Oh, get off it. Bush did nothing BUT whine and cast blame on everyone else during his entire presidency, if he was not forcing his underlings to take the fall and resign for him, that is.

You're displaying an extreme kind of bitterness I've only heard from extremist militant racists so far. Whether you like it or not, he's not "pretending" anything. He was elected and IS president.

Cripes, dude. You sound like Glenn Beck, ranting like an idiot with unfounded accusations and twisting everything said and done to fit your own agenda or that of the propagandists that riddle Fox News and CNN these days. We'll have a new president in '12 or '16. Relax.

I'm sure you mean "feats" and yes, I have heard of them and these feats are made possible by a chemical called adrenaline. Its kind of like a natural speed which just basically gives you this super boost of energy ... but only physically ... and you suffer for this. If you lift something far beyond your ability in a moment of desperation, you can and will tear muscle, break cartilage, splinter bone ... it all depends on what you're doing and how much your body can withstand. In that, this is by no means "magical" in any sense of the word.

Because God would have to be extraordinarily complex, far more than humans by your own standards. That does not just happen as those who believe in God do not believe that "nature" and our presence on earth did not just happen.

So if God created the universe, earth and humanity, what conditions created God?

No one said it was all gone. I was merely contesting your statement that the U.S. has more oil than the middle east.

I didn't say evolution disproved God. However, reason does if evolution is true. As Richard Dawkins has stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) "If evolution exists and is the natural order of things, then for God to exist as an intelligent and complex being, he would have had to undergo that same process of evolving over an extremely long period of time as have humans. He could not have existed, whole, from the very beginning."

No need to scream to be read.

Actually, no ... you're wrong. When the policies that Bush set in motion before leaving office expire, then Obama can take the blame for what HE'S done. If throughout his entire term, Obama cannot fix the damage W and Cheney did, then he can take the blame for it. If by the end of his term in office, Obama has not made America a better place, THEN he can accept the blame for it. When HIS policies fail, he can accept the blame. However, he has not been in office long enough for anyone to determine if his policies have failed ... just so, they have barely had time to be enacted as of yet, if at all.

So what you should do is consider what he's done (and what he HASN'T done) before you demand he take the fall for actions as yet incomplete.

Oh, and ...



Seriously now ... anyone who considers any one of these people to be rational, well-spoken, intelligent news commentators (they are not reporters) are they, themselves, silly people. You're better off spending your time watching the Daily Show. In fact, I guarantee you that you will be far better informed.

Well said, Msharmony. Agreed.



Really? Its like you just praise anyone that aims a finger at Obama whether they make sense or not. Did you even bother reading? I had thought you a little more rational than that.

A) Why drill? Why not force alternative fuel sources instead of destroying the environment? Sure, it can be argued that drilling will not necessarily harm the environment but accidents happen ... and beyond that, we don't make a habit of studying where we're going to drill before we start tearing the earth asunder.

B) The middle east has the highest concentration of crude oil on earth. If the Denver Post says otherwise, its wrong. As far as this CONTINENT goes, the most oil can be found in Texas and Alaska.



Why do you just need the history of you ancestry? Aside from any genetic disorders you may or may not have inherited or pass on. As far as the history of the world being too complex ... not really. Humans are a fairly predictable lot and if you don't show them that horrible stuff has happened that should never happen again, then they'll happen again. This may not be a decision of yours, but can you speak for everyone? So would it be too much to ask for you to learn world history along with everyone else so that there's no WWIII? Or another Tiananmen Square incident? Or more soldiers opening fire on students during another Civil Rights Movement?

I think history as a subject is EXTREMELY important. Else, we lose track of the world we live in and take for granted and we shall regress to darker times.

I find it amusing that conclusions are jumped to like this without considering ... I don't know, the past 8 years of economic turmoil under W and the massive amount of spending that's gone into the Iraq War ... non-profitable spending, might I add.

The guy has been in office for just over a year and we all know how long it takes at least our own government to do anything. Instead of taking the major news organizations (read "propaganda machines") at face value, use it as a starting point to do your own research and make your own decision.

Don't get me wrong, I hold no love specifically for Obama (though I voted for him to keep McCain-Palin out of office), but I do think if you're not going to gripe about what George Bush left us with, then why are you going to gripe about Obama? Because he's a convenient target that Bush would not allow himself to be? Because he's not stifling public opinion and listening to your phone calls?

Gonna vote for the film adaptation of the play "The Time of Your Life" starring James Cagney.

If the lack of being discredited is the reason for that belief, then what of evolution? It has not been disproven and evidence grows in its favor.

And, just to take this to the extreme, the presence of the Almighty Bob has not been disproven either and, truly, cannot be discredited, only proven highly improbable. So why, too, do you not believe in Bob?

Honestly, the worst thing I can remember from the films is the extremely fast gestation times for the aliens. I didn't begrudge much on the predator side, though there was still a lot of cheese throughout. Then again, the entirety of the backstory is based on cheese (though the comics took a serious route to it).

If I want aliens, I'd rather just watch the films, Alien or Aliens (or, the upcoming return of Ridley Scott in the form of a prequel to the entire series, link below). If I want Predator, the comics are the way to go.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

Yes, they can ... if they have dump trucks, cranes and other required tools to do so. Otherwise, I challenge any number of people to stand around Mount Everest and give it a nudge. Have fun, I'll be doing something meaningful ... like laughing.

I, myself, will concern myself with the physical so long as I live. Why? Because I'm alive and its in my best interest. If there is a transition, then I'll concern myself with it once its happened.

And as for the "out of body" experience ... there have been a multitude of cases in which the mind has turned to hallucination in traumatic situations. Repressed memories are also related to this. And I know of one case in particular in which a rapist was transformed by a mind to a complete stranger because, for the woman in question, her mind could not take the realization that it was a long-time friend who had committed the act.

The difference between Columbus and Michaelangelo having "discovered America" (though not really) and Painting the Sistine Chapel are far different than a few collected books written by an oppressed people, especially books that cannot agree on what God is or what God does.

We're here on this continent, so we know someone (we call him Columbus) came over from Europe, which caused the natives a mountain of grief for many of years and then England a mountain of grief for many years and then the USA was born. There was a great artist that lived many years ago and we can see their work ... we call him "Michaelangelo".

The Bible is a collection of different books that relate a great many tales that were told hundreds of times over in previous myths like Dionysus and Horus. Books in which not all versions are accepted. When Christianity came to Rome, Constantine held a forum in which the Bible (in somewhat current form) was debated on and what to include ... whether Jesus should be presented as a regular guy or a deity. King James gave us our most recent edition (proven by "King James Version"), taking out things he did not really care for himself. And what of those other books that didn't make the cut? Like the Gospel of Judas or that of Mary Magdalen (and the versions that name her Jesus' wife)?

So if its been edited to fit those in powers' idea of what they want in a religion and its not the original word of God ... what makes it valid?

A video from November of '08. Its not often you see a conversation like this. Quite interesting.

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/469/the-four-horsemen-discussion-with-dawkins-dennett-harris-hitchens/

We are not energy, but matter run on energy. Electrical impulses sent through our bodies to control our muscles are expended (or converted) to kinetic energy. Our bodies eventually stop converting energy into the electrical impulses that power us, therefore we cease to be energetic and die.

Man, that sounds so "doom".

Actually, there is a Bob-God. Though I believe its just a running joke. And lets not forget ... that's how Scientology came about recently, so its not so far-fetched.

I guess its like being gay ... you're allowed to talk about it only if you are one of them. So they can freely attempt to convert the rest of the population, but if non-believers attempt to reason with believers its "oppression".

I, for one, enjoy religious debate, even though I'm an atheist and I must say this topic has piqued my interest.

If the Tree of Knowledge was only about awareness of good and evil, then perhaps it was seen as a sort of stepping stone into further awareness, which is why God forbade its fruits. In this, they were questioning God and a question is proposed in order to obtain information. After the eating of the fruit, the want for further knowledge would not be quenched easily.

On the other hand, should the Tree of Knowledge only contain the awareness of the dichotomy, why was its fruit forbidden? Would not God want his creations to understand the difference? Especially if doing what he has strictly forbidden would be considered a kind of evil?