"...a bad night for the GOP"

[Tex]

"Just a pair of fools swapping noises."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

You're the one who created that childish term. That's how you respond to getting absolutely owned? Weak. Very weak.

Excellent use of the French military approach. Stop, declare utter destruction of the enemy and complete victory, and hope the bad guy goes away.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

Excellent use of the French military approach. Stop, declare utter destruction of the enemy and complete victory, and hope the bad guy goes away.

He didn't appreciate the compliment I tried to pay him earlier, but the fact of the matter is that Rocky has been completely replaced by a whole slew of CB rejects who are far more annoying.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

You've provided no differentiation between the Joseph Smith story (or other assorted miracles in the Bible), and the idea of a 6,000-year-old earth, except to say one is "undeniable, overwhelming, and definitive" and the other is "extreme". Well, all we need to do is switch your membership to a different faith, and one can re-arrange those adjectives at will. IOW, it's a vacant argument.

It's hilarious that you stubbornly keep pushing this logic. Chris Hitchens just loves folks like you. You make his job so damned easy.

Originally Posted by Tex

You have also provided no connection between such a belief and how it might influence ANY public policy decision.

Yes I have. It is plain as can be. Certain statements lead me to believe that some people are too stupid for the highest office. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? I don't really care if you feel differently (or a big chunk of the US voting public). The masses are asses sometimes.

[Cali Coug]

Wrong again. I never made that claim. Not surprising, given your track record of reading difficulties.

You claimed that the best US presidents were the least religious, and of those that were religious, they succeeded in spite of their religion (which, as I have already noted, is an asinine position to take because it isn't provable or disprovable and has no value in discourse). To demonstrate that the best US presidents were the least religious, you attempted to claim that 3 of the top 4 presidents on that list were deists (which you haven't even attempted to support with facts). You failed to note that being a deist, assuming they were deists, does not say ANYTHING about whether they were religious. So not only did you fail to support your claim, even if you had supported your claim, it wouldn't have been pertinent to the discussion.

Then you omitted the fact that your statement was a comparative statement (in order to be the "least" religious, you would have to demonstrate that they were less religious than all other presidents- something that cannot possibly be demonstrated by a claim that 3 of the top 4 were deists).

Finally, with regard to the one US president who you did not claim was a deist (FDR), you didn't even attempt to show how he succeeded as president IN SPITE OF his religion (and good luck trying to show that).

In short, you made two baseless claims, attempted to support such baseless claims with nothing more than your own assertions, failed to note that even if your assertions were true, it wouldn't be supporting evidence of your actual arguments, and then declared victory and walked away.

Bravo. I knew you would Woot it up after all.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's hilarious that you stubbornly keep pushing this logic. Chris Hitchens just loves folks like you. You make his job so damned easy.



Yes I have. It is plain as can be. Certain statements lead me to believe that some people are too stupid for the highest office. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? I don't really care if you feel differently (or a big chunk of the US voting public). The masses are asses sometimes.

I agree with you to an extent. I think there clearly are some beliefs a president could hold that would make me conclude that person could never be president. A 6,000 year old earth to me is curious, but I wouldn't conclude a person who held to that belief was stupid or incapable of holding office. I just don't see why it is worse to hold that belief than a belief that Jesus walked on water.

In fact, if anything it is easier to demonstrate that man cannot walk on water than it is to demonstrate that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Go to a lake, step on it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

"Just a pair of fools swapping noises."

Come now, we don't consider you and Woot to be a pair of fools. Give yourself a bit more credit (unless you were suggesting you were a bit gassy).

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

He didn't appreciate the compliment I tried to pay him earlier, but the fact of the matter is that Rocky has been completely replaced by a whole slew of CB rejects who are far more annoying.

C'est moi?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I agree with you to an extent. I think there clearly are some beliefs a president could hold that would make me conclude that person could never be president. A 6,000 year old earth to me is curious, but I wouldn't conclude a person who held to that belief was stupid or incapable of holding office. I just don't see why it is worse to hold that belief than a belief that Jesus walked on water.

In fact, if anything it is easier to demonstrate that man cannot walk on water than it is to demonstrate that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Go to a lake, step on it.

??? That would prove that I cannot walk on water, not Jesus. What's your point?

I am fully aware that millions of people may feel differently than me, including you perhaps. That is fine. But I think that if someone has even the most rudimentary understanding of science, geology, anthropology, bilogy, etc. (i.e., grade school level), then the 6000-yr-old issue is beyond question. I just can't imagine having a president that is that ignorant. But that's just me.

I see a huge difference between believing that Jesus could perform miracles and believing that the earth is literally 6000 years old. I can understand how you, Tex, SU, and Chris Hitchens would feel otherwise (what an odd mix), but I think they are far different issues.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

??? That would prove that I cannot walk on water, not Jesus. What's your point?

I am fully aware that millions of people may feel differently than me, including you perhaps. That is fine. But I think that if someone has even the most rudimentary understanding of science, geology, anthropology, bilogy, etc. (i.e., grade school level), then the 6000-yr-old issue is beyond question. I just can't imagine having a president that is that ignorant. But that's just me.

I see a huge difference between believing that Jesus could perform miracles and believing that the earth is literally 6000 years old. I can understand how you, Tex, SU, and Chris Hitchens would feel otherwise (what an odd mix), but I think they are far different issues.

I still don't see how it is different than believing a man walked on water. The laws of physics can pretty much assure us that man cannot walk on water, right? So to say that Jesus can walk on water requires belief in a miracle.

I just don't know why it would be such a big stretch to say that the Earth being 6,000 years old also defies all evidence and natural laws and is a miracle. If you are willing to accept one, I think you could be willing to accept the other without being stupid.

That being said, I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. But I don't consider people stupid who do. Can people rise from the dead after 3 days? Science has pretty much shown they can't. Can water be turned into wine? Not according to scientific evidence. Can the Red Sea part? Not according to science (and there doesn't appear to be evidence it ever did). Science can "prove" that none of those things are possible, just like it can prove the Earth isn't 6,000 years old.