Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

i am for phil

No. You asked if things were better. I think things are better right now than EVER before. More people have more rights. Global poverty is down. People are living longer than ever. I'll take 2014 over 1914 any day of the week. You seemed to be suggesting it is horrible right now. It's not. Everyone wants you to think it is. It's BETTER than at any other time ever. Remember we have access to more information than ever. That is good AND bad. Both the left and the right will tell you everything is horrible because of the other guy. You can choose to believe it and continue the cycle or you can realize the obvious. Some Democrats are freaking horrible people and so are some Republicans. Both sides have created a lot of bad things when in power. Neither side is faultless. Why would you think Republicans are fiscally conservative? When did that happen? Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt. George W. Bush exploded the size of the federal government in many different ways. Seems like someone has been telling you some things that aren't true again. If Democrats are fiscal alcoholics who have ten drinks while in charge Republicans at best can say "hey we only have 9!" I'm not going to get into all the flaws of a two party system, but both sides get elected by convincing you the other side is awful. Don't fall into the trap. Don't be a victim of confirmation bias. It's a huge issue we face. Democrats and Republicans confirm everything they want to confirm by only reading and listening to people who tell them what they want to hear. I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but like I said SOMEONE is telling you some stuff that may not be true. You're free to believe it if you like. I don't want to argue politics right now, but before you jump in with Obama this and Obama that please keep in mind I am neither Democrat nor Republican. Why would my brother being able to marry put the economy in the crapper? How does that have any effect on it? Why did all these economic bad times happen before if gays weren't allowed to marry? By your logic the economy should always be flying high as long as gays can't marry and once they do the economy dies immediately. That seems pretty ludicrous to propose and at best ignores all previous history ever. Your housing argument doesn't make any sense because you aren't even thinking of inflation. I can go get a job at McDonald's right now for 7.25. In two hour that is 14.50 (yeah, taxes, but let's play). My Dad in 1967 worked 12 hours a day in the summer for a farmer. His wages? 1 dollar an hour. I can make MORE right now in two hours than my Dad made that summer in 12. Comparing old prices to current prices doesn't get you anywhere.

Reagan trilled the national debt? Please explain to me how he did that. Was he king? Did he have a Republican Congress that went along with his budgets? Answer those questions first. On Bush, yes you are right and thats one if the reasons i left the Republican party.

As for your fathers one dollar an hour versus 7.35, YOU are leaving out inflation. That 7.35 is not worth the same. The dollar even when accounting for inflation doesn't have the same spending power that it had back then.

And no Im not suggesting that homosexuality is the cause for fiscal irresponsibility Im saying that moral decay seems to go hand in hand with fiscal irresponsibility.

Im no longer for the 2 party system either. I want a more libertarian government but we are called "extremists".

And again, no one is lying to me, its what I see and hear from the left that makes me come to my conclusions about them.
 
It is because there isnt a single reasonable, logical, rational reason to support homosexuality is un-natural, immoral or damaging to society.

If one exist it would have been presented instead of all the logical fallacies being presented
Look Geo I appreciate love you have for family so you feel to change the world over to the side you see is good.. Josh bounces through the forum posting as if he sees properly..reality is I do not dislike you nor he but I dislike what you two try to push on others here.
one of the more dumb then illogical post I have encountered if noone were heterosexual society would cease to exist

Is it rational to assume that this will happen at any point in the history of the world? If 99.9% of the world was gay I would say we need more heterosexuals. Since this is nowhere near the case pointing out your post doesn't really make sense. If all humans turned into ponies right now human society would cease to exist as well at this point. I'm not really scared of the everyone becomes a pony world, are you?

Touey we are nowhere near having a population shortage. Our human population is growing like crazy. Hell some people NOT being able to reproduce is really not that bad in 2014.

And let's not forget all the horrible heterosexual parents who DO reproduce.
 
Josh bounces through the forum posting as if he sees properly..reality is I do not dislike you nor he but I dislike what you two try to push on others here.

what we try and push on others?

lol...

I guess I am the equivalent of a Jehovah witness or a missionary but of science. If thats what you meant then thank you.
 
Touey pushes so much nonsense...in glass house, stones no are the thrown wonkydonk unless bro is on the uptown
 
so you are so secure in your pro homosexual agenda you need to have my posts deleted and my account suspended/banned??? wow what a bunch of hypocrites!! How can you are argue that God loves homosexuals and that Christians, Jews or Muslims should tolerate them when it is clearly spelled out right here what should be done to them: Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Genesis 19:5: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (SODOM & GOMORRAH) Judges 19:22: "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him." Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." and for those that say Jesus cancelled the law concerning homosexuality... Mathew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished....

So you're posting again under another account?

And do you have a problem with Admin?
 
Look Geo I appreciate love you have for family so you feel to change the world over to the side you see is good.. Josh bounces through the forum posting as if he sees properly..reality is I do not dislike you nor he but I dislike what you two try to push on others here.

I'm not trying to change anything accept for people to tolerate those that are different and let them have the same rights. I have not said in any sense that people have to like or agree with homosexuality.

As far as pushing it seems as if you are ok with it when it goes with your views, but not ok when it goes against? Who created the thread in the first place? It wasn't me. Who made Phil speak out in a public forum saying horrific things? It wasn't me. Why is it pushing when it's something you disagree with, but a-ok when it's something I disagree with?

It's not a very fair position T. Nothing in this thread has changed the way I feel about anyone really. I'm just trying to have a rational discussion with people. Isn't that the purpose of a forum?

I dislike what others have tried to push on people here. Especially abs who thinks we need Hitler back. Who's scarier for the future to push people? Let's have Hitler back guy or me saying let's have respect and tolerance for those who are different guy?

I don't care who agrees or disagrees with me if you are more scared of me than him then we may be screwed.
 
It is because there isnt a single reasonable, logical, rational reason to support homosexuality is un-natural, immoral or damaging to society.


what we try and push on others?

lol...

I guess I am the equivalent of a Jehovah witness or a missionary but of science. If thats what you meant then thank you.
If you happen upon this thread. The above nor others are pushing for you to change the thinking upon which you feel is proper? It is an opinion of one whom this pawning it off upon you we must pardon as you will someone misguided
 
Reagan trilled the national debt? Please explain to me how he did that. Was he king? Did he have a Republican Congress that went along with his budgets? Answer those questions first. On Bush, yes you are right and thats one if the reasons i left the Republican party.

As for your fathers one dollar an hour versus 7.35, YOU are leaving out inflation. That 7.35 is not worth the same. The dollar even when accounting for inflation doesn't have the same spending power that it had back then.

And no Im not suggesting that homosexuality is the cause for fiscal irresponsibility Im saying that moral decay seems to go hand in hand with fiscal irresponsibility.

Im no longer for the 2 party system either. I want a more libertarian government but we are called "extremists".

And again, no one is lying to me, its what I see and hear from the left that makes me come to my conclusions about them.

So which is it? You mention trillion dollar deficits and talk about the left all the time. No Reagan was not king, but neither was Clinton nor is Obama. Calling one of the two parties fiscally responsible isn't grounded in reality. When either party is out of power they run on small government. While in they run on big government. This has been true for a long time. If Republicans are fiscally responsible then it just now happened. Because President Bush didn't run a small government ship and neither did Reagan. Both of these men exploded the national debt. Of course Democrats have largely done the same, but I'm making the distinction they are similar, you are the one talking about them being vastly different.

It seems as if you have a big problem with income inequality...I also think it has reached epic proportions. Let me ask you this, which party do you think is REALLY working to lower income inequality? I didn't see Romney saying a whole bunch about it. I didn't see him talking all the time about it. I don't know that the Democrats have a good answer either. Acting as if one over the other is working hard on this may be tough to prove...especially if you pick Republicans. Where have they been fighting hard for the poor in the last presidential election? I must have missed it. Democrats haven't been successful either...but like I said you're making distinctions and I'm calling them similar. I'm also against many abuses in the welfare state. Neither side is perfect or even close. Keep in mind though BOTH want you to be fearful of the other side. It's how two parties can consistently stay in power.

Of course I realize the spending power is different in regards to inflation, you're the one comparing the past prices to today's prices. Again, that has more to do with income inequality than anything else. So how do YOU think we should fight income inequality anyways? We probably agree on far more than we disagree.

Moral decay is different for different people. I think society right now is every bit as moral as it was in the past. We are fighting less wars. We have reduced poverty. Teen pregnancy and abortion are down. Drug use is down. Was slavery moral decay? Blacks in separate places? Women not being allowed to work or vote? I think the past was far more immoral than today is or at best a tie.

The past was filled with rapists, murderers, liars, cheats, and swindles. The present has it as well. It's really easy for older people (including me a 30 year old) to say "these damn kids." Every generation has been the "worst" ever. Mine was. The one before mine. The 60's. Etc.

Hell in the 20's it was these damn kids listening to jazz music and dancing to the Charlestown and drinking beer (which of course needed to be made illegal). If the present sucks then the past probably sucked twice as much. (Although as a white male I also realize how many more advantages I would have had back then). I don't want the advantages. I want equality. I am no better or worse than anyone born female, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, straight or gay.

Let's have a system where we compete based on our qualities and not based on our skin color, beliefs, sexual orientation, or religion. Being against that doesn't sound very American imo.
 
and for the record, none of you pro homosexual meatheads are anything close to Moses or Lot's righteousness so why even try to argue with God?

It boils down to this, you are either with God or you are not plain & simple:

Exodus 32:

26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

You got yourself banned, no one did anything but you. Quit blaming everyone else for your problems and grow up. You sound like a little kid and you're getting in the way of some of the adults (even the ones who don't agree with me) who are talking.
 
Wow, Abs got banned? I thought his views sounded like a psycho with head trauma but didn't think he said anything "ban" worthy? Better watch my language??
 
So which is it? You mention trillion dollar deficits and talk about the left all the time. No Reagan was not king, but neither was Clinton nor is Obama. Calling one of the two parties fiscally responsible isn't grounded in reality. When either party is out of power they run on small government. While in they run on big government. This has been true for a long time. If Republicans are fiscally responsible then it just now happened. Because President Bush didn't run a small government ship and neither did Reagan. Both of these men exploded the national debt. Of course Democrats have largely done the same, but I'm making the distinction they are similar, you are the one talking about them being vastly different.

It seems as if you have a big problem with income inequality...I also think it has reached epic proportions. Let me ask you this, which party do you think is REALLY working to lower income inequality? I didn't see Romney saying a whole bunch about it. I didn't see him talking all the time about it. I don't know that the Democrats have a good answer either. Acting as if one over the other is working hard on this may be tough to prove...especially if you pick Republicans. Where have they been fighting hard for the poor in the last presidential election? I must have missed it. Democrats haven't been successful either...but like I said you're making distinctions and I'm calling them similar. I'm also against many abuses in the welfare state. Neither side is perfect or even close. Keep in mind though BOTH want you to be fearful of the other side. It's how two parties can consistently stay in power.

Of course I realize the spending power is different in regards to inflation, you're the one comparing the past prices to today's prices. Again, that has more to do with income inequality than anything else. So how do YOU think we should fight income inequality anyways? We probably agree on far more than we disagree.

Moral decay is different for different people. I think society right now is every bit as moral as it was in the past. We are fighting less wars. We have reduced poverty. Teen pregnancy and abortion are down. Drug use is down. Was slavery moral decay? Blacks in separate places? Women not being allowed to work or vote? I think the past was far more immoral than today is or at best a tie.

The past was filled with rapists, murderers, liars, cheats, and swindles. The present has it as well. It's really easy for older people (including me a 30 year old) to say "these damn kids." Every generation has been the "worst" ever. Mine was. The one before mine. The 60's. Etc.

Hell in the 20's it was these damn kids listening to jazz music and dancing to the Charlestown and drinking beer (which of course needed to be made illegal). If the present sucks then the past probably sucked twice as much. (Although as a white male I also realize how many more advantages I would have had back then). I don't want the advantages. I want equality. I am no better or worse than anyone born female, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, straight or gay.

Let's have a system where we compete based on our qualities and not based on our skin color, beliefs, sexual orientation, or religion. Being against that doesn't sound very American imo.

Ok, so if Reagan was not king how did he triple the debt? Clinton had a Democrat Senate AND House from 1992-1994. The balance budget and surplus that he likes to take credit for happened with a Republican Congress. Once Clinton realized he wasn't going to get everything he wanted he triangulated and he agreed to reduce the rate of spending and cut capital gains tax which caused the biggest economic expansion since Reagan's economic expansion which in turn produced more tax collection (because people were making more money). But if he would've had his way, the way he was trying when he had a democrat congress that would've never happened. As for Obama, he had a Democrat Senate and House from 2008-2010 when he lost the House, and has had a Democrat Senate from 2008 until now 2014. SO to compare Reagan to Obama and Clinton is not the same thing. Reagan proposed a balance budget, Tip O'Neil, the Democrat Speaker of the House at the time said: "It's dead on ar*****." That's what Reagan had to work with plus Communism and rebuilding our military. I've already agreed with you about Bush, so I dont no why you keep bringing him up, you can't take yes I agree with you for an answer? I'm not saying the Republicans are saints and the democrats are demons but if we are talking about fiscal responsibility generally speaking (yes you can cherry pick RHINOS (Republicans In Name Only)) Republicans are better; but they have now lost their way and that's why I left them.

As for income inequality yes I do have a problem with it; but I only do because of the way it happened. We we compare actual salaries of the upper classes of today with their salaries about 60 years ago, the increase is not that great relatively speaking BUT if you look at the wealth, and by wealth I mean the value of their assets, it has EXPLODED!! How did this happen? It couldn't have happened because they are not being taxed enough. If the upper classes were able to keep 100% of what they earned and invested it ALL on their assets they would not have been able to accumulate the wealth they have. The numbers arent' there and I can provide a chart for you to see if you want. The reason their assets have exploded is because the value of Real Estate and Stocks they own has exploded and why is that? (I hope I haven't bored you or lost you at this point please bare with me) They exploded because of inflation caused by printing money by the Federal Reserve as well as the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low. Middle Class and poor people dont have the ability to accumulate much assets (except for the home they live in if they own it) so therefore they are left behind. This is not the fault of one party, it's both their fault; but who is the lone person in the wilderness speaking about this? Ron Paul, and what is he? I'll give you one guess.
How do we fight income inequality? I dont believe in fighting inequalities that happen naturally; but when there is income inequality that has happened because of the actions of the government and the Federal Reserve then I have a problem with that and yes I want to fight it. We can start by ending the Federal Reserve. Allow interest rates to float based on supply and demand. Interest is basically the price of money, if there is a high demand for cash/money then interest rates will naturally go up, this would cause people to save MORE because the interest in their bank accounts would be more and this in turn would allow banks to lend out more to keep up with demand. If there is a low demand for cash/money, interest rates will naturally go down because they would want to encourage borrowing. But when you have a system that defies these natural economic laws you are playing with fire and you end up with what we have now.

As for fighting less wars, I'm not sure I agree. The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. Yes, we have reduced poverty compared to say 1800 but poverty is higher now than it was in 1960 when we began the war on poverty. Teen pregnancy and abortion are down? Compared to when? Last year? Certainly not compared to 1914. The illegitimacy rate in 1900 was 2%, today it's 40% and among blacks it's 67%. Drug use is down? Again compared to when? Slavery was moral decay but it was going on for thousands of years and it was CHRISTIANS WHO ended it. Yes, blacks in some areas are better off and they certainly have 100% more opportunity (but Al Sharpton may disagree) but many things are worse for them. More blacks are killed in crime in one year now than were killed in all the lynchings from 1865-1964. That's progress? In 1940 the teenage black unemployment rate was LOWER than the white teenage unemployment rate (about 9.8%) today black teenage unemployment is 50%!!! Is that progress? Black illegitimacy was 15% in 1910, it's 67% now, which in my opinion is directly related to poverty and crime. If you are a 16 year old HS drop out with 4 kids from 4 different fathers, guess what, you probably arent going to be CEO of GE. So whether we are better off in total is debatable, while I can agree that in some areas we are better and others worse.
And when did I say I was against competing on our qualities? It's the left that want to create special laws and preferences. I'm of Italian decent. Do you hear me complaining that there aren't enough Italians in the NBA? Finally, I'm no longer a Republican, I believe the Republicans have become the Democrats light, and that's why I left.
 
Ok, so if Reagan was not king how did he triple the debt? Clinton had a Democrat Senate AND House from 1992-1994. The balance budget and surplus that he likes to take credit for happened with a Republican Congress. Once Clinton realized he wasn't going to get everything he wanted he triangulated and he agreed to reduce the rate of spending and cut capital gains tax which caused the biggest economic expansion since Reagan's economic expansion which in turn produced more tax collection (because people were making more money). But if he would've had his way, the way he was trying when he had a democrat congress that would've never happened. As for Obama, he had a Democrat Senate and House from 2008-2010 when he lost the House, and has had a Democrat Senate from 2008 until now 2014. SO to compare Reagan to Obama and Clinton is not the same thing. Reagan proposed a balance budget, Tip O'Neil, the Democrat Speaker of the House at the time said: "It's dead on ar*****." That's what Reagan had to work with plus Communism and rebuilding our military. I've already agreed with you about Bush, so I dont no why you keep bringing him up, you can't take yes I agree with you for an answer? I'm not saying the Republicans are saints and the democrats are demons but if we are talking about fiscal responsibility generally speaking (yes you can cherry pick RHINOS (Republicans In Name Only)) Republicans are better; but they have now lost their way and that's why I left them.

As for income inequality yes I do have a problem with it; but I only do because of the way it happened. We we compare actual salaries of the upper classes of today with their salaries about 60 years ago, the increase is not that great relatively speaking BUT if you look at the wealth, and by wealth I mean the value of their assets, it has EXPLODED!! How did this happen? It couldn't have happened because they are not being taxed enough. If the upper classes were able to keep 100% of what they earned and invested it ALL on their assets they would not have been able to accumulate the wealth they have. The numbers arent' there and I can provide a chart for you to see if you want. The reason their assets have exploded is because the value of Real Estate and Stocks they own has exploded and why is that? (I hope I haven't bored you or lost you at this point please bare with me) They exploded because of inflation caused by printing money by the Federal Reserve as well as the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low. Middle Class and poor people dont have the ability to accumulate much assets (except for the home they live in if they own it) so therefore they are left behind. This is not the fault of one party, it's both their fault; but who is the lone person in the wilderness speaking about this? Ron Paul, and what is he? I'll give you one guess.
How do we fight income inequality? I dont believe in fighting inequalities that happen naturally; but when there is income inequality that has happened because of the actions of the government and the Federal Reserve then I have a problem with that and yes I want to fight it. We can start by ending the Federal Reserve. Allow interest rates to float based on supply and demand. Interest is basically the price of money, if there is a high demand for cash/money then interest rates will naturally go up, this would cause people to save MORE because the interest in their bank accounts would be more and this in turn would allow banks to lend out more to keep up with demand. If there is a low demand for cash/money, interest rates will naturally go down because they would want to encourage borrowing. But when you have a system that defies these natural economic laws you are playing with fire and you end up with what we have now.

As for fighting less wars, I'm not sure I agree. The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. Yes, we have reduced poverty compared to say 1800 but poverty is higher now than it was in 1960 when we began the war on poverty. Teen pregnancy and abortion are down? Compared to when? Last year? Certainly not compared to 1914. The illegitimacy rate in 1900 was 2%, today it's 40% and among blacks it's 67%. Drug use is down? Again compared to when? Slavery was moral decay but it was going on for thousands of years and it was CHRISTIANS WHO ended it. Yes, blacks in some areas are better off and they certainly have 100% more opportunity (but Al Sharpton may disagree) but many things are worse for them. More blacks are killed in crime in one year now than were killed in all the lynchings from 1865-1964. That's progress? In 1940 the teenage black unemployment rate was LOWER than the white unemployment rate (about 9.8%) today black teenage unemployment is 50%!!! Is that progress? Black illegitimacy was 15% in 1910, it's 67% now, which in my opinion is directly related to poverty and crime. If you are a 16 year old HS drop out with 4 kids from 4 different fathers, guess what, you probably arent going to be CEO of GE. So whether we are better off in total is debatable, while I can agree that in some areas we are better and others worse.
And when did I say I was against competing on our qualities? It's the left that want to create special laws and preferences. I'm of Italian decent. Do you hear me complaining that there aren't enough Italians in the NBA? Finally, I'm no longer a Republican, I believe the Republicans have become the Democrats light, and that's why I left.

Here's the thing about politics (and why I didn't want to get into it). We can setup ANYTHING to prove a point. For instance the current President has spent more or spent less than some of his predecessors and it all depends on how you setup the data. I have no desire to get into that. You seemed to be making the point that Republicans were fiscally conservative and I simply said since when? They haven't been in my lifetime. The best a current Republican can say is we have spent slightly less that a Democrat.

You don't have to agree but you're wrong. Please read the following from a commencement speech at Harvard:

You are not going to hear that message much these days. Instead, you’re likely to hear that we are living through grim economic times, that the graduates are entering the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. The worries are not just economic. Ever since 9/11, we have lived in an age of terror, and our lives remain altered by the fears of future attacks and a future of new threats and dangers. Then there are larger concerns that you hear about: The Earth is warming; we’re running out of water and other vital resources; we have a billion people on the globe trapped in terrible poverty.

So, I want to sketch out for you, perhaps with a little bit of historical context, the world as I see it.

The world we live in is, first of all, at peace — profoundly at peace. The richest countries of the world are not in geopolitical competition with one another, fighting wars, proxy wars, or even engaging in arms races or “cold wars.”

This is a historical rarity. You would have to go back hundreds of years to find a similar period of great power peace. I know that you watch a bomb going off in Afghanistan or hear of a terror plot in this country and think we live in dangerous times. But here is the data. The number of people who have died as a result of war, civil war, and, yes, terrorism, is down 50 percent this decade from the 1990s. It is down 75 percent from the preceding five decades, the decades of the Cold War, and it is, of course, down 99 percent from the decade before that, which is World War II. Harvard professor Steven Pinker says that we are living in the most peaceful times in human history.

The political stability we have experienced has allowed the creation of a single global economic system, in which countries around the world are participating and flourishing. In 1980, the number of countries that were growing at 4 percent a year — robust growth — was around 60. By 2007, it had doubled. Even now, after the financial crisis, that number is more than 80. Even in the current period of slow growth, keep in mind that the global economy as a whole will grow 10 to 20 percent faster this decade than it did a decade ago, 60 percent faster than it did two decades ago, and five times as fast as it did three decades ago.

The result: The United Nations estimates that poverty has been reduced more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years. And much of that reduction has taken place in the last 20 years. The average Chinese person is 10 times richer than he or she was 50 years ago — and lives for 25 years longer. Life expectancy across the world has risen dramatically. We gain five hours of life expectancy every day — without even exercising! A third of all the babies born in the developed world this year will live to be 100.

All this is because of rising standards of living, hygiene, and, of course, medicine. Atul Gawande, a Harvard professor who is also a practicing surgeon, and who also writes about medicine for The New Yorker, writes about a 19th century operation in which the surgeon was trying to amputate his patient’s leg. He succeeded — at that — but accidentally amputated his assistant’s finger as well. Both died of sepsis, and an onlooker died of shock. It is the only known medical procedure to have a 300 percent fatality rate. We’ve come a long way.

To understand the astonishing age of progress we are living in, just look at the cellphones in your pockets. Your cellphones have more computing power than the Apollo space capsule. That capsule couldn’t even Tweet! So just imagine the opportunities that lie ahead. Moore’s Law — that computing power doubles every 18 months while costs halve — may be slowing down in the world of computers, but it is accelerating in other fields. The human genome is being sequenced at a pace faster than Moore’s Law. A “Third Industrial Revolution,” involving material science and the customization of manufacturing, is yet in its infancy. And all these fields are beginning to intersect and produce new opportunities that we cannot really foresee.

The good news goes on. Look at the number of college graduates globally. It has risen fourfold in the last four decades for men, but it has risen sevenfold for women. I believe that the empowerment of women, whether in a village in Africa or a boardroom in America, is good for the world. If you are wondering whether women are in fact smarter than men, the evidence now is overwhelming: yes. My favorite example of this is a study done over the last 25 years in which it found that female representatives in the House of Congress were able to bring back $49 million more in federal grants than their male counterparts. So it turns out women are better than men even at pork-barrel spending. We can look forward to a world enriched and ennobled by women’s voices.

Fear has and always will sell. No one wants to hear optimism.
 
You've said a lot of things that are absolutely wrong and at best are based on flawed data.

For instance the teen pregnancy rate is almost assuredly lower right now than in 1914 and I can prove it with logic. I may not be able to prove it with data because our social statistics probably don't exist. Surely you also need to keep in mind how much bigger our population is now than then.

So I will simply ask you: What kind of logical reason can you give me for why you said you knew the teen pregnancy rate was lower? Because I'm almost positive you're wrong unless you are looking at raw data numbers and not percentages.

Another thing: What was the abortion rate in 1914? We probably didn't keep it. Surely you are intelligent enough to realize that abortion took place before Roe V. Wade right? It took place in back alleys. It took place in dangerous places that were filthy.

Since when has making something illegal ever stopped it? You seem to be just spouting off a bunch of things that you have no idea if you are right on and I bet you can't prove yourself right on either.

Something is not correct simply because you believe it. And I would bet a huge sum of money you are wrong on the teen pregnancy thing. I'd rather hear your point before proving you wrong though. I really want to know why you think some of these things you say are actually true.

Not compared to last year, teen pregnancy has hit a historic low and abortion rates have dropped off big time. Not bad for such immoral times right? We used far more illegal drugs in the 80's than today.

Almost everything you argued for is either demonstrably wrong or you cannot prove it. So far you are only arguing from pure emotion Joe.
 
Here's the thing about politics (and why I didn't want to get into it). We can setup ANYTHING to prove a point. For instance the current President has spent more or spent less than some of his predecessors and it all depends on how you setup the data. I have no desire to get into that. You seemed to be making the point that Republicans were fiscally conservative and I simply said since when? They haven't been in my lifetime. The best a current Republican can say is we have spent slightly less that a Democrat.

You don't have to agree but you're wrong. Please read the following from a commencement speech at Harvard:



Fear has and always will sell. No one wants to hear optimism.

There is such a thing as truth and while you can set anything up to make yourself sound right there is still just one truth. Obama has spent more, you are wrong and by just saying I'm wrong and then saying you dont want to get into it doesn't make you right. The economic system we have built has been built on sand and will, sooner or later collapse.
 
There is such a thing as truth and while you can set anything up to make yourself sound right there is still just one truth. Obama has spent more, you are wrong and by just saying I'm wrong and then saying you dont want to get into it doesn't make you right. The economic system we have built has been built on sand and will, sooner or later collapse.

It depends on how you setup the data. You are right or wrong depending on how you set it up. Republicans will set it up at the start of his Presidency. Democrats will set it up by pointing out all the things he continued that started with the previous President (Iraq War, TARP, etc.) Neither side is wrong. It just depends on how you set it up. I said I don't want to get into it because I'm not a fan of either party really and I don't want to get into a partisan pissing contest. Like I said it all comes back to confirmation bias. If you want to confirm he is the biggest spender don't adjust for inflation or interest rates. If you don't want him to be adjust for those and give the continued spending to GWB. I said I don't want to play that game because no one can win.

Now you ARE wrong on most of the social stuff you tried to argue.
 
Wow.. this thread sure has taken some turn


For the current discussion, here you go ;)

Invalid Link Removed

So you can CLEARLY see the republican is obviously the fiscally responsible government
 
You've said a lot of things that are absolutely wrong and at best are based on flawed data.

For instance the teen pregnancy rate is almost assuredly lower right now than in 1914 and I can prove it with logic. I may not be able to prove it with data because our social statistics probably don't exist. Surely you also need to keep in mind how much bigger our population is now than then.

So I will simply ask you: What kind of logical reason can you give me for why you said you knew the teen pregnancy rate was lower? Because I'm almost positive you're wrong unless you are looking at raw data numbers and not percentages.

Another thing: What was the abortion rate in 1914? We probably didn't keep it. Surely you are intelligent enough to realize that abortion took place before Roe V. Wade right? It took place in back alleys. It took place in dangerous places that were filthy.

Since when has making something illegal ever stopped it? You seem to be just spouting off a bunch of things that you have no idea if you are right on and I bet you can't prove yourself right on either.

Something is not correct simply because you believe it. And I would bet a huge sum of money you are wrong on the teen pregnancy thing. I'd rather hear your point before proving you wrong though. I really want to know why you think some of these things you say are actually true.

Not compared to last year, teen pregnancy has hit a historic low and abortion rates have dropped off big time. Not bad for such immoral times right? We used far more illegal drugs in the 80's than today.

Almost everything you argued for is either demonstrably wrong or you cannot prove it. So far you are only arguing from pure emotion Joe.

LOL!! Once again, just saying I'm wrong doesnt make me wrong. The numbers about illegitimacy are in something called The Statistical Abstract Of The US. When we are talking about teen pregnancy I assumed you were referring to teenage women without husbands. If we are just talking about teenage pregnancy in general then I have no idea. People got married earlier 100 years ago so if that's what you mean you are right.
I never said something is right just because I said it. That appears to be how you are. Everything about economics and statistics and the history of who controlled congress and when can easily be researched right off the internet. As for abortions, who love to go back to 1914, so that's the date I used. Pick a date you like and I will tell you whether you are wrong or not.
Almost everything I said is based on emotions? That's very insulting considering much of what I said about economics, stats and the hsitory of congress can be easily obtained online today. So if I dont agree with you I'm wrong? And I'm the one emotional?
 
It depends on how you setup the data. You are right or wrong depending on how you set it up. Republicans will set it up at the start of his Presidency. Democrats will set it up by pointing out all the things he continued that started with the previous President (Iraq War, TARP, etc.) Neither side is wrong. It just depends on how you set it up. I said I don't want to get into it because I'm not a fan of either party really and I don't want to get into a partisan pissing contest. Like I said it all comes back to confirmation bias. If you want to confirm he is the biggest spender don't adjust for inflation or interest rates. If you don't want him to be adjust for those and give the continued spending to GWB. I said I don't want to play that game because no one can win.

Now you ARE wrong on most of the social stuff you tried to argue.

I dont know how you can say that if he continued to spend on things that Bush started it's not considered spending, that's laughable. He either spent it or he didn't. Is TART still going on?
 
LOL!! Once again, just saying I'm wrong doesnt make me wrong. The numbers about illegitimacy are in something called The Statistical Abstract Of The US. When we are talking about teen pregnancy I assumed you were referring to teenage women without husbands. If we are just talking about teenage pregnancy in general then I have no idea. People got married earlier 100 years ago so if that's what you mean you are right.
I never said something is right just because I said it. That appears to be how you are. Everything about economics and statistics and the history of who controlled congress and when can easily be researched right off the internet. As for abortions, who love to go back to 1914, so that's the date I used. Pick a date you like and I will tell you whether you are wrong or not.
Almost everything I said is based on emotions? That's very insulting considering much of what I said about economics, stats and the hsitory of congress can be easily obtained online today. So if I dont agree with you I'm wrong? And I'm the one emotional?

Again how do you want to set things up? In the past we FORCED women who got pregnant to get married. The divorce rate is partially higher right now because we allow abused women to GET divorced. You may argue those are bad things, but I think they are good. We don't have good data on abortions in 1914 because we didn't track it like today. It HAPPENED though. History shows us and tells us that.

Our social science stats are very flawed the further back we go. And yet you make these arguments like "Well I KNOW it was lower in 1914!"

No, actually you don't. Especially when you take into consideration that a lot of marriages back then were forced.
 
Wow.. this thread sure has taken some turn


For the current discussion, here you go ;)

Invalid Link Removed

So you can CLEARLY see the republican is obviously the fiscally responsible government

Oh, wow Josh, I have the honor of you talking to me again?
I already answered this question, reread my post.
 
I dont know how you can say that if he continued to spend on things that Bush started it's not considered spending, that's laughable. He either spent it or he didn't. Is TART still going on?

It's actually not laughable. He would have been criticized highly for ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on day 1 of his presidency. Of course he didn't do that....not even arguing he should have. That was huge spending that was put in place before he got there that he saw fit to continue. Again, it all depends on how you want to debate things. It's not nearly as easy as you keep trying to make things. It's ok to say "I don't know" every once in a while. I do it all the time.
 
Again how do you want to set things up? In the past we FORCED women who got pregnant to get married. The divorce rate is partially higher right now because we allow abused women to GET divorced. You may argue those are bad things, but I think they are good. We don't have good data on abortions in 1914 because we didn't track it like today. It HAPPENED though. History shows us and tells us that.

Our social science stats are very flawed the further back we go. And yet you make these arguments like "Well I KNOW it was lower in 1914!"

No, actually you don't. Especially when you take into consideration that a lot of marriages back then were forced.

Well if stats were not good back then how do you know things are better now? Are you 120 years old?
 
It's actually not laughable. He would have been criticized highly for ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on day 1 of his presidency. Of course he didn't do that....not even arguing he should have. That was huge spending that was put in place before he got there that he saw fit to continue. Again, it all depends on how you want to debate things. It's not nearly as easy as you keep trying to make things. It's ok to say "I don't know" every once in a while. I do it all the time.

Ok, the Iraq war was 150 billion per year. His deficits have run 1.2 trillion, where did the other trillion go?
You must not be reading my entire posts I have said I dont know.
 
Well if stats were not good back then how do you know things are better now? Are you 120 years old?

Better is subjective. I have given my reasons for why I think things were better. Your reasons were things like "well I know abortion and teen pregnancy was lower." Most of our social statistics

I think the last economic downturn was far better than the Great Recession. Poverty now and poverty back then are almost incomparable. A poor person in 2014 probably has so many things one in 1914 did in terms of comfort, food, etc that it would blow your mind.

A lot of people talk about the good old days. I'm a history guy....they weren't THAT good. We tend to act like only bad things happen in the current times.
 
Ok, the Iraq war was 150 billion per year. His deficits have run 1.2 trillion, where did the other trillion go?
You must not be reading my entire posts I have said I dont know.

I'm not doing this anymore:

I am not trying to defend nor attack the President. It started from you saying Republican are fiscally conservative. I just said since when.

Interest on the national debt is much higher now, he inherited two wars and a financial disaster. He has done a lot of things I disagree with and a lot of things I have liked. What's laughable is that you would attempt to argue "well he either spent it or did not" as a reasoned position to take. 95% of the country would have been pissed as hell if he ended the Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and did nothing in terms of cutting taxes or stimulus spending.

His deficits would have been far lower if he did those things, but you aren't allowing yourself to think about things in any manner other than confirmation bias right now imo. That's my last political post in here. I came to defend tolerance.
 
Better is subjective. I have given my reasons for why I think things were better. Your reasons were things like "well I know abortion and teen pregnancy was lower." Most of our social statistics

I think the last economic downturn was far better than the Great Recession. Poverty now and poverty back then are almost incomparable. A poor person in 2014 probably has so many things one in 1914 did in terms of comfort, food, etc that it would blow your mind.

A lot of people talk about the good old days. I'm a history guy....they weren't THAT good. We tend to act like only bad things happen in the current times.

I agree better is subjective but I never said I know, I said they were and I told you where I got my stats from. Now if you want to argue that the stats are not reliable fine; but then you have no more of a basis than me. I never said some things weren't better, I said some things are better and some worse, whether the overall is better or not is debatable.
 
I'm not doing this anymore:

I am not trying to defend nor attack the President. It started from you saying Republican are fiscally conservative. I just said since when.

Interest on the national debt is much higher now, he inherited two wars and a financial disaster. He has done a lot of things I disagree with and a lot of things I have liked. What's laughable is that you would attempt to argue "well he either spent it or did not" as a reasoned position to take. 95% of the country would have been pissed as hell if he ended the Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and did nothing in terms of cutting taxes or stimulus spending.

His deficits would have been far lower if he did those things, but you aren't allowing yourself to think about things in any manner other than confirmation bias right now imo. That's my last political post in here. I came to defend tolerance.

Yes, I told you when. I'm not sure if you are right that interest is higher but interest did not cause out debt to go from 10 Trillion to 17 Trillion. And what tax cuts are you talking about? The Social Security tax cut? I'm an accountant, it's my business to know this; but I guess you know all about accounting and taxes as well.
I just explained ending the Iraq war would have only saved him 150 billion per year. The deficit was 1.2 Trillion. In 2013 the deficit was 990 Billion.
 
I agree better is subjective but I never said I know, I said they were and I told you where I got my stats from. Now if you want to argue that the stats are not reliable fine; but then you have no more of a basis than me. I never said some things weren't better, I said some things are better and some worse, whether the overall is better or not is debatable.

The things you said are lower you haven't proven yet. Which is ok because you probably can't prove it. Now I can't either, but more teens were pregnant proportionally in 1914 than 2014 I'm almost positive. You can't just say teen pregnancy was lower in 1914 unless you can prove it statistically.

This article says the lowest since 1946. Abortion rates are down as well. Obviously we won't have good data on that....but some people think abortion started with the passing of Roe V. Wade. Absolutely not, abortion has taken place throughout history. It takes place when legal or illegal.

Invalid Link Removed
 
The things you said are lower you haven't proven yet. Which is ok because you probably can't prove it. Now I can't either, but more teens were pregnant proportionally in 1914 than 2014 I'm almost positive. You can't just say teen pregnancy was lower in 1914 unless you can prove it statistically.

This article says the lowest since 1946. Abortion rates are down as well. Obviously we won't have good data on that....but some people think abortion started with the passing of Roe V. Wade. Absolutely not, abortion has taken place throughout history. It takes place when legal or illegal.

Invalid Link Removed

The article talks about teen pregnancy but doesnt talk about marriage. I already said, if you were talking about all teen pregnancy the answer is people married younger in 1914, so you're comparing apples and oranges.
 
Yes, I told you when. I'm not sure if you are right that interest is higher but interest did not cause out debt to go from 10 Trillion to 17 Trillion. And what tax cuts are you talking about? The Social Security tax cut? I'm an accountant, it's my business to know this; but I guess you know all about accounting and taxes as well.
I just explained ending the Iraq war would have only saved him 150 billion per year. The deficit was 1.2 Trillion. In 2013 the deficit was 990 Billion.

The President could have ended both wars, ended the Bush tax cuts on day 1, stopped Tarp payments, and a host of other things and the national debt would be much lower. Doing this would have been absolute political suicide. You need to read about the stimulus packages, it had numerous tax cuts for businesses and individuals.

Like I said I'm not here to debate the President, I'm hear to talk about tolerance. I just don't like when people tell me Republicans are fiscally conservative. They haven't been over the last 30 years and neither have Democrats. Of course either side can and will setup crap to prove they are better. They always do that. It's political football!
 
The article talks about teen pregnancy but doesnt talk about marriage. I already said, if you were talking about all teen pregnancy the answer is people married younger in 1914, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Do you think it's bad that woman are getting married later on in life? I think it's awesome. I don't think 14 year old girls should be married. I don't think a teen that gets pregnant should be forced into a relationship that won't work. We used to do both of those things. Society changed...imo for the better.

Two society changes right there...both (IMO) better.

The present ****ing rocks.
 
Trillions of dollars surplus during Clinton; trillions of dollars deficit after Bush. Mainly for funding a false war in Iraq which propped up the profits of his vice president's company. Pallets of money LOST en route to Iraq. Remember, Afghanistan was the post 9/11 target.

So you can see the problem:

Obama.
 
The President could have ended both wars, ended the Bush tax cuts on day 1, stopped Tarp payments, and a host of other things and the national debt would be much lower. Doing this would have been absolute political suicide. You need to read about the stimulus packages, it had numerous tax cuts for businesses and individuals.

Like I said I'm not hear to debate the President, I'm hear to talk about tolerance. I just don't like when people tell me Republicans are fiscally conservative. They haven't been over the last 30 years and neither have Democrats.

Yes, you are right, he could have ended the Bush tax cuts; but it wouldnt have only been political suicide, it wouldve been economic suicide. You have a massive recession and you think that increasing taxes would make it better? It would be like taking blood from a sick person.
There were no across the board tax cuts for businesses and individuals except for the Social Security tax cut. There was an increase in the Section 179 deduction but that was a Republican idea.
Yes, ending TARP would have made the deficit lower; but TARP is over now, Iraq is over, why still the 990 billion deficit? Again, I agree with you that in the 2000's they werent, at least not on a national level, but they were before and they didn't have total control the way they did in 2000-2006. But look at the state and local levels, look at what Giuliani did for NYC.
 
Do you think it's bad that woman are getting married later on in life? I think it's awesome. I don't think 14 year old girls should be married. I don't think a teen that gets pregnant should be forced into a relationship that won't work. We used to do both of those things. Society changed...imo for the better.

Two society changes right there...both (IMO) better.

The present ****ing rocks.

If they are getting married later because of their own choice and to further their education, yes ofcourse.
 
Trillions of dollars surplus during Clinton; trillions of dollars deficit after Bush. Mainly for funding a false war in Iraq which propped up the profits of his vice president's company. Pallets of money LOST en route to Iraq. Remember, Afghanistan was the post 9/11 target.

So you can see the problem:

Obama.

Trillion dollar surpluses? LOL, the highest surplus was in 2000 and it was 236 billion. And he had a Republican congress to nudge him along. We never had trillion dollar deficits until Obama. I thinkg youre confusing debt with deficit. The debt is the total amount of deficits life to date. The deficit is a short fall in revenue in any one particular year.
 
Trillion dollar surpluses? LOL, the highest surplus was in 2000 and it was 236 billion. And he had a Republican congress to nudge him along. We never had trillion dollar deficits until Obama. I thinkg youre confusing debt with deficit. The debt is the total amount of deficits life to date. The deficit is a short fall in revenue in any one particular year.

Serious question:

Why when I brought up Reagan tripling the debt you said he was not king, but with Obama you seem to be thinking he is. For the last few years he has had a Republican party working against anything he could try.

Why absolve Reagan of responsibility for his debt, but blame Obama completely for his? Seems quite inconsistent.

This is why I don't like talking about politics. People have who they like and the internet has made it easy to prove people wrong with misleading statistics. It just seems weird how you defended Reagan's debt as not his fault, but the President's seems to be completely his fault according to your logic.
 
If they are getting married later because of their own choice and to further their education, yes ofcourse.

The divorce rate is too high I agree, but it's also partially higher because we have allowed people to get out of bad marriages. In the past we pressured them to fight through cheating, abuse, etc. Now we tell people to ditch that loser.

I think the divorce rate being a negative is certainly up for debate. We used to make battered women stay and spouses who had been unfaithful always tough it out. We sentenced people often to a lifetime of misery.
 
Serious question:

Why when I brought up Reagan tripling the debt you said he was not king, but with Obama you seem to be thinking he is. For the last few years he has had a Republican party working against anything he could try.

Why absolve Reagan of responsibility for his debt, but blame Obama completely for his? Seems quite inconsistent.

This is why I don't like talking about politics. People have who they like and the internet has made it easy to prove people wrong with misleading statistics. It just seems weird how you defended Reagan's debt as not his fault, but the President's seems to be completely his fault according to your logic.

Because Reagan's budget deficit proposals were:
1982 45 Billion
1983 22 Billion
1984 0.5 Billion
If he had his way we would only have had added to the debt 67.5 Billion dollars and balanced the budget by 1984 or 1985. But the democrat congress voted against it.
As for Obama, he had a democrats Congress from 2008-2010 where he got EVERYTHING he wanted. Yes, he lost the House in 2010 but kept the Senate. The Republicans have been fighting his budgets but he keeps winning because whenever there is an stalemate and no budget the government shuts down and the Republicans blink like the pansies that they are. So the spending continues. You seem to have selective reading I have blamed Bush and the Republican Congress from 2000-2006. They sucked, Reagan ROCKED!!!
 
Because Reagan's budget deficit proposals were:
1982 45 Billion
1983 22 Billion
1984 0.5 Billion
If he had his way we would only have had added to the debt 67.5 Billion dollars and balanced the budget by 1984 or 1985. But the democrat congress voted against it.
As for Obama, he had a democrats Congress from 2008-2010 where he got EVERYTHING he wanted. Yes, he lost the House in 2010 but kept the Senate. The Republicans have been fighting his budgets but he keeps winning because whenever there is an stalemate and no budget the government shuts down and the Republicans blink like the pansies that they are. So the spending continues. You seem to have selective reading I have blamed Bush and the Republican Congress from 2000-2006. They sucked, Reagan ROCKED!!!

Again you're being really inconsistent. You are talking about the national debt but saying if Obama had done certain things it would be economic suicide. most of the most expensive things in his first term were spending on stuff continuing stuff the man before him started or in response to the economic climate he got. Agree or disagree?
 
Again you're being really inconsistent. You are talking about the national debt but saying if Obama had done certain things it would be economic suicide. most of the most expensive things in his first term were spending on stuff continuing stuff the man before him started or in response to the economic climate he got. Agree or disagree?

AGREED!!! But what about now? When did Iraq end when did TARP end. I'm not being inconsistent. If Obama had just done nothing the economy would have recovered faster on it's own, but the regulations he put on businesses amounted to trillions of dollars in expenses for them that took away from expansion.
If you're really a Libertarian you can't possibly believe that more government spending and intervention is a good thing. TARP ended in 2010, Iraq ended in 2011, TARP was 500 Billion and Iraq was 150 Billion. So by those numbers the deficit for 2012 should have been 550 Billion. It wasnt it was 1.2 Trillion. We are now in 2014, 2013's deficit was 990 Billion. How long are you going to blame Bush?
 
Again YOU were the one drawing the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. I argue they are both for big government. And you've proven why I hate talking about politics. I said Reagan wasn't fiscally conservative and you blamed Democrats. Then I said well Obama you could argue has a lot of stuff from the previous administration that he couldn't control. You said "nope, Democrats."

It's a waste of time.

You can't be close to a libertarian if you think Reagan rocked. His administrations vastly grew the size of the federal government. I know you think that was all Democrats though so moot point. Reagan TALKED small government all the time. He governed in the opposite manner. Talking small government always plays well with the electorate.

Whatever though. I'll only post in here again if people attack gays and say we should be intolerant. Or if someone wants to talk about how awesome society was in 1787 or some other really old date where only white men were allowed to do anything.
 
Again YOU were the one drawing the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. I argue they are both for big government. And you've proven why I hate talking about politics. I said Reagan wasn't fiscally conservative and you blamed Democrats. Then I said well Obama you could argue has a lot of stuff from the previous administration that he couldn't control. You said "nope, Democrats."

It's a waste of time.

You can't be close to a libertarian if you think Reagan rocked. His administrations vastly grew the size of the federal government. I know you think that was all Democrats though so moot point. Reagan TALKED small government all the time. He governed in the opposite manner. Talking small government always plays well with the electorate.

Yes, because in the Reagan administration there was a distinction and even the Republican Congress of the 1990's but that distinction has almost vanished which is why I am no longer a Republican.
Yes the point is moot because I showed you Reagan's proposed budget deficit and you chose to ignore it.
 
As for Obama, he had a democrats Congress from 2008-2010 where he got EVERYTHING he wanted.

Everything he wanted?

Are we forgetting the whopping 375 (I think 375 but cant remember for sure. Im sure you can google and check it if you like) filibusters which required a super majority to pass pretty much anything?
 
Everything he wanted?

Are we forgetting the whopping 375 (I think 375 but cant remember for sure. Im sure you can google and check it if you like) filibusters which required a super majority to pass pretty much anything?

Oh, you just like to talk to me when you feel like?
 
Oh, you just like to talk to me when you feel like?


Thread moves too fast for me to keep up. I am just checking the board during studying breaks. Sorry but your opinion, belief, stance, whatever isnt important enough to to me to maintain my attention. Plus the current convo is waaay off track from the original convo. Submit a rational, logical, objective reason why homosexuality is immoral, un-natural and/or damaging to the majority of society and maybe I will respond
 
Thread moves too fast for me to keep up. I am just checking the board during studying breaks. Sorry but your opinion, belief, stance, whatever isnt important enough to to me to maintain my attention.

If that's the reason fine; but yesterday you said you wouldn't talk to me because I disagree with homosexuality. Even though aside from that I have made no disparaging remarks about it. Never said I wanted them dead, or beaten up et al.
 
If that's the reason fine; but yesterday you said you wouldn't talk to me because I disagree with homosexuality. Even though aside from that I have made no disparaging remarks about it. Never said I wanted them dead, or beaten up et al.

No. I said I wasnt in the mood to debate the reality of evolution with you. I never said I wouldnt talk to you because of your view.
 
I have absolutely no desire for a back in forth with you, especially after seeing your reaponses in this thread on homosexuality.

" If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence.

If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument would you invoke to prove they should value logic?" - Sam Harris

Evolution is the foundation of biology. It is a scientific fact just like the earth orbits the sun is a scientific fact. The onlm
y individuals who object to evoultion do so because they are misinformed (do not understand it) or out of cognitive dissonance. I suspect you are in the later group in which case debating this would be a waste of time

Josh, here it is above.
 
Back
Top