Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 243

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-23-2005, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I love you too Hank, but don't you agree that the PB has become to civil? Is this partly my fault? Everyone is being nice to eachother and it is making the board a lot less fun to read.

Waiting for Fitzgerald, while Slave and Penske whistle past the graveyard.

Also, take the Board's tempertaure starting about 3 months before an election.

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2005, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Waiting for Fitzgerald, while Slave and Penske whistle past the graveyard.

Also, take the Board's tempertaure starting about 3 months before an election.

S_A_M

W.A.T.E.R.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-23-2005, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
W.A.T.E.R.

Right back atcha bro'.

S_A_M

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-23-2005, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
W.A.T.E.R.

Hank, I think you need to take a vacation or something. Chill.

Your shittiness quotient has risen notably.

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hank, I think you need to take a vacation or something. Chill.

Your shittiness quotient has risen notably.

S_A_M

dissent. I'm nicer. You just need to think about why that is true

taxwonk · 10-23-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Spanky, if you've been reading my posts you know I don't question evolution where it has evidence. The dispute comes where it's pure conjecture, because coincidentially that is where it could be god instead. and I'm not arguing either is right. I'm just saying your beloved scientist don't know either.

Would you like your kids to be taught global warming is a fact?

As I said earlier, your argument by necessity posits the existence of God, and by the way you posit it, you implicitly assert the existence of one God to the exclusion of other belief systems.

Now quit trying to poison and destroy my brothers, or I shall have to strike down uopn thee with great vengeance and furious anger, for thou art being self-righteous and smug whilst thou art full of shit.

taxwonk · 10-23-2005, 11:52 AM

From the NYT:

Quote:

"The report concludes there is probable cause to believe that high-level Syrian officials were involved in the Hariri assassination, that there's clear evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of the Syrians, failure to cooperate," Mr. Bolton said. "That is what the Security Council needs to take up in a serious way."

Asked if sanctions against Damascus were under consideration, he said only, "We're considering still a range of options."

Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, after arriving in Birmingham, Ala., with Ms. Rice, said of the findings, "you cannot leave a report like this on the table."

"We have to consider it and consider it actively," he said.

He and Ms. Rice were careful not to recommend any specific possible actions against Syria.

Penske_Account · 10-23-2005, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheval de frise
I've got nothing against TM. I think we both want the same thing at the end of the day -- passions (not to mention frustrations) just ran high during one thread. (Is this the politics board? I guess it is. Good lord 2X).

Can't really stick around very long, but it's good to 'see' y'all -- C

2 all around. Ever the voice reason Chevy. By the by, ran into another old pal the other day, KenPornStarr says hi!

Penske_Account · 10-23-2005, 04:17 PM

I have been off since Thursday and I am boycotting the concept of catching up because I am sure the looney left has soiled the board in typical due course and in honour of the babyjesuschristsuperstar's day of rest and worship I refuse to indulge such evil.

I do have a new sig line though.

Peace.

Carry on.

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the concept of catching up

the best anti-Kennedy post ever will be missed

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-23-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
All I asserted existed was a young filipino boy who believed and wanted to know why it was okay to teach something that made him feel bad about his religion. Do you think the Puritains would have approved.

This is different from a state approved religion taught to discredit other religions how?

198-12

1. No, the Puritans wouldn't have approved. They would have solved the debate by hanging every biologist for withcraft. The Puritans are not a measuring stick for anything except proving by example how horrible life can be when an entire culture believes in idiot dogma like... you guessed it... creationism.

2. Because its science, not religion. A scientific discovery which disproves religion does not become a religion itself. It remains, to the extreme frustration of fundamentalists, just a fact. You're trying to turn science into a competing religion. You really think anyone here is going to let you get away with a trick that transparant? The fact that you have to use such sleight of hand to even stay afloat in this debate says something about the position you've taken, doesn't it?

Penske_Account · 10-23-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the best anti-Kennedy post ever will be missed

Just knowing it is out there is motivation to raise (or lower) the bar accordingly in the future.

Penske_Account · 10-23-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. No, the Puritans wouldn't have approved. They would have solved the debate by hanging every biologist for withcraft. The Puritans are not a measuring stick for anything except proving by example how horrible life can be when an entire culture believes in idiot dogma like... you guessed it... creationism.

2. Because its science, not religion. A scientific discovery which disproves religion does not become a religion itself. It remains, to the extreme frustration of fundamentalists, just a fact. You're trying to turn science into a competing religion. You really think anyone here is going to let you get away with a trick that transparant? The fact that you have to use such sleight of hand to even stay afloat in this debate says something about the position you've taken, doesn't it?

I agree with Hank's posit, and so does the babyjesuschristsuperstar. Woe unto those who don't.

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I agree with Hank's posit, and so does the babyjesuschristsuperstar. Woe unto those who don't.

Penske. certainly the Bilbe directs us to try and bring the sinners around. But at some point, when it is clear they will not move, when it is clear they mock us, Do we not run the danger of becoming a benefit to their sins? Might it be better if the right thinkers leave this PB and go elsewhere? Perhaps RT would consider a PB limited to those who do believe?

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. No, the Puritans wouldn't have approved. They would have solved the debate by hanging every biologist for withcraft. The Puritans are not a measuring stick for anything except proving by example how horrible life can be when an entire culture believes in idiot dogma like... you guessed it... creationism.

Aren't they the genesis of your beloved Separation of church and state?