Shared publicly  - 
Republicans accuse President Obama of politicizing the anniversary of bin Laden's death.
Kevin Kennedy's profile photoRama Govindaraju's profile photoAbdulla Kamar's profile photoRob Huebschmann's profile photo
They're all clowns. MIght I suggest mandatory year of military service (or 12 months supervised community service...garbage collection leaps to mind) at the end of every political term. Might help keep the politicians out of government.
Your interview in this episode was great. I can't get over how you get individuals with opposing views on and have real meaningful conversations. It is like you two are adults, now if only that was true of congress members.
+Philip Smith True. I would rather be a Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders supporter, but they aren't running.
Thankfully the Republicans are in a position where they can throw stones. Totally.
+Jason Dellinger I've long advocated a requirement that all politicians dress as clowns in public. If their party holds the presidency, they dress as happy clowns. Otherwise, they dress as sad clowns. Also, if they lose an election, they still have to dress as clowns for the duration of the term of the office they were attempting to win.
+Hayden Bridges Here's a secret. When we elect the President, we don't elect a dictator. He's not in complete control of the situation. You call them "lies". I call them "policy failures". I think Obama would like nothing more than to shut down the Gitmo prison, but it's not politically possible.
+Jason Bell Your idea has merit. Parades would be fun again for one. I'd totally go to see the president and his cabinet stuffed into a ford focus, towing a ferris in back.
Obama cannot shut down Gitmo, without Congress agreeing on where to put the current detainees. They refused to allow them into American prisons, and refused to allow them to be returned to prisons in their countries of origin. Blame Obama all you want for it, but he tried, it's Congress who failed. If I had only one issue with Stewart in this episode, it was that he failed to mention Obama's repeated attempts at shutting Gitmo down, and being stonewalled by Congress, consistently.

Loved this episode, great to see someone pointing out the hypocrisy that occurs constantly (and yes, it happens on both sides of the aisle) in our Government.
Personally, I know Obama is going to win this election. I predicted his election in 2008 and I'm going to be right again. Pretty much, I just want to see Ron Paul in a debate with him. It would be funny to watch Obama do his famous "pinch-point" towards him (being his elder, I don't know if Obama could as he is obviously a well-trained public speaker) and Paul dragging him off stage by his ear :P
That's what I could see happening at least. I need to quit drinking...
+Philip Smith I believe you're correct, Romney drove himself too far to the right trying to capture the GoP nomination. The GoP themselves have irked the female base with their repeated attacks on women's rights and the Republican base seems about as fractured as the Democrats usually are. The old saying of Republicans fight Democrats, and Democrats fight Democrats may be changing.
+Philip Smith Though, I'm not a big fan of any President just getting a shoe-in for re-election. I believe actual competition breeds better politicians. Though, with this GoP field of candidates, there was never any chance for them.
+Philip Smith I was a fan of Paul, until I realized he's a creationist. I have to question any politician (or person for that matter), who turns a blind eye to widely accepted scientific principles. And for me, that's enough to lose my vote.
+Brian Murphy That's where I'd have to disagree. Perhaps the evolutionist too has turned a blind eye in the name of bias, but that's pretty much what politics is about these days anyway. Votes go to politicians to purportedly support the voters' worldviews.
+Philip Smith No, science does not turn a blind eye, as they are constantly checking, double checking and triple checking their answers and ALWAYS seeking a better understanding of what we already know. The same is not said for creationism. When they reach a point they don't understand, oh, that's a Higher Power's involvement. There is no questioning it, and there is no desire to seek a better understanding. That isn't progressive, that's stagnation.

Evolution isn't just an idea that popped up overnight, it's been a widely accepted scientific tenet for decades, and it's withstood many, many attacks in it's lifetime (Do you think any religion has more authority in education than it did a hundred+ years ago?). But, you're more than welcome to disagree, I'm fine with people having a difference of opinion. Just not a President or politician who could change how Children are taught.
+Brian Murphy I wish I could get into the philosophical debate with you regarding the fallacy of surmising evolutionary theory as fact, but I am at work at the moment. Feel free to add me, if you'd like to have a full discussion, but be forewarned: Do not expect me to shelve my worldview to level with your own. I hope that doesn't come off as me being curt.
+Philip Smith I'm really sorry, but there's nothing you can say that's going to change nearly 200 years of scientific study (And that doesn't include the musings of philosopher's that go back to the Greek's that suggested something similar to evolution also). As I said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I hold politicians to a higher standard. They are not allowed to set our children's education back, because of their ideology. That's one area, I will never budge on.
They're both puppets. Should do a sketch showing a faceless, corporate-logo-stamped puppet-master laughing and trying out political puppets in front of him (her? it?) like they're some nice dress to put on in public.
+Philip Smith Evolutionary fact is at the forefront of--no, it is the basis of--all medical research into both infectious disease and genetically-inherited conditions. The facts of evolution are part of practical technology used everyday to save lives, prevent disease, and alleviate suffering.

I don't expect you to agree with that. After all, you support a candidate who wants to put the dollar back on the gold standard. But it's true nonetheless.
From right to left, don't tune into political media. You'll find your blood pressure lower, more time on your hands and generally well-liked by your friends and family.
+Chris Esterline maybe true for a while, until you find out you voted for the guy that passed the law that allowed your boss to gamble your pension away, and forced your daughter to either give up her education, or dance, baby, dance!
+A. David, if folks wait around for Presidents and lawmakers to pave the way to their success, they'll never leave the poor house. I would hope parents raise their children to get up when knocked down and grin in the face of adversity. So that when faced with such financial challenges as what you posed, they instead buckle down in order to earn scholarships and grants on their way to a better tomorrow.
+Philip Smith On the contrary, it is precisely because fairy tales like christianity and islam are NOT true that I AM right.
That is not a logical statement at all. In fact, that goes against the Law of Non-Contradiction.
And, the fact is you only think you are right, which is simply your opinion. Just because you thunk it, doesn't mean I thunk it too :P
And yet it is a true statement, and it does not contradict anything. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Evolution is a fact. It is happening all around you all the time. Deal with it.
+Philip Smith The only facts are, there are piles of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and zero evidence supporting Creationism. If there were evidence to suggest creationism is true, we would be constantly hearing about it.

Creationism relies on faith, to be believable. Evolution relies on actual evidence.
Ah yes...evidence...with bias. Just as someone with my worldview would make conclusions from certain "evidences" as well. At least we both agree.
+Chris Esterline Even if I save up for my own pension plan, how do I keep it safe from the banks gambling it away? How do I keep Coprorations from raising tuition fees, or the price of anything, up and up until I have to indebt/enslave myself to them? It doesn't matter how much money I make and save.... it will never be enough to be free to choose a human job with humane conditions.

All schools do not teach equally. The "best" jobs are offered only to those with the right friends, with the right pedigrees, that have come out of the most expensive schools. Is their schooling really superior, with the insane brainwashing that they call education ? The pre-requisites they demand are simply not offered in middle-class schools (never mind the poor district schools).

Do you really believe you can make it out of poverty through your hard work ? You are dreaming. You are only one accident, one cancer away from being thrown out into the streets...and everything you eat contains carcinogens.

If you say that the Rich actually do deserve their riches, then you believe the Schoolyard Bully is right to beat weaker kids up and take their lunch money, because he works hard at beating them.
+Philip Smith shrug I honestly don't care how you view it, your 'opinions' and 'beliefs' have no bearing upon my life, or how I vote. Never have, and never will.

There is no evidence, hard or theoretical to support Creationism, if there were, you would've already supplied it. The evidence to support the theory of evolution has not only been out and supported for over a century, but new evidence has been discovered since the theory was proposed.
You keep using the word evidence to describe your interpretation of evidence. Oh well, your 'beliefs' and 'opinions' have no bearing on my political choices worries.
Yes, because when you have information that supports a theory, it's called evidence. As I said, you're more than welcome to your personal beliefs, but the vast, vast, vast majority among the scientific community do not argue the validity of Evolution. Only the mechanisms to which it functions.

There is no bias, with regards to the evidence supporting evolution. None. The only bias is those who require no supporting data whatsoever to 'believe' that some magical being created the universe out of thin air. And then those same people, so easily discount hundreds of years of hard scientific research and discovery, because it happens to disagree with their 'beliefs'.
Sometimes it's harder to go against the flow, but to deny evidence to support Creation and say there is only evidence supporting Evolution is subjective. Again relying upon bias to determine "proof" does not make something factual nor does it prove anything. The only point I'm trying to prove is that [with both theories] there is the stipulation that both see the world through a different "lens" of bias. But, the most important point to all of this is that this is not a post in any way related to the origins of mankind and the universe, lol. I will reiterate that it is unfortunate people base their political bias on whether or not someone believes in Creation. That just doesn't make sense to me. It is, however, your personal opinion and I was not attempting to change your mind. I no longer believe that people vote based on real issues. They vote on what puts money in their pockets, supports their moral agenda, or [plainly] is more of the same. Some people are comfortable with ignorance...rather, most Americans are. I can attest to that because I used to be ignorant, myself. I admire the fact that we all are given the right to choose...that's what makes this nation great, but hypnotism has destroyed fairness, in my humble opinion.
Yes, it was extremely hard for thinkers and scholars to go against the Church throughout history, Risking their lives and liberty in the process. I agree with you 100%. Fortunately for humanity, they did, and we're better off for it. Our understanding of our world, and universe would be infinitely smaller, without the brave actions of those people.
No, I saw your point. Unfortunately, your point was clouded by the fact that the same action was taken in the past to further scientific advancement and the understanding of the universe. The difference now? People who propose ideals of Intelligent Design aren't jailed/murdered for their beliefs. While they are pretty much discounted as thinly veiled attempts to insert religion into the scientific realm (given no proof accompanies said claims), at least they aren't persecuted for their beliefs (unless it's to have their scientific stature removed/lessened).
Said like someone with absolutely no ground to stand on. Very typical. Easier to insult than it is to actually hold your own in an argument.
+Philip Smith True, reality has a well-known evolutionary bias.

I have studied creationist literature, it is all a load of cherry-picking bullshit.
Just like evolutionism. And, speaking of ground to [not] stand on, +Brian Murphy, logic is something you stand on that borrows from the Biblical worldview. +Roger Glover knows this.
+Philip Smith Given the absurd amount of contradictions in the Bible, it's pretty difficult to believe it's based upon logic at all. If the Bible were a piece of software, it'd be stuck in an infinite loop, due to faulty logic.
Here's a question that trips most evolutionists up (let's see how you do): What contradictions? Logic remains uniform throughout history and is currently the same. You cannot contradict a contradiction. If your worldview is correct, would logic not have "evolved" over the course of billions of years? Or, is logic that abstract to you?
Bullshit. Logic, like all other mathematics and philosophy, is a human invention. Aristotle, Boole, deMorgan, Russell, Whitehead, and Goedel would all be the first to tell you that.
+Roger Glover That implies that logic is a man-made invention and that they are "conventions" (mutually agreed upon conclusions; like morality), but to say that is to say that the Laws of Logic are not absolute because they have been subject to a vote. The Laws of Logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds...people are different. Human thinking it too often contradictory and that would [again] butt heads with the 2nd law (The Law of Non-Contradiction).
Logic must evolve.
Would something you believe to be logical when you are 20 years old still have to be believed logical when you are 40 years old? Or 50? Or 80?
Don't argue with this guy. He believes 2+2 = 5, if you try hard enough. Anyone who doesn't believe in logic is by definition, irrational.
You too have missed the point, Max Headroom (nice picture, btw). If logic were man-made, it would contradict itself and the 2nd law wouldn't exist.
Which version of the Bible are we referring to? There are at least 50 versions of it.

Logic certainly evolves over time. Though, I'd really be interested in seeing a bit of logic that's over a billion years old, given that would predate every known form of life, and writing discovered thus far.
I believe that logic, like morality, is personal.
If logic were static, absolute, why would there be war? Kill for peace. My deity is the only one and I'll war against any people(s)
+Brian Murphy How are you so certain logic has "evolved"? You cannot make an observation about how something does or does not occur if it does not exist. You would be observing nothing. How can you apply any laws of logic by observing nothing? Or, are you billions of years old yourself? You are using circular arguments to defend your worldview (dare I say religion, heh).How exactly to you assume that these laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy, and motion? With a naturalistic presupposition for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion? Riddle me this, Batman.
+Michael Blane You are still borrowing from the Christian worldview to produce your answers and ask more cyclic questions.
+Philip Smith Logic evolved along with man's ability to make observations upon his surroundings. I never said logic was a billion years old, you did. However, given humans don't know everything about the universe, I do have to leave open the possibility that there are civilizations/life forms that old. Such civilizations/entities could very well have evolved forms of logic. You cannot neither prove or disprove the existence of said entities, either.

You're still evading the overall question of providing any proof of Intelligent Design/Creationism. Which is a Kirk Cameron tactic. Don't answer the problem at hand, go around it.
+Philip Smith Your really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you. I'm done with you. It's impossible to play chess with a guy who thinks the rules are "If I knock over your king, I win."
+Brian Murphy Again, back to my original point that if mankind invented logic, it would not be logic as it would be contradictory as people have their own opinions...just like you and I.
+Philip Smith Not everyone is ruled by Logic, Philip, you of all people should be aware of that. Having absolutely no proof of Creationism/Intelligent Design, but willing to waste hours trying to argue it's existence. Ces la Vie.

If you decide to provide some actual scientific proof, I'm all ears.
+Brian Murphy I extend the same offer. If you can prove you are not talking in circles, I'll lend an ear [et al]. How do you know your old-earth theory is correct? Why? How do you know how old the earth is?
+Brian Murphy ps: "ruled by logic" has yet to be said by me in this thread. Please do not twist my words in an attempt to prove some sort of point. Governed? Maybe. :P If you are saying you are not logical, I would have to agree, but that does, however, assume you are irrational and this entire argument has been a fart in the wind.
+Philip Smith It's a simple request Philip, trying to hide behind other topics isn't going to steer me away from the actual subject at hand.

Evidence of the existence of Evolution: Massive amounts
Evidence of Intelligent Design/Creationism: Zero
Hiding behind the topic of politics? I think we are both guilty of that...sheesh! This is a completely unrelated thread, btw. I can say the same thing, you know. Massive amounts of evidence of Creation exist whereas there is none for evolution.
+Philip Smith I've only proven that you're unable to provide any substantial evidence to the existence of Intelligent Design/Creationism. That you'd rather sidestep the topic at hand, and ask other questions.

Still waiting for that proof.
I would like to add one more notation. You had stated that logic is evolving and that logic hasn't always existed (it's not from God), then how can you call evolutionism science if the Scientific Method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
White flag? No white flag here. No flag at all, gray, yellow, red, green, or white.

Just some nice men in white suits with a white butterfly net and a white jacket with really long white sleeves to take you in their big white van to a place with a white padded room where you'll be more, ah, comfortable .

Let's make it clear, I've decided that your metaphorical jaw flapping serves no useful purpose, even for you. I'm ignoring it.
+Brian Murphy You have already given sufficient evidence that Creationism exists by its mere mention (speaking of side-stepping the topic [again]).
What is it about 'Provide some proof for Intelligent Design/Creationism' that you're not fully grasping?
Me too :( Ar you bowing out too? Speaking of waiting for answers...what contradictions? I'm still in limbo there. You have yet to answer me. Where's the fun in that?
Gen1:1 states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That should be proof enough for you considering you base your ideals of "BILLIONS OF YEARS" on the geological column (that doesn't exist anywhere but textbooks).
Proof of evolution? How about anti-biotic resistant bacteria? Didn't exist before, suddenly exists now? How about armor that changed with the times? Plenty of examples of evolution, as I said before.
Geez, none of you make sense for more than one comment. Sad, but human, I guess.
Now, you get nothing more until you provide some proof of ID/Creationism, until then, I've got a ballgame to watch.

And I'm not answering your other questions, because they have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Spoken like someone who has nothing to back up their claims.
I accept your unconditional surrender.
I'm more of the "Intelligent Design" type myself, in a very loose way....I believe the seeds of life were planted and that everything evolved from that. And I hope there is some Master Plan to all this Chaos, if only to keep me from running into the street shooting my annoying neighbours down. Figuratively, of course ;-)
But +A. David , there are NATURAL consequences to committing murder: Jail. Inability to find work. Being shunned by all your friends and family. The possibility of a death sentence.

Are you really trying to convince us that the only reason that you don't go postal right now is your belief in some sort of blind watchmaker god.
Again borrowing from the Christian's worldview. How unfortunate.
Shh. No idiot trolls. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.
+Roger Glover Natural consequences, ha! Tell that to the Newly Orphaned Children of Afghanistan, Irak, Syria, Nigeria, Mexico, etc.... And yes, I must believe there is a difference between up and down, and that somehow I am with the universe when I teach my kids to never be the ones to throw that first punch, but to try and understand the pain that little brat is going through at home.
We're not talking about them. We're talking about you. You have told us all, in a public forum, that you would commit murder if you didn't believe in a god. I'm asking you if you really mean that or if you're talking out of your ass.

Every time you try to change the subject, you will convince me more and more that it is the latter case rather than the former.
+Roger Glover Should realize by now he'll do or say anything to avoid actually answering any questions in a meaningful way. He took the Kirk Cameron class on religious debate. Avoid talking about the actual subject at all costs.
+Brian Murphy Who says I don't realize that? :-)

He'll either answer substantively or he won't, or perhaps he won't answer at all! (If only...)

But in any case I'll have my answer.
+Roger Glover Heh, was just checking lol. Took me a few to recognize the tactic, but once I did, figured I'd stop answering until I got something in return that wasn't an unrelated question.
It's too bad you ladies couldn't hack it. Write me personally once you're done trash talking me.
I'll patiently wait as I have with you producing something worth listening to.
+Philip Smith Wouldn't waste my time, you still haven't produced anything remotely resembling an answer.
Add a comment...