Religion, Politics, and Armegeddon

Originally Posted by: stacknyFrance is the only other country on this planet that is more worthless than Canada.[/QUOTE]

That's an incredibly arrogant statement. What makes these countries worthless? An explanation would be nice.

[QUOTE=stackny]And Id also like to clarify, its a war on terrorism, not a war on Iraq.

That's nice. Just realize that America's way of dealing with Iraq has created far more new terrorists than have been killed/arrested so far. Also, have you kept track of how many civilians have been killed in the process?

And this "war on terrorism" sure didn't stop the terrorists from attacking Spain and England. So, really, how effective is this "war on terrorism"?

Id love to go to war with France sometime. All you gotta do is burn down the white flag outlet and theyre outa comission.

Terrorism wont ever be completely controlled. Thats impossible being that there is individual people going out and taking their own lives in order to take others along with them. But it can be minimized considerably if theyre not getting funding from evil empires such as Hussein's. And blaming every terrorist attack on the US isnt gonna do anything for you. They were going on before we attacked Iraq. The first WTC bombings, US Embasy in Africa...The list goes on and on.

Originally Posted by: stacknyTerrorism wont ever be completely controlled.

BINGO!

And that's exactly why the US should have been a lot more careful in the way they handled Iraq, cause all it has done is make things worse.

I think someone likes fox (faux) news.

You wanna dump credit with the Reagan administration huh? Clinton was offered Bin Laden himself when so and so captured him, might of been the Syrians, cant remember. All I know is he didnt take him. You wanna start dumping things on other presidential adminstrations, you better look at your boy Horny Bill first.

Originally Posted by: stacknyId love to go to war with France sometime. All you gotta do is burn down the white flag outlet and theyre outa comission.

dude, them french knights kicked some serious ass back in the day! though the british long bows decimated them at agincourt, but that was a military miracle because the battlefield was extremely muddy, and the knights armor was weighing them down, so they'd get stuck, and the british archers would just come stab them with short swords and be done with them.

sorry, medieval history interests me, this was probably brought about by playing too much age of empires I and II... plus I watch way too much history channel :rolleyes:

One of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke, co-wrote a novel recently, well it's a dual novel, Time's Eye (1) and Sunstorm (2).
Synopsis:
Earth is carved up in time with a patchwork of different eras colliding...from prehistory to 2037. 3 UN peacekeepers find allies in 19th c. British troops and eventually the army of Alexander the Great. Meahwhile 3 Cosmonauts join with the Mongol horde led by Genghis Khan. Both sides set out for Babylon, while some unexplained entity watches and waits...sort of like an ultimate pay-per-view battle.

I liked it and recommend it anyways. He really knows the nature of man, yet our potential as well.

suck science, mofos!!!!!*drops science bomb*


Fundamentalism is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change, according to Britain's top scientist.

In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford will say scientists must speak out against the climate change "denial lobby".

He will warn core scientific values are "under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East".

Lord May completes his five-year term as president of the UK's academy of science on Wednesday.

"Ahead of us lie dangerous times," he will say in his fifth and final anniversary address.

"There are serious problems that derive from the realities of the external world: climate change, loss of biological diversity, new and re-emerging diseases, and more.

"Many of these threats are not yet immediate, yet their non-linear character is such that we need to be acting today.

"And we have no evolutionary experience of acting on behalf of a distant future; we even lack basic understanding of important aspects of our own institutions and societies.

"Sadly, for many, the response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason."

'Denial lobby'

Lord May will say that fundamentalism applies not only to organised religions but to lobby groups on both sides of the climate change debate.

The climate change "denial lobby" and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) opposed to nuclear power are not exempt from a denial or misrepresentation of scientific facts, he told reporters in London.

Speaking in a week that saw the opening of climate talks in Montreal, and the re-opening of the nuclear power debate in the UK, he said there had to be open questioning and inquiry of such issues.

The huge problems with nuclear power had to be weighed against the problem of putting more carbon into the atmosphere and the future potential of land and sea turbines, he said; "rather than ruled out of discussion on what you might call some fundamentalist belief system".

'No easy recipe'

Another danger to the enlightenment of science came from the growing network of fundamentalist and lobby groups in the US that campaigned for creationism to be taught in science classes, he added.

"By their own writings, this group has a much wider agenda which is to replace scientific materialism by something more based on faith," he said.

He called on scientists to take a more active role in speaking out against so-called "intelligent design" and other threats to modern scientific values.

"The only thing I can see scientists doing is being more energetic as citizens - getting out there and trying to convince people that that's not a very wise way to behave," he explained. "That's no easy recipe."


source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4482174.stm

Originally Posted by: PonyOneyeah, he should have... doesn't change the fact that Reagan armed him... so sorry, you shouldn't look at Horny Bill first, you should look at the root of the problem first: Retarded Reagan and his administration.

I love it how people love to bring up Clinton's libido. That's no one's business but his own, IMHO, and plus, yeah he got serviced by an intern... OH GOD NO... at least his indiscretion didn't cost anyone their lives, start a war, or destabilize a region.

Nah, instead he destroyed our homeland security programs resulting in the worst attack on our country's soil in its history and sent the country into a recession. If he wasnt busy gettin sucked off, maybe he couldve done something productive.

Originally Posted by: stacknyNah, instead he destroyed our homeland security programs resulting in the worst attack on our country's soil in its history and sent the country into a recession. If he wasnt busy gettin sucked off, maybe he couldve done something productive.

Both you and Pony_one should really stop calling people "Horny Bill" and "Retarded Reagan," this is really getting childish. However, I believe it was George Bush's administration that armed the Afghanis as well, so let's blame both. OR we could blame the Soviet Communists that invaded Afghanistan, causing us to supply the Afghanis with the weapons they needed to fight the only other superpower in the world who, might I add, we were **** TERRIFIED of.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneyeah, he should have... doesn't change the fact that Reagan armed him... so sorry, you shouldn't look at Horny Bill first, you should look at the root of the problem first: Retarded Reagan and his administration.

I love it how people love to bring up Clinton's libido. That's no one's business but his own, IMHO, and plus, yeah he got serviced by an intern... OH GOD NO... at least his indiscretion didn't cost anyone their lives, start a war, or destabilize a region.

A region has to be stable in order for people to destabilize it. Iraq may have been maintaining order, but I would hesitate to call it stable.

Seriously...all I'm seeing recently is rhetoric, from both sides.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneso by your rationale, it's the fault of a president who had been out of office for a year and a half, and who had a pretty good economic upturn going on during his term? Well, if that's the case, then for consistency's sake you'd have to agree with me with what I said before in regards to it all being the Reagan admin's fault for stoking the fires in the first place!

If Bush was as awesome as you make him out to be, then why didn't he stop it? He only had the memos sent to him that an attack was imminent without intervention, and he only ignored them... I mean, who can blame the guy... the last thing a man needs when he's on vacation is work... OH WAIT, I forgot, it's the liberals! It's always their fault! Those dastardly liberals, sneaking behind every corner, vetoing everything that the Conservatives do to try to uphold the American right of way. It's a good thing Bush could care less, isn't it?

Do you really, honestly think that Bush and his administration has done a really good job of all this and that none of the blame for anything falls on him or the Reagan administration earlier on, or do you just find it easier to make quips on Clinton's sexual bloopers?

Actually, Bush got sworn in January meaning he was in office for about 9 months, which is not enough time to get anything done in the political world.

Dude. We are not the ones complaining. Remember who controls the media.

I like basically everything Bush has done other than the new medicare laws, which nobody understands.

And lets hold on a second here. I was joking about Clinton. Youd stoop so low to pick on a dead guy! Have some friggin respect. The guy was one of the best presidents in our nation's history.

hey hey, hold on. we both know that both the war and the search for oil are cover-up stories! we know what's really going on! aliens are coming from other planets, abducting people, and preforming sexual tests on them to make an alien-human hybrid, the government has negotiated with the aliens and agreed to give them human test projects in exchange for some of their technology! we explains the recent technological burst in our culture!

they've got some interesting shows on the history channel late at night :rolleyes: I can't believe some people actually believe that. I almost burst out laughing when I heard that.

Originally Posted by: stacknyActually, Bush got sworn in January meaning he was in office for about 9 months, which is not enough time to get anything done in the political world.[/QUOTE]
Sure you can, you can do anything if you put your mind to it. Or in Bush's case, put your mind anywhere but to it.

Originally Posted by: stackny
Dude. We are not the ones complaining. Remember who controls the media.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah you are.

[QUOTE=stackny]
I like basically everything Bush has done other than the new medicare laws, which nobody understands.

Correction. People that can come up with reasons to justify Bush's previous decisions have finally hit a brick wall because he's gone and done something so stupid that it just can't be explained without including the world "greed."

[QUOTE=stackny]
And lets hold on a second here. I was joking about Clinton. Youd stoop so low to pick on a dead guy! Have some friggin respect. The guy was one of the best presidents in our nation's history.

If the guy was a screw up then who cares if he was dead or alive? People call Hitler a world tyrant all the time, no on has any respect for him since he's dead. Why's that? Because he was a freaking world tyrant. Being dead isn't a passport to being free of criticism. Taking jabs at someone's personal life and relating that to his business life isn't a good blow either. I'm not defending Clinton, I disagree with the situation as a whole. But in the end, what he does in the sack is his own business, and I don't really care.

Originally Posted by: stacknyId love to go to war with France sometime. All you gotta do is burn down the white flag outlet and theyre outa comission.

you would not live in america if it were not for the french in the american fight for independence. think about that, then see if you feel the same, if the guvna of louisiana can change.......

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jpyou would not live in america if it were not for the french in the american fight for independence. think about that, then see if you feel the same, if the guvna of louisiana can change.......

plus, the french gave us the statue of liberty... can't say anything bad about that!

Originally Posted by: stacknyId love to go to war.

have you ever been in a battle???? or do you mean "i would love for other people to go to war." getting your limbs blown off or killing people is not something to love.

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jphave you ever been in a battle???? or do you mean "i would love for other people to go to war." getting your limbs blown off or killing people is not something to love.

Hey Michael Moore Junior, why dont you just start taking random segments of my posts and sticking em together to make me sound like more of an ass than I already am. Thats not what I meant at all, but Id go to war if I had to without a second thought. Im in college right now, and if I wasnt, Id probably be in Iraq.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneif it was something i believed in, i'd probably go to war, because i will fight and stand up for what i believe in (exemplified by saying that reagan was a ---- in a room full of hungry car salesmen when they were trying to have a proper moment of silence).

That's not so much "fighting for your beliefs" as "being rude to others' beliefs." You don't see me going to an FDR memorial and talking about what a total moron he was for implementing now bloated and bankrupt policies.