100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Ole Ripoff Rupert and his corrupt machine are going down! About bloody time.....  Most of the Faux news viewers I come across in person and online just recite what they've heard on the toob as if it were fact.  I'll hand this to Rupert-he's created probably the most effective propaganda/misinformation/disinformation machine in modern history. Almost everything the viewers of that network believe is partly to totally false. He's outdone the the great propagandists of Europe like Goebbels and Hitler.  He had a little help, they wanted to believe the garbage, it went along with their demented political, social, environmental and religious views. Make them fear something and you can control them, it really is that easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Problem With Evolution?
|
|
Man created some gods in his image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Problem With Evolution?
|
|
Why is it that so many theists have a problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin? Why is it so hard for them to accept that after a few thousand years of development mankind began to use the brainpower granted them [by God?] to observe the natural world and develop an explanation of the origin and evolution of biological beings using reason, logic and evidence - rather than the guesswork and superstison of primitive desert-dwellers who knew far less than their descendants would? Why should a 7000(?) year old theory be held accountable to a 150 year old theory? It was forgivable of primitive Man to believe in Geocentricism, since from our perspective is does indeed appear that the heavens revolve around a static Earth. Now we know the truth about our planet's position in the cosmos - but we do not grant the theory of Geoncentricism the same respect that we do of Creationism, yet we now have far better explanations for the origins of life than those hypothesised by ancient Hebrews. So why is it that modern-day theists easily accept that our planet orbits around a star yet find it so difficult to acknowledge that humans are just another species of animal? Why believe in gravity but not evolution? This magic man also put a baby in a "virgin",the baby became a minime magic man and turned water into wine and walked on water....so really think about who you're debating with.They worship this magic man and his baby,but have never seen this magic man.On top of all this all 3 Abrahamic religions were stolen from the Sumerian,Babylonian,Greek and whatever other mythos it wanted to steal the stories from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Problem With Evolution?
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 01/28/12 08:03 PM
|
|
• "Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer This pigeon just put all you atheists into checkmate. Is that the part when the pigeon goes back to his flock to claim his (false) victory?? Eh, you may want to prove his statement wrong.. ..or you'll be playing the part of the pigeon. :X ..just saying. >.> I can't be the pigeon, I am not a creationist. But it sure does seem to fit that part of the statement. Going back to the flock claiming false victory... But we are used to it from some posters anyway. That is how it goes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NaturalNews) Nearly half of all Americans now use prescription drugs on a regular basis according to a CDC report that was just released (1). Nearly a third of Americans use two or more drugs, and more than one in ten use five or more prescription drugs regularly. The report also revealed that one in five children are being regularly given prescription drugs, and nine out of ten seniors are on drugs. All these drugs came at a cost of over $234 billion in 2008. The most commonly-used drugs were: • Statin drugs for older people • Asthma drugs for children • Antidepressants for middle-aged people • Amphetamine stimulants for children America has become a nation of druggies. The seniors are being drugged for nearly every symptom a doctor can find, children are being doped up with (legalized) speed, and middle-aged soccer moms are popping suicide pills (antidepressants). Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029664_prescription_drugs_Americans.html#ixzz1koUzUkVR Yes, because the government profits off of it! Check out the strange bedfellows between the lawmakers and big pharma Hypocrites! The Government. Say one thing and do another. They don't care who's doing drugs..is good to keep society drugged and sleeping. This is just targeted at the poor.... agreed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Problem With Evolution?
|
|
• "Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer This pigeon just put all you atheists into checkmate. Is that the part when the pigeon goes back to his flock to claim his (false) victory??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is too funny to me (not) having lived in extremely poor neighborhoods for quite a few years now, the misconceptions those who do not live in poor neighborhoods have of the poor.
Most drug addicts can't even follow through on an application process. Having worked for Human Services for many years, I knew if I suspected drug use all I had to do was give them something they needed to do before they could get benefits. They didn't keep appts, they didn't turn in verification because they usually didn't have it, (druggies don't keep ID, social security cards, etc...) also they lie so much that they usually work themselves into a hole because I verified every story they told. So there weren't many if any druggies on my caseload nor most anyone else's. So it is a waste of government money to do drug testing all the way around. Even the states who stupidly passed it are finding that there isn't any druggies to catch. Wasted time and money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why shouldn't they? Everyone else has to take a test to go to work for their money. If everyone else has to be tested for a job(basically their income, why shouldn't everyone else be tested when applying for an income source (such as Food Benefits, Unemployment, Disability, Welfare, or any other financial support)? I don't see where anyone is singled out in this. I see where they are given special treatment from the rest of the income making world. that is true - a lot of people do have to go through mandatory drug testing, but not all jobs require it....I think the idea that it has to be every month? I mean I see your point, but they will just stay clean till after the 1st so my objection is more that it is a waste of resources It wouldn't be every month they only do a re-certification every year now with a telephone interview, 6 months filling out a letter. If they did it it would be to start benefits. If they let their benefits lapse, and had to completely re-apply whose fault would that be. That would be like starting a new job again and re-testing for the new job. Maybe where you live. It is a monthly process in most states. The MSR is the monthly report. They couldn't manage it or support monthly testing. They don't have enough social workers to do 6 month recerts let alone monthly testing, be realistic as to what they would. Besides, to save money on hiring more Social Workers they have gone to accepting letters every other recert and telephone interviews non-in-person contact for the other 6 month review. Explain to me how they would free up employees, not to mention funds for monthly testing itself for everyone receiving benefits? they wouldnt need new employees, they would contract it with the local labs to do the testing and send the results,,, Right, lots of job creation and if we are fair with the nationwide, everyone, it will really create jobs. That would be a good thing and they could pee in the cup to get the job and then every month after that. whoooweee lots of pee...lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rich get bailed out. The poor get bailed out.Always the working class that gets screwed in this Country. To be fair they all need to piss in the cup. Then we will truly know who is doing what and how we should handle them all, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how the lawmakers themselves are the ones with the problem if the testing becomes directed at them. This whole 30 year "war on drugs" is horrible anyway. Our country has the highest incarceration rate in the ENTIRE WORLD! We have more of our citizens locked up (per capita I am putting it in perspective here) than the entire planet! TEST away...test the poor, but test all everyone who draws a check then too...be fair about it and dont single out the poor. Our mayors should also be tested, along with our govenors, and all of our paid representatives.... The oppression of the poor needs to end. To truly make it fair we need to test every living soul over age ten. Then it is truly fair. Not just government involved. Everyone needs to report when we start taking body fluids from our citizens. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 01/28/12 06:58 PM
|
|
Why shouldn't they? Everyone else has to take a test to go to work for their money. If everyone else has to be tested for a job(basically their income, why shouldn't everyone else be tested when applying for an income source (such as Food Benefits, Unemployment, Disability, Welfare, or any other financial support)? I don't see where anyone is singled out in this. I see where they are given special treatment from the rest of the income making world. that is true - a lot of people do have to go through mandatory drug testing, but not all jobs require it....I think the idea that it has to be every month? I mean I see your point, but they will just stay clean till after the 1st so my objection is more that it is a waste of resources It wouldn't be every month they only do a re-certification every year now with a telephone interview, 6 months filling out a letter. If they did it it would be to start benefits. If they let their benefits lapse, and had to completely re-apply whose fault would that be. That would be like starting a new job again and re-testing for the new job. Maybe where you live. It is a monthly process in most states. The MSR is the monthly report. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a real problem with it in principle but it does seem to single out a specific socio economic segment for scrutiny the rest of us are not subject to at the same time we are supporting them financially, and I know I do not think the taxes I pay should buy drugs for anyone it's stupid tho cause anyone whose worked a production line knows how to get around a drug test....so it will be a giant waste of time & resources Neither you or most everyone on this board are supporting anyone with taxes because you get yours back. But agreed on the targeting a certain type of people to denigrate them further and cost us/those who don't get their taxes back/ money that will not do anything productive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted Hillary over Obama but Obama was still a good choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i hope americans change the # of terms a president could be elected.... cause i want BILL CLINTON back..   Amen. No matter what he did in his private time, he was good for this country for the most part. He did make a big mistake however with Nafta (I think it is called) and that is part of our problems today. But outside of that he was a good president. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Problem With Evolution?
|
|
• "Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer So accurate..lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 01/28/12 06:43 PM
|
|
It will be the first black man to be voted president again of course. ..due in large part to the lack of competition. I believe President Palmer served two terms.. and was assassinated when douche whitey was pres. agreed There are no legitimate candidates out there right now to challenge him. I don't know about the palmer thing at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 01/28/12 06:23 PM
|
|
Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers
Welfare Drug Test First Posted: 01/27/2012 5:36 pm Updated: 01/27/2012 6:27 pm A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers. "There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill," said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill. The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster. "I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare. McMillin's bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse "reasonable suspicion," either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office. In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials. Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday. "After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill," Dvorak said. "If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. ... If we're going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money." Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office. McMillan, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself. "I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent," he said. "Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/welfare-drug-testing-bill_n_1237333.html We need to test everyone then. Instead of bread lines or in addition to bread lines we can have piss lines and it will become a part of your credit record so the government can track who is doing what. Once a month would create a lot of jobs all over the country. How young do we need to go. Ten? Five? Peeing in a cup would become the next social security number type thing, something you live with forever. Of course the Republicans won't go for that because they only want to denigrate the poor. It is beyond their humanity to feel empathy for the majority of the country so they abuse them and it makes them feel better about themselves. PS sorry for the misspelling in the title. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Problem With Evolution?
|
|
Why is it that so many theists have a problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin? Why is it so hard for them to accept that after a few thousand years of development mankind began to use the brainpower granted them [by God?] to observe the natural world and develop an explanation of the origin and evolution of biological beings using reason, logic and evidence - rather than the guesswork and superstison of primitive desert-dwellers who knew far less than their descendants would? Why should a 7000(?) year old theory be held accountable to a 150 year old theory? It was forgivable of primitive Man to believe in Geocentricism, since from our perspective is does indeed appear that the heavens revolve around a static Earth. Now we know the truth about our planet's position in the cosmos - but we do not grant the theory of Geoncentricism the same respect that we do of Creationism, yet we now have far better explanations for the origins of life than those hypothesised by ancient Hebrews. So why is it that modern-day theists easily accept that our planet orbits around a star yet find it so difficult to acknowledge that humans are just another species of animal? Why believe in gravity but not evolution? Well of course the newest theory will be the more accurate in this arena for sure. There shouldn't be any problem with evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...a woman! Why? Easy! After this election, and the term of another 4 years passes; it is pre-destined to be a woman. The Keifer Sutherland TV series, 24, depicted the first black man (he now does commercials for All State) as President of the United States. And after a short run from a douche-white dude, and than Palmer's brother who took over. President Allison Taylor took the presidency. So, that' my prediction. :D We will soon have our first female president! xD hahaha It will be the first black man to be voted president again of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  Poor man! Not smart enough to realize it was Bush who put him there not Obama. Low intelligence is not a crime though, just an irritant for the rest of us. 
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
