Protesters at MNF Game

[Chef Jim]

Dude, I'm done with this one.

 

No I'm sorry that doesn't work here. I'm seriously interested in your concern with evolution as an issue with running the country. Enlighten me.

[DC Tom]

Oh OK gotcha. Yeah I'm not that smart so you're not missing out on much. I was one of those idiots who thought EJ Manuel wasn't going to develop into a franchise QB for the Bills. And then this offseason, I was telling everyone that Derek Carr was going to be good but the legions of mental heavyweights told me that he sucked and that they wouldn't trade Manuel for him. Now I'm just a dumb bloke who is encouraged by Taylor's first five starts and thinks he very well may develop into that guy for the Bills. But what would I know anyway? I'm just a simple-minded mental peasant who opts not to use the word "retard."

 

You know what? I don't care.

[Chef Jim]

Oh OK gotcha. Yeah I'm not that smart so you're not missing out on much. I was one of those idiots who thought EJ Manuel wasn't going to develop into a franchise QB for the Bills. And then this offseason, I was telling everyone that Derek Carr was going to be good but the legions of mental heavyweights told me that he sucked and that they wouldn't trade Manuel for him. Now I'm just a dumb bloke who is encouraged by Taylor's first five starts and thinks he very well may develop into that guy for the Bills. But what would I know anyway? I'm just a simple-minded mental peasant who opts not to use the word "retard."

 

 

And this really doesn't fly here. Football?!?! You're going to talk about football, and Bills football to boot?

[metzelaars_lives]

 

Pretty much only your political posts. Though I tend to gloss over your football posts, simply by association.

 

And my use of the word "retard" is far from haphazard. Quite the opposite, my usage is very specific and well-defined.

 

You shouldn't be. You established a concrete and measurable political litmus test that a world leader shouldn't have a literal belief in the Book of Genesis. You should be able to back that up rationally (if not factually.) Beyond that, you should be able to rationally argue that a political litmus test itself is a valid principle.

 

But you won't. Again, "factless, opinionated rants." Precisely defined as "retarded."

Yes you are correct. I believe that a world leader- specifically a leader of a country as vital to the world as the United States- should NOT possess a literal belief in the book of Genesis. Nor would I expect them to believe that Noah's Ark actually happened. I myself do not believe that Noah's Ark actually happened. Do you? And furthermore, how can I "factually" "prove" that I am right for possessing such an opinion? It is just that: an opinion. What fact could one possibly use to prove that they are right or wrong? Would you vote for a Scientologist? I wouldn't. I cannot prove that possessing such a belief is right or wrong. If someone tried to tell me that the Jacksonville Jaguars were the best team in football, I would quickly deduce that not only does this person not know that much about football but it is probably indicative of the fact they don't know much about other things as well- potentially governing- and I would be less inclined to vote for them even if their political beliefs were aligned with mine. I will be curious to hear your response.

Edited November 3, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[TakeYouToTasker]

Looks like he has changed his stance on that from a year or two ago. He does believe that the idea of evolution is propagated by Satan himself though. Super presidential belief.

 

And my shtick is tired? How's that whole EJ Manuel thing workin out for ya?

What does EJ Manuel have to do with your willful propagation of untruths, possibly due to your own ignorance, but definitely reporting to your conformation biases, related to Ben Carson?

 

Nothing?

 

Yeah. Nothing.

 

Try again, dip ****.

[DC Tom]

Yes you are correct. I believe that a world leader- specifically a leader of a country as vital to the world as the United States- should NOT possess a literal belief in the book of Genesis. Nor would I expect them to believe that Noah's Ark actually happened. I myself do not believe that Noah's Ark actually happened. Do you? And furthermore, how can I "factually" "prove" that I am right for possessing such an opinion. It is just that: an opinion. What fact could one possibly use to prove that they are right or wrong. Would you vote for a Scientologist? I wouldn't. I cannot prove that possessing such a belief is right or wrong. I will be curious to hear your response.

 

I would not vote for a Scientologist, because they're loons. And generally, I think "are you a loon" is a fair litmus test for someone who's going to have access to nuclear weapons. More specifically, "you're a loon because of your belief that your feelings and actions are dictated by possession by spirits of aliens who died in an apocalyptic volcanic event" is a fair litmus test, since "apocalyptic possession" and "nuclear weapons" are an indisputably bad mix.

 

But as for a literal belief in Genesis...I don't think that's loony, necessarily (I know quite a few loons that think that. On the other hand, I know quite a few non-loons who think that as well.) More to the point, I don't think it's threatening, and I don't think it precludes possessing the effective management skills that are the real requirement of the office. For example: Mitt Romney has a track record of being a competent manager and leader. His belief in magic underwear is silly as hell...but he probably would have made a decent president despite that.

 

Now, there is an argument to be made that the president's personal beliefs have a direct impact on the direction of the country, and thus the moral beliefs of a candidate should be the prime consideration above anything else. But it's a seriously weak argument. Weakened as they have been over the past 15 years, checks on the president's power still exist, and a president who believes in wacky **** is not going to lead to an entire country forced to believe in wacky **** as well. In fact, if you're that concerned about such a litmus test, apply it to the legislators who actually have the power to change the laws of the country (side note: this is why I very consistently vote Democrat for the House and Senate - up until 2008, when my representative, van Hollen, lost his goddamn mind.) But electing Ben Carson, for example, is not going to change the country for the worse simply because he believes the world is 5000 years old - it might for other reasons, but not because of that.

 

Ultimately, though, it amounts to the presidency being an executive position, requiring managerial skills (as opposed to a dictative position). And in such a position, harmless religious beliefs should rightfully take a back seat to managerial skills and experience, no matter how silly those beliefs may be.

[Chef Jim]

Yes you are correct. I believe that a world leader- specifically a leader of a country as vital to the world as the United States- should NOT possess a literal belief in the book of Genesis. Nor would I expect them to believe that Noah's Ark actually happened. I myself do not believe that Noah's Ark actually happened. Do you? And furthermore, how can I "factually" "prove" that I am right for possessing such an opinion? It is just that: an opinion. What fact could one possibly use to prove that they are right or wrong? Would you vote for a Scientologist? I wouldn't. I cannot prove that possessing such a belief is right or wrong. If someone tried to tell me that the Jacksonville Jaguars were the best team in football, I would quickly deduce that not only does this person not know that much about football but it is probably indicative of the fact they don't know much about other things as well- potentially governing- and I would be less inclined to vote for them even if their political beliefs were aligned with mine. I will be curious to hear your response.

 

I see. So you have no answer to my question regarding a belief one way or another in evolution would affect anyone's ability to govern. Why didn't you just say that in the first place.

[metzelaars_lives]

 

I see. So you have no answer to my question regarding a belief one way or another in evolution would affect anyone's ability to govern. Why didn't you just say that in the first place.

 

 

I would not vote for a Scientologist, because they're loons. And generally, I think "are you a loon" is a fair litmus test for someone who's going to have access to nuclear weapons. More specifically, "you're a loon because of your belief that your feelings and actions are dictated by possession by spirits of aliens who died in an apocalyptic volcanic event" is a fair litmus test, since "apocalyptic possession" and "nuclear weapons" are an indisputably bad mix.

 

But as for a literal belief in Genesis...I don't think that's loony, necessarily (I know quite a few loons that think that. On the other hand, I know quite a few non-loons who think that as well.) More to the point, I don't think it's threatening, and I don't think it precludes possessing the effective management skills that are the real requirement of the office. For example: Mitt Romney has a track record of being a competent manager and leader. His belief in magic underwear is silly as hell...but he probably would have made a decent president despite that.

 

Now, there is an argument to be made that the president's personal beliefs have a direct impact on the direction of the country, and thus the moral beliefs of a candidate should be the prime consideration above anything else. But it's a seriously weak argument. Weakened as they have been over the past 15 years, checks on the president's power still exist, and a president who believes in wacky **** is not going to lead to an entire country forced to believe in wacky **** as well. In fact, if you're that concerned about such a litmus test, apply it to the legislators who actually have the power to change the laws of the country (side note: this is why I very consistently vote Democrat for the House and Senate - up until 2008, when my representative, van Hollen, lost his goddamn mind.) But electing Ben Carson, for example, is not going to change the country for the worse simply because he believes the world is 5000 years old - it might for other reasons, but not because of that.

 

Ultimately, though, it amounts to the presidency being an executive position, requiring managerial skills (as opposed to a dictative position). And in such a position, harmless religious beliefs should rightfully take a back seat to managerial skills and experience, no matter how silly those beliefs may be.

You never answered me as to whether you believe Noah's Ark actually happened. And let me ask you this- do you think it's more far-fetched or, we'll call it "looney," to believe what Scientologists believe than to believe that one man gathered up two of every species on Earth, including millions of different kinds of insects, many of them microscopic (and he was certain to find a male and female of each, mind you), and housed them all peacefully on a ship for 40 days while it rained and flooded the Earth. Kind of crazy that like a polar bear didn't go after a lamb or something and the millions and millions of species were able to make it out unscathed, ready to procreate once the storm subsided. And then kangaroos somehow made it from the Middle East to Australia. But yeah that's a harmless belief because you learned it in Sunday School and the guy telling you about it seemed like a reasonable enough fellow, and meanwhile, Scientology is looney. So now you have a peak into my reasoning as to why I think someone who takes the Old Testament literally and bases their governing decisions (climate change couldn't be real because only God could control something like that -James Inhoffe (sp?) amongst many others) on the Old Testament is unfit to lead. But what do I know, I'm just a retard.

Edited November 3, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[FireChan]

 

You never answered me as to whether you believe Noah's Ark actually happened. And let me ask you this- do you think it's more far-fetched or, we'll call it "looney," to believe what Scientologists believe than to believe that one man gathered up two of every species on Earth, including millions of different kinds of insects, some of them microscopic (and he was certain to find a male and female of each, mind you) and housed them all peacefully on a ship for 40 days while it rained and flooded the Earth. Kind of crazy that like a polar bear didn't go after a lamb or something and the millions and millions of species were able to make it out unscathed, ready to procreate once the storm subsided. And then kangaroos somehow made it from the Middle East to Australia. But yeah that's a harmless belief because you learned it in Sunday School and the guy telling you about it seemed like a reasonable enough fellow, and meanwhile, Scientology is looney.

It's also reasonable to assume that a belief system passed down by countless generations may be a little more ingrained in a culture over one that was invented in the 1950s. Oh and it's not the one that's a cult.

Edited November 3, 2015 by FireChan

[Chef Jim]

Dude, I'm done with this one.

 

EDIT: Actually let me ask you this- would you vote for a guy who was in line with you on most things politically if he was a Scientologist? See I wouldn't.

 

Abso!@#$inglutely. What the hell does that have to do with his ability to lead the country? To me? Not a goddamn thing.

 

You never answered me as to whether you believe Noah's Ark actually happened. And let me ask you this- do you think it's more far-fetched or, we'll call it "looney," to believe what Scientologists believe than to believe that one man gathered up two of every species on Earth, including millions of different kinds of insects, many of them microscopic (and he was certain to find a male and female of each, mind you), and housed them all peacefully on a ship for 40 days while it rained and flooded the Earth. Kind of crazy that like a polar bear didn't go after a lamb or something and the millions and millions of species were able to make it out unscathed, ready to procreate once the storm subsided. And then kangaroos somehow made it from the Middle East to Australia. But yeah that's a harmless belief because you learned it in Sunday School and the guy telling you about it seemed like a reasonable enough fellow, and meanwhile, Scientology is looney. So now you have a peak into my reasoning as to why I think someone who takes the Old Testament literally and bases their governing decisions (climate change couldn't be real because only God could control something like that -James Inhoffe (sp?) amongst many others) on the Old Testament is unfit to lead. But what do I know, I'm just a retard.

 

Why do you keep quoting me but refusing to answer my question. And regarding Noah's Ark? Was that to me? If so I didn't answer it because you didn't ask me directly you asked Tom. But I'll answer anyway. Do I believe in Noah's Ark? In what context? That all the world's beings were put on a ship 2X2? Is that even what the bible says? I seriously haven't a clue. But if it is the 2X2 thing I don't believe it. And please (and try really hard this time ok) what in the world does believing or not believing in Noah's Ark have to do with running for President?

[metzelaars_lives]

 

Abso!@#$inglutely. What the hell does that have to do with his ability to lead the country? To me? Not a goddamn thing.

 

Why do you keep quoting me but refusing to answer my question. And regarding Noah's Ark? Was that to me? If so I didn't answer it because you didn't ask me directly you asked Tom. But I'll answer anyway. Do I believe in Noah's Ark? In what context? That all the world's beings were put on a ship 2X2? Is that even what the bible says? I seriously haven't a clue. But if it is the 2X2 thing I don't believe it. And please (and try really hard this time ok) what in the world does believing or not believing in Noah's Ark have to do with running for President?

Because it speaks to one's reasoning abilities. If someone believes in Scientology OR takes the Old Testament literally, I question their deductive reasoning skills and hence, their ability to govern. James Inhoffe making a snowball in the midst of the warmest winter in recorded history and offering it as proof that climate change does not exist is a perfect example of one who is unfit to govern based largely on his religious beliefs/lack of reasoning. So there is often times a very strong correlation between one's religious beliefs and their sociopolitical beliefs. Paul Ryan (and believe me, Democrats are guilty of this as well) said he was going to pray to decide if he should run for House Speaker. What does that even mean? I don't want a representative of mine to make any decision based on prayer. Do you see the relation there? Is that fair?

Edited November 3, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[TakeYouToTasker]

Because it speaks to one's reasoning abilities. If someone believes in Scientology OR takes the Old Testament literally, I question their deductive reasoning skills and hence, their ability to govern. James Inhoffe making a snowball in the midst of the warmest winter in recorded history and offering it as proof that climate change does not exist is a perfect example of one who is unfit to govern based largely on his religious beliefs/lack of reasoning. So there is often times a very strong correlation between one's religious beliefs and their sociopolitical beliefs. Paul Ryan (and believe me, Democrats are guilty of this as well) said he was going to pray to decide if he should run for House Speaker. What does that even mean? I don't want a representative of mine to make any decision based on prayer. Do you see the relation there? Is that fair?

Yeah, it shows that you're bigoted against people of faith; and seek to deny them participation in the governing of the society that they live in because you believe them to be less than you.

[Chef Jim]

Because it speaks to one's reasoning abilities. If someone believes in Scientology OR takes the Old Testament literally, I question their deductive reasoning skills and hence, their ability to govern. James Inhoffe making a snowball in the midst of the warmest winter in recorded history and offering it as proof that climate change does not exist is a perfect example of one who is unfit to govern based largely on his religious beliefs/lack of reasoning. So there is often times a very strong correlation between one's religious beliefs and their sociopolitical beliefs. Paul Ryan (and believe me, Democrats are guilty of this as well) said he was going to pray to decide if he should run for House Speaker. What does that even mean? I don't want a representative of mine to make any decision based on prayer. Do you see the relation there? Is that fair?

 

How about basing their decision on meditation? If you don't even know what basing a decision on prayer means they why are you holding it against someone? And if you truly feel that way it greatly reduces the number of people you'd vote for. A good number of our elected leaders and those wishing to get elected are highly religious.

[FireChan]

Because it speaks to one's reasoning abilities. If someone believes in Scientology OR takes the Old Testament literally, I question their deductive reasoning skills and hence, their ability to govern. James Inhoffe making a snowball in the midst of the warmest winter in recorded history and offering it as proof that climate change does not exist is a perfect example of one who is unfit to govern based largely on his religious beliefs/lack of reasoning. So there is often times a very strong correlation between one's religious beliefs and their sociopolitical beliefs. Paul Ryan (and believe me, Democrats are guilty of this as well) said he was going to pray to decide if he should run for House Speaker. What does that even mean? I don't want a representative of mine to make any decision based on prayer. Do you see the relation there? Is that fair?

Jesus, I said "you can do better," not worse.

[dwight in philly]

Because it speaks to one's reasoning abilities. If someone believes in Scientology OR takes the Old Testament literally, I question their deductive reasoning skills and hence, their ability to govern. James Inhoffe making a snowball in the midst of the warmest winter in recorded history and offering it as proof that climate change does not exist is a perfect example of one who is unfit to govern based largely on his religious beliefs/lack of reasoning. So there is often times a very strong correlation between one's religious beliefs and their sociopolitical beliefs. Paul Ryan (and believe me, Democrats are guilty of this as well) said he was going to pray to decide if he should run for House Speaker. What does that even mean? I don't want a representative of mine to make any decision based on prayer. Do you see the relation there? Is that fair?

curious.. what faith does our current president profess to be a follower of? christian? i know he went to a christian church that had a reverand that was quoted and owned "god damn america" .. in the context of "noahs ark" etc.. what is relevant in ascertaining a person's ability to lead.. be POTUS? .. in regard to faith?

Edited November 3, 2015 by dwight in philly

[Chef Jim]

Jesus, I said "you can do better," not worse.

[DC Tom]

 

You never answered me as to whether you believe Noah's Ark actually happened. And let me ask you this- do you think it's more far-fetched or, we'll call it "looney," to believe what Scientologists believe than to believe that one man gathered up two of every species on Earth, including millions of different kinds of insects, many of them microscopic (and he was certain to find a male and female of each, mind you), and housed them all peacefully on a ship for 40 days while it rained and flooded the Earth. Kind of crazy that like a polar bear didn't go after a lamb or something and the millions and millions of species were able to make it out unscathed, ready to procreate once the storm subsided. And then kangaroos somehow made it from the Middle East to Australia. But yeah that's a harmless belief because you learned it in Sunday School and the guy telling you about it seemed like a reasonable enough fellow, and meanwhile, Scientology is looney. So now you have a peak into my reasoning as to why I think someone who takes the Old Testament literally and bases their governing decisions (climate change couldn't be real because only God could control something like that -James Inhoffe (sp?) amongst many others) on the Old Testament is unfit to lead. But what do I know, I'm just a retard.

 

Now see, I gave you a reasonable, substantive answer, explaining why it shouldn't and doesn't matter, including making a clear distinction between Scientology and the Old Testament. And you went full retard with your response, making this somehow about whether or not I believe in Noah's Ark.

 

This is why you're a retard. You're incapable of rational thought, and it's impossible to discuss anything with you. (Note, for contrast, that I could discuss this more easily with my uncle. Who has Down's Syndrome. But is not "a retard".)

[metzelaars_lives]

 

Now see, I gave you a reasonable, substantive answer, explaining why it shouldn't and doesn't matter, including making a clear distinction between Scientology and the Old Testament. And you went full retard with your response, making this somehow about whether or not I believe in Noah's Ark.

 

This is why you're a retard. You're incapable of rational thought, and it's impossible to discuss anything with you. (Note, for contrast, that I could discuss this more easily with my uncle. Who has Down's Syndrome. But is not "a retard".)

Thanks man. Good talking to you too. It looks as if this thread has run its course. I'm the idiot. Pile on fellas. You and Dwight in Philly- who has claimed in this very thread that fracking is in fact not a complex issue, is rather a very black and white issue, that nothing has or could ever possibly go wrong from an environmental standpoint as a result of fracking- can ride off into the sunset together. I'm just a simple man incapable of rational thought. And yeah I'm sure your Uncle would appreciate you using that word so- wait not haphazardly, that's right- astutely. I'll choose not to use it.

 

P.S. And if you want to humor me, you can feel free to respond to my question as to which story is more difficult to believe: the Scientology story (I'm sure we've all seen the HBO documentary) or Noah's Ark. Or how about the apple and the talking snake in the garden for that matter, I'll even give you that. But alas, I'm sure you will not answer my question and come back with incredibly vicious, below-the-belt insults, which you know not to be true but probably help you sleep a little better at night.

Hysterical, right?

It's also reasonable to assume that a belief system passed down by countless generations may be a little more ingrained in a culture over one that was invented in the 1950s. Oh and it's not the one that's a cult.

That's a fair response. But I think one could make an argument that there are plenty of sects of Christianity that have resembled cults throughout the years. Ever driven through rural Pennsylvania?

Yeah, it shows that you're bigoted against people of faith; and seek to deny them participation in the governing of the society that they live in because you believe them to be less than you.

I would never deny people of faith the ability to govern, that's insane. Every person who's ever run for public office in this country has professed to be of one faith or another. Ironically, Ben Carson himself has said that a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to be president. I don't think that.

Edited November 4, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[FireChan]

Thanks man. Good talking to you too. It looks as if this thread has run its course. I'm the idiot. Pile on fellas. You and Dwight in Philly- who has claimed in this very thread that fracking is in fact not a complex issue, is rather a very black and white issue, that nothing has or could ever possibly going wrong from an environmental standpoint as a result of fracking- can ride off into the sunset together. I'm just a simple man incapable of rational thought. And yeah I'm sure your Uncle would appreciate you using that word so- wait not haphazardly, that's right- astutely. I'll choose not to use it.

 

P.S. And if you want to humor me, you can feel free to respond to my question as to which story is more difficult to believe: the Scientology story (I'm sure we've all seen the HBO documentary) or Noah's Ark. Or how about the apple and the talking snake in the garden for that matter, I'll even give you that. But alas, I'm sure you will not answer my question and come back with incredibly vicious, below-the-belt insults, which you know not to be true but probably help you sleep a little better at night.

 

Hysterical, right?

 

That's a fair response. But I think one could make an argument that there are plenty of sects of Christianity that have resembled cults throughout the years. Ever driven through rural Pennsylvania?

 

I would never deny people of faith the ability to govern, that's insane. Every person who's ever run for public office in this country has professed to be of one faith or another. Ironically, Ben Carson himself has said that a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to be president. I don't think that.

Various sects who are a tiny portion compared to the majority. Would you really argue that the WBC or some other loonie toons group is indicative of all Christianity?

 

You do realize a large portion of faith is a belief in holy scripture, right? So you say you think they should be allowed to govern, but you wouldn't vote for anyone with religious beliefs? Have you ever voted?

Edited November 4, 2015 by FireChan

[metzelaars_lives]

curious.. what faith does our current president profess to be a follower of? christian? i know he went to a christian church that had a reverand that was quoted and owned "god damn america" .. in the context of "noahs ark" etc.. what is relevant in ascertaining a person's ability to lead.. be POTUS? .. in regard to faith?

Good question and I will do my best to answer. Every president ever has professed to be a Christian to varying extents, although there is much evidence to suggest that a good many of the founding fathers were atheists. I am not an idiot, contrary to what DC Tom might say, and I realize that part of being president of the United States is telling everyone how Christian you are. Obama? Yeah, Christian. My Mom? Yeah, Christian. They go to church, it makes them feel better, they believe in a lot of the principles particularly in the New Testament. Do they take it literally? Of course not. Does Ted Cruz? Of course he does. He is insane. I'm sure he believes Noah's Ark actually happened. When you believe something like that you allow your faith to dictate your sociopolitical beliefs, which is extremely dangerous. Does Obama do this? No. Did George Bush do this? No. Would Ted Cruz do this if elected? YES. That is why I would not vote for him. Whether you think climate change is real or some sort of hoax, I think we could all agree that it is dangerous for US elected officials (of which there are many and people in other modernized countries are appalled by it and laugh at us) to state that their reasoning for not accepting climate change as scientific fact is that God wouldn't let it happen.

Various sects who are a tiny portion compared to the majority. Would you really argue that the WBC or some other loonie toons group is indicative of all Christianity?

 

You do realize a large portion of faith is a belief in holy scripture, right? So you say you think they should be allowed to govern, but you wouldn't vote for anyone with religious beliefs? Have you ever voted?

Come on man, look above. And I am not saying that the average Christian is as looney as the average Scientologist. I don't think we're too far off on this one.

Edited November 4, 2015 by metzelaars_lives