Jump to content


Photo

Should Evolution Have Political Control?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 May 2008 - 03:45 AM

In the debates held before the final front runners were selected. Questions about whether anyone believed in evolution were asked. As I watched this, I had to wonder what does this have to do with our political process or how the president will perform in every situation?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...FEhkIujA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

One youtube video person thought that it was important to not only show who disagreed with evolution. But put their names up to make sure everyone knew who they were.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...c8t3Zd5E&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

So for evolution to remain in control, does it require this much power to now control our government? And can someone make a list of all advantages for the people to elect a president that believes in evolution instead of creation?

Also, why was not this same question asked to the demoocrats? Is it because the truth about what liberal democrats believe would actually come out? Which would support Ann Coulter's book named "Godless".

#2 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 28 May 2008 - 06:25 AM

In the debates held before the final front runners were selected. Questions about whether anyone believed in evolution were asked. As I watched this, I had to wonder what does this have to do with our political process or how the president will perform in every situation?

Youtube video #1

One youtube video person thought that it was important to not only show who disagreed with evolution. But put their names up to make sure everyone knew who they were.

Youtube video #2

So for evolution to remain in control, does it require this much power to now control our government? And can someone make a list of all advantages for the people to elect a president that believes in evolution instead of creation?

Also, why was not this same question asked to the Democrats? Is it because the truth about what liberal democrats believe would actually come out? Which would support Ann Coulter's book named "Godless".

View Post


ikester7579,

Evolutionists are trying to make this a political issue because they know the "Academic Freedom Act" now being passed by many of the states is a big threat to their religion. When people are given the opportunity to critically analyze evolution they begin to see the flaws and the that it is not eh fact they have been told it was.

I agree that they did not ask the Democratic candidates because they will see them for what they are. The scare tactics evolutionists use is deplorable. But than again religious militants of the church of evolution are operating out of fear that their time of control is coming to an end. Because of this they will do what ever they believe is necessary to keep that control.

Bob Barclay

Edit: I removed the videos in the reply because it was making the whole page load real slow makeing them load twice.
ikester.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 May 2008 - 02:42 AM

ikester7579,

Evolutionists are trying to make this a political issue because they know the "Academic Freedom Act" now being passed by many of the states is a big threat to their religion. When people are given the opportunity to critically analyze evolution they begin to see the flaws and the that it is not eh fact they have been told it was.

I agree that they did not ask the Democratic candidates because they will see them for what they are. The scare tactics evolutionists use is deplorable. But than again religious militants of the church of evolution are operating out of fear that their time of control is coming to an end.  Because of this they will do what ever they believe is necessary to keep that control.

Bob Barclay

View Post


I agree. All current evolution movies take 90% animation to make. It is because it takes 90% imagination to believe. Animation that convinces an audience is not evidence. And the audience is being fooled.

It's like during a court trial, if an animator comes up with a animated story that show the accused murdering someone. Should the accused be jailed for life on the animation of the supposed event that took place?

Animation is just a replacement for what has not been seen, and cannot be observed. Basically, evolution is only provable in a virtual world.

#4 Guest_LazyBones_*

Guest_LazyBones_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2008 - 10:37 AM

Animation is just a replacement for what has not been seen, and cannot be observed. Basically, evolution is only provable in a virtual world.

View Post


Animation is a way to give visual image of certain process. Even if you were shown "live " video image of certain process, you could argue that "it is only video image, not the process itself"

It's absurd to say animation usage is somehow proof/disproof of evolution :) Can you give me live performance of creation?

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 May 2008 - 11:24 PM

Animation is a way to give visual image of certain process. Even if you were shown "live " video image of certain process, you could argue that "it is only video image, not the process itself"

It's absurd to say animation usage is somehow proof/disproof of evolution :) Can you give me live performance of creation?

View Post


No, I'm not the side who is claiming to have so much physical evidence (mountains) that needs to be animated in order to fill in the gaps either. Or to tell the imaginative stories about dead bones who cannot tell the stories themselves. Can you make dead bones talk and tell us their stories to see if they match the ones imagined? No?

#6 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 30 May 2008 - 07:16 AM

No, I'm not the side who is claiming to have so much physical evidence (mountains) that needs to be animated in order to fill in the gaps either. Or to tell the imaginative stories about dead bones who cannot tell the stories themselves. Can you make dead bones talk and tell us their stories to see if they match the ones imagined? No?

View Post


ikester7579,

The problem lies in the fact that evolutionists believe they can make dead bones talk. When I read there religious jargon about the fossil record I just have to shake my head and say where is the science. An example of their religious explanation can be seen in their intermediate dud the fish-o-pod Tiktaalik. They describe the bones of the fossil while intermingaling their religious jargon and any story they want to tell just rolls out of the mouths. Since there is no way to verify or test these stories we are told it is evolutionary gospel truth. Building the story into something that it is not.

Wolfgang Smith puts it this way:

"We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;, but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

This is why evolutionists are so determined to keep their stranglehold on science. If their religion is critically analyzed it will cease to have its predominance in science and lose it's creditability. People will see it for what it is; a religion!

It is by far the most intolerant religion on the face of the earth today. If given control of the governments their religious intolerance rises to a deadly attack against any who dare speak against it. Examples in the twentieth century are vivid reminders of what the religion of evolution is capable of. Under the leadership of Stalin and Chairman Mao atheistic evolution was responsible for about 100 million deaths of those who did not agree with them. This is not including all the atheistic evolutionists governments this is just two of them.

Reference:
Smith, Wolfgang (1988). Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc. page 2.

Bob Barclay

#7 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:58 PM

Evolution is used as a litmus test by liberals to sort some of the crazies from the others. It is also a political blunt weapon that they wield to their advantage. Anyone who dismisses or even so much as doubts evolution gets hammered hard, and the victims don't often recover in a national race or any district that isn't a solid red. They need the Republican vote, but it isn't worth sacrificing so many of the independents who would think they are mad.

If you want to understand why this works, maybe you can think of it this way. Suppose that young-Earth creationism is not a part of any variation of any major religion. You are a boss of a small business, you are accepting interviews for a management position, and you happen to find out that one of the applicants does not accept the theory of evolution because of his obscure ideology. You have no idea what to think, except, Huh,? Is he not going to accept germ theory for the same reason? Is there any chance this particular wierdness will affect his job? Does this mean that he may not have the critical thinking skills to properly deal with competitors, partners, clients, and employees?" To you, the irrationality of rejecting a solid scientific theory on the basis of religion or ideology is a red flag for other problems down the line. It would be the same as if the applicant thinks that mental disorders are caused by demon possession.

You may or may not hire that guy. For the most important job in the world, you certainly want someone who can tell objective fact from a religious delusion.

I am convinced that none of those ex-candidates on the debate stage seriously doubt evolution. They are all smarter than that. I am voting for John McCain, and I don't care what he says he thinks about evolution.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 June 2008 - 09:25 PM

Evolution is used as a litmus test by liberals to sort some of the crazies from the others.  It is also a political blunt weapon that they wield to their advantage.  Anyone who dismisses or even so much as doubts evolution gets hammered hard, and the victims don't often recover in a national race or any district that isn't a solid red. They need the Republican vote, but it isn't worth sacrificing so many of the independents who would think they are mad.

If you want to understand why this works, maybe you can think of it this way.  Suppose that young-Earth creationism is not a part of any variation of any major religion.  You are a boss of a small business, you are accepting interviews for a management position, and you happen to find out that one of the applicants does not accept the theory of evolution because of his obscure ideology.  You have no idea what to think, except, "Implied bad words not allowed.? Is he not going to accept germ theory for the same reason? Is there any chance this particular wierdness will affect his job?  Does this mean that he may not have the critical thinking skills to properly deal with competitors, partners, clients, and employees?"  To you, the irrationality of rejecting a solid scientific theory on the basis of religion or ideology is a red flag for other problems down the line.  It would be the same as if the applicant thinks that mental disorders are caused by demon possession.

You may or may not hire that guy.  For the most important job in the world, you certainly want someone who can tell objective fact from a religious delusion.

I am convinced that none of those ex-candidates on the debate stage seriously doubt evolution.  They are all smarter than that.  I am voting for John McCain, and I don't care what he says he thinks about evolution.

View Post


Mccain says he believes in evolution. I have no problem with it. Running for president does not require a person to believe in creation. And therefore should not require a person to believe in evolution either.

You see, evolution has no bearing to me as far as who runs the country. I just want the right person in there. but the evolutionists have now made it an issue, and is the reason that I will now make it an issue. They deem every Christian as retarded, so I will deem just about every evolutionist as evil.

If extreme Darwinists do not like it, then they sould not dish out what they cannot chew.

(Statement above is my personal opinion which may not be the opinion of the forum owner).

Here's Mccain video:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FJ88l5ql_FQ&hl=en%22></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FJ88l5ql_FQ&hl=en type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

#9 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 03 June 2008 - 06:49 AM

Evolution is used as a litmus test by liberals to sort some of the crazies from the others.  It is also a political blunt weapon that they wield to their advantage.  Anyone who dismisses or even so much as doubts evolution gets hammered hard, and the victims don't often recover in a national race or any district that isn't a solid red. They need the Republican vote, but it isn't worth sacrificing so many of the independents who would think they are mad.

If you want to understand why this works, maybe you can think of it this way.  Suppose that young-Earth creationism is not a part of any variation of any major religion.  You are a boss of a small business, you are accepting interviews for a management position, and you happen to find out that one of the applicants does not accept the theory of evolution because of his obscure ideology.  You have no idea what to think, except, "Implied bad words not allowed.? Is he not going to accept germ theory for the same reason? Is there any chance this particular wierdness will affect his job?  Does this mean that he may not have the critical thinking skills to properly deal with competitors, partners, clients, and employees?"  To you, the irrationality of rejecting a solid scientific theory on the basis of religion or ideology is a red flag for other problems down the line.  It would be the same as if the applicant thinks that mental disorders are caused by demon possession.

You may or may not hire that guy.  For the most important job in the world, you certainly want someone who can tell objective fact from a religious delusion.

I am convinced that none of those ex-candidates on the debate stage seriously doubt evolution.  They are all smarter than that.  I am voting for John McCain, and I don't care what he says he thinks about evolution.

View Post


Did you hear what you just said? Evolution is used to sort out the crazy ones running for office. Your prejudicial attitude is showing big time. You have just put anyone who does not believe what you believe in a category of incapable to run this country because they are to crazy not believe what I believe. This has nothing to do with their capabilities but everything to do with their personal belief. This is a typical evolutionist's scare tactic thank you for proving our point.

Creationists and IDers have been pointing out this prejudicial attitude that happens in the peer reviewed science journals for years now. This is also happening to your fellow evolutionists. I am thinking of Dr. Arp and other cosmologists that are denied observatory time just because they do not believe in the Big Bang. So it is not that they are crazy or incapable of running the country it is all because you are afraid they will help pass legislation like the "Academic Freedom" bill that will allow a critical analysis of your religion. You are afraid that if this happens people will see what evolution is - a 19th century religion. A religion that is based on the science of of time when DNA, RNA, etc. were not known. As advances in technology have opened scientists eyes evolutionists have had to tweak their religion to keep up with it. Because of evolutions elastic nature it is impossible to test or falsify. A good essay on this subject entitled “A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s ‘29 Evidences for Evolution’" written by Ashby Camp and it is in two parts can be found at:

http://www.trueorigi.../theobald1a.asp
http://www.trueorigi.../theobald1b.asp

Unlike evolutionists I have no problem hiring some one for a job who does not believe what I believe because I am not prejudicial. I see no reason to believe that what a person believes will keep him or her from doing the best they can on a job.

Bob Barclay

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 June 2008 - 03:06 PM

I think T.T. sees what I see. Which is people using what they believe to take away the freedom of others. Freedom to choose should be based each individual choice to do just that. Not controlled by a group who happens to disagree.

#11 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 03 June 2008 - 05:34 PM

Did you hear what you just said? Evolution is used to sort out the crazy ones running for office. Your prejudicial attitude is showing big time. You have just put anyone who does not believe what you believe in a category of incapable to run this country because they are to crazy not believe what I believe. This has nothing to do with their capabilities but everything to do with their personal belief. This is a typical evolutionist's scare tactic thank you for proving our point.

Creationists and IDers have been pointing out this prejudicial attitude that happens in the peer reviewed science journals for years now. This is also happening to your fellow evolutionists. I am thinking of Dr. Arp and other cosmologists that are denied observatory time just because they do not believe in the Big Bang. So it is not that they are crazy or incapable of running the country it is all because you are afraid they will help pass legislation like the "Academic Freedom" bill that will allow a critical analysis of your religion. You are afraid that if this happens people will see what evolution is - a 19th century religion.  A religion that is based on the science of of time when DNA, RNA, etc. were not known. As advances in technology have opened scientists eyes evolutionists have had to tweak their religion to keep up with it. Because of evolutions elastic nature it is impossible to test or falsify. A good essay on this subject entitled “A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s ‘29 Evidences for Evolution’" written by Ashby Camp and it is in two parts can be found at:

http://www.trueorigi.../theobald1a.asp
http://www.trueorigi.../theobald1b.asp

Unlike evolutionists I have no problem hiring some one for a job who does not believe what I believe because I am not prejudicial. I see no reason to believe that what a person believes will keep him or her from doing the best they can on a job.

Bob Barclay

View Post

Beliefs can have a major impact on job performance, especially concerning positions of authority and power. The ideological beliefs endorsed by the current president has been the main influence of his foreign policies, political appointments, and signatures on law bills. The beliefs of the current candidates is a huge consideration of voters, and rightly so. To me, what they seriously believe is one thing and what they say they believe is another. But what they say they believe will still have a big impact--will the president build his base of support on the reasonable voters, or will he go for the vote of the ideologically insane?

I have actually read much of Ashby Camp's rebuttal to Theobald. The points of Theobald that I found most persuasive were either not addressed or the arguments were weak. For example, Theobald compiled a set images of intermediate fossil skulls displayed and annotated in this illustration here:

http://talkorigins.o...c/hominids.html

This represents strong evidence, and any rebuttal that Ashby Camp makes must either explain why evolution does not predict these seemingly intermediate forms or explain how creationism predicts it better. Theobald's argument is contained in Prediction 1.4 (link), but Camp doesn't even mention it. Instead, he picks at rhetorical straws (link). Anyone can make arguments against any theory all day long, but it doesn't change the observed objective reality. A reasonable person looks at the evidence provided by the fossils, DNA, vestiges, atavisms, mutations, biological competitions, and no other theory comes close to explaining it all better than evolution. Evolution could stand up very well against a very robust naturalistic alternative explanation for life, but when the closest competitor proposes either the gods or outer-space aliens, then, well, the debate should have been settled already, in my opinion.

#12 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 03 June 2008 - 05:48 PM

Mccain says he believes in evolution. I have no problem with it. Running for president does not require a person to believe in creation. And therefore should not require a person to believe in evolution either.

You see, evolution has no bearing to me as far as who runs the country. I just want the right person in there. but the evolutionists have now made it an issue, and is the reason that I will now make it an issue. They deem every Christian as retarded, so I will deem just about every evolutionist as evil.

If extreme Darwinists do not like it, then they sould not dish out what they cannot chew.

(Statement above is my personal opinion which may not be the opinion of the forum owner).

View Post

I think it is very good and right that creationists can tolerate a candidate who supports evolution. If they insist that their nominee must oppose the theory of evolution, then they would never win another election. The independents are on the side of evolution, and enough of them feel very strongly that creationists are either nuts or blithering idiots. In comparison, creationists do not have as much reason to object to the opposing view, since the vast majority of the scientific establishment stands against them. It appears all but insane to imply that almost all scientists stupid, evil or whatever.

#13 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 03 June 2008 - 06:30 PM

I think T.T. sees what I see. Which is people using what they believe to take away the freedom of others. Freedom to choose should be based each individual choice to do just that. Not controlled by a group who happens to disagree.

View Post

There is a definite risk for people with minority opinions when those who have the political power look on the minority with scorn, fear and hatred. Creationism is perhaps the greatest weakness of conservative Christianity. Conservative Christianity can be tolerated as a constructive peaceful force of good. But it becomes a pariah when creationism is introduced into the public debate. It confirms the arguments of atheists, who say that fundamentalist Christianity brainwashes children to believe nonsense. When Christianity is seen in light of young-Earth creationism, along with the attempts to introduce creationism into public school curricula and textbooks, then Christianity looks like a monster that makes science serve an ideology. Atheists treat creationism as a horror, but they should be secretly thanking creationists for giving them rhetorical ammunition against the Christian and Muslim religions. Atheists will win, or at least creationism will lose. Christianity can adapt to lose creationism, as in Europe, or else it will be reduced to social obscurity.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 June 2008 - 07:05 AM

I think it is very good and right that creationists can tolerate a candidate who supports evolution.  If they insist that their nominee must oppose the theory of evolution, then they would never win another election.  The independents are on the side of evolution, and enough of them feel very strongly that creationists are either nuts or blithering idiots.  In comparison, creationists do not have as much reason to object to the opposing view, since the vast majority of the scientific establishment stands against them.  It appears all but insane to imply that almost all scientists stupid, evil or whatever.

View Post


So do you think that everyone should agree with the evolution theory?
Do you think that no creationist should ever hold office?
Do you believe that our government should be a Geniocracy instead of a democracy?

"Geniocracy" : A geniocracy is a governmental structure whereby power is given to those who have high average intelligence potential (IP) levels, or are considered to be a "genius". A geniocracy is not the same as a democracy, for the fact that people must qualify with a certain IP level (10% above average) in order to be allowed to vote and those being voted for have to have even higher IP levels (50% above average). ...

Being smart does not mean a person has common sense. I have met some smart people that are made to look stupid everytime a common sense issue arises (everyday life issues).

Example: Einstien. Do you think he would have made a good president because of how smart he was in science?

By the way T.T. Sneaking in abbreviated cuss phrases (Implied bad word not allowed) is not allowed as much as an actual cuss word. I replaced what you said with huh? in the other post.

#15 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 04 June 2008 - 11:27 AM

So do you think that everyone should agree with the evolution theory?
Do you think that no creationist should ever hold office?
Do you believe that our government should be a Geniocracy instead of a democracy?

"Geniocracy" : A geniocracy is a governmental structure whereby power is given to those who have high average intelligence potential (IP) levels, or are considered to be a "genius". A geniocracy is not the same as a democracy, for the fact that people must qualify with a certain IP level (10% above average) in order to be allowed to vote and those being voted for have to have even higher IP levels (50% above average). ...

Being smart does not mean a person has common sense. I have met some smart people that are made to look stupid everytime a common sense issue arises (everyday life issues).

Example: Einstien. Do you think he would have made a good president because of how smart he was in science?

I don't really judge a candidate based on IQ or other measures of intelligence. Not ideally, anyway. I confess that I do tend to give greater consideration to candidates if they have doctorate degrees, like Ron Paul or Howard Dean. Intelligence value is a plus, but it is only a small part of the whole. Intelligence is required for the cabinet, but not so much for the man on top. What should be more important is critical thinking capacity. A candidate who is easily swayed by ideology or conspiracy theories or con artists or poor science is a candidate that I would rather not have in the most important job in the world, and I am sure you would agree. Many fault the president for his lack of intelligence. But the president is a moderately smart guy who passed his classes at an Ivy League school, and his cabinet is and was made of the most experienced minds in the country. The real problem was a lack of critical thinking. He was easily swayed by political ideology, his foreign policy relied on those who dealt lies, he failed to be introspective on his own decisions, and the rest of us pay the price.

You should take note that favoring one sort of candidate over another sort is not the same as favoring single-party rule over democracy. The constitution and the democratic majority, as usual, decide who is in power, and that is the way it should be.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 June 2008 - 02:56 AM

I hear it's already been proven that Obama thinks like a Marxist. Going to a college to tell our next generation to live medeocre lives. You don't go to college to do that.

The reason he thinks like a Marxist is his ties to Islam.

I'd like to see a black president get in there. But not this guy.

#17 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 June 2008 - 02:57 AM

Example: Einstien. Do you think he would have made a good president because of how smart he was in science?

By the way T.T. Sneaking in abbreviated cuss phrases (Implied bad words not allowed.) is not allowed as much as an actual cuss word. I replaced what you said with huh? in the other post.

View Post


didnt he actually turn down the presidency of Israel


when ever i see stuff like that i always think it means what the flip or something like that :lol:

#18 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 05 June 2008 - 01:40 PM

I hear it's already been proven that Obama thinks like a Marxist. Going to a college to tell our next generation to live medeocre lives. You don't go to college to do that.

The reason he thinks like a Marxist is his ties to Islam.

I'd like to see a black president get in there. But not this guy.

View Post

I was not aware that Obama told anyone to live a mediocre life, and I didn't know that Marxism had anything to do with Islam.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users