extrapolation in reality is nothing more than a gigantic leap of faith."
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), Biologist, Paleontologist, Father of Glaciology. -- "...Natural History must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator of the universe."
|
|
