Community > Posts By > gardenforge
According to what I saw on TV the universe is not expanding faster than the speed of light, it only did that for an instant right after the big bang. This little glitch in physics allowed for the formation of heavy elements without which life could not be possible. The same with water no need to explain why it does what it does, the fact that it does the opposite of what everything else does under the same circumstances makes life possible.
You ask that I take it on faith that all this happend by random chance yet you can't accept on faith that this might be by intelligent design. |
|
|
|
Looks like she was right again. If Democrats had any brains they would be Republicans
|
|
|
|
they invented some new stuff to hold the pollutants here instead of letting them leak out the hole in the ozone layer, its called Gravity.
|
|
|
|
this thread is about questions that the religious will just close their minds to and refuse to answer or just afraid to answer because it will question their suppose faith or question that they just can't answer rationally ..here's the first one according to believers logic, God had to have created the universe because the universe couldn't have popped out of nothingness and create itself .....so therefore do the same logic apply to the creator if the answer is no then could you explain why with a rational explanation Isn't it amazing that every time the laws of physics create a barrier to life in the universe an exception to the laws of physics has developed. Eienstein tells us that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Yet I watched a program on the science channel a while back that said immediately after the "big bang" matter had to accelerate in excess of the speed of light to form the universe as we know it. All substances shrink when they freeze except water. Water expands and becomes lighter. If it were not for this exception to the basic laws of physics, life here would be impossible because as water froze it would sink the lakes and rivers would freeze from the bottom up. All water would be locked in ice and life as we know it would be impossible. When you look at the vastness of the cosmos, the complexity of life in our small corner of it and all the things that had to come together to form that life the odds of it happening by pure random chance are unfathomable. |
|
|
|
mnhiker:
Typical liberal/socialist argument tactic, if you can't refute what the lady says lay on the personal attach. What I can't figure out is if she is wrong in everything she says why can't the liberal/socialists state specific instances in their arguments. I think the reason that you hate her so much is because she hits you all right where you live. |
|
|
|
I don't even watch her. Waste of time. And anyone who does watch her and listen to her ignorant statements are enthralled by the same sensationalism that makes people watch Howard Stern and Fox News. The only reason she still makes money, sells books, etc... is because of this. An yes another fact studded articulate liberal argument. And you wonder where Ann Colter gets all her ammunition. People who defend her statements just because she attacks liberals and anyone else she doesn't agree with are stuck with the same pinhead view of the world as she has. |
|
|
|
Iacocca nailed it. Thanks for posting that Dregoness. Politicians listen to two things money and numbers. It is time for everyone to write or email their entire congressional delegation and tell them we are fed up with business as usual. If enough voters tell them that they will listen. If not every few years we get an opportunity to fire their butts and we should exercise that option.
|
|
|
|
She must be doing something right she has all the liberal/socialists foaming at the mouth running in circles and snapping at their own asses every time her name is mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
hiliary
|
|
I think a woman would make a good president but I don't think it should be Monica Lewinski's ex boyfriend's wife.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Simple Abortion Question
|
|
Once again someone has enlightened me, it's not about abortion it's about choice. So glad you cleared that up Silly me what was I thinking anyway.
Women have a choice, they chose to engage in sex even though the obvious consequence of that act could be pregnancy. They chose not to practice restraint or birth control or insist that their partner does. In the heat of passion they forgot to take adequae precautions, but they chose not to use "morning after" pill in the cold light of dawn. Why is it that the only time they are able to exercise their choice is when it involved the termination of that pregnancy which more than likely would not have occurred if they had availed themselves of the choices they had prior to the conception? I know that there are many who will want to jump in here with tales of instances where bith control methods didn't work save it, you can't use the exception to justify the rule. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Montana Cowboy
|
|
A Montana cowboy was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"
The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?" The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves." "That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the cowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car. Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?" The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?" "You're a Democrat Congressman for the U.S. Government," says the cowboy. "Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?" "No guessing required," answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows. This is a herd of sheep. Now give me back my dog." |
|
|
|
Topic:
Simple Abortion Question
|
|
I see this as a dichotomy involving perception and intent. For instance -- a woman is having an abortion. She does not see this as murder, she sees this as a medical procedure. In her mind, there is no intent to murder, or to commit any crime at all. Abortion is legal; there are no legal repercussions to be accrued from the act. As Jeffrey Zaslow, a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times wrote many years ago: "If abortion is murder, then why aren't abortion doctors arrested and charged with murder?" Now, take the case of a man who murders a pregnant woman. Here we see a clear intent to harm, at the very least; an intent to commit a crime. He may not even know she is pregnant. He may know and not care. But he has an intent to harm. If he kills her, and the unborn child is also killed, there is an argument to be made that this child's life (or potential life, if you choose to see it that way) has been taken away by someone NOT sanctioned to make such a decision (whereas the mother, under the current law, DOES have such a right). So, I would see the difference as simply one of perception (under the law) and intent -- the mother does not perceive her action as a negative behavior, and she has no deliberate intention of harming anyone (working from a basic assumption that she's having the abortion willingly, and not through any sort of manipulation or coercion, which, of course, does happen, but isn't especially useful for this simplistic example) -- whereas an attacker/murderer should see his own actions as harmful AND decidedly criminal (barring some sort of mental issues). The law, as it currently stands, allows a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, in many instances. It does NOT allow another person to terminate her pregnancy without her consent. It's not a perfect distinction, and one can argue that it does exhibit a root contradiction, i.e., is the unborn baby a "person" or not? There is an inconsistency here, in that there may be no other instance where "personhood" is defined by who does the actual termination. But that, ostensibly, is why we have laws....I suppose.... Thank you for clearing that up for me. I see now that it is the intent not the action that determines whether a crime has occurred. I guess if I operate my car in a risky manner, hit and kill someone, as long as I didn't "intend" to do any harm, no crime has been committed. The original question exemplifies the double standard that exists. It is a matter of laws and convenience. When it is convenient to have an abortion as a means of birth control the law says the fetus is not a person and may be killed. When it is convenient to prosecute a monster for a heinous crime the law says that same fetus is a living person. Here are a couple of hypothetical questions for you. If a pregnant woman decides to have an abortion and as she is about to enter the clinic a pro lifer sets off a bomb and kills her and her unborn fetus has he committed one murder or two? And, if he intended no harm but only to attract attention has he committed any crime at all? |
|
|
|
Topic:
Are we on the verge...
|
|
The economy goes up, the economy goes down it is the nature of the beast. Most of the current economic woes have been sparked by the "sub prime home loan mess". The market has gone through other periods of adjustment and recessions before and it will weather this one too and be stronger because of it.
It is easy to blame the government for the mess, that way the people who jumped on the "sub prime loan rate" bandwagon don't have to take responsibility for their incredibly stupid actions. This should be a wakeup call to the American People. There is NO free lunch. |
|
|
|
Madisonman, a new week has started please remember to replace the tinfoil in your hat the mind control rays are starting to penetrate
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is Borock Obama a terrorist
|
|
As I look at the group of candidates fielded by both parties I am reminded of that old Frank Sinatra Song "Is that all there is?" Had our founding fathers envisioned "career politicians" they would have put a bounty on the bastards.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
My Point Exactly
|
|
An 86-year-old man went to his doctor for his quarterly check-up.The doctor asked him how he was feeling, and the 86-year-old said ,'Things are great and I've never felt better.'
I now have a 20 year-old bride who is pregnant with my child. 'So what do you think about that Doc ?' The doctor considered his question for a minute and then began to tell a story. 'I have an older friend , much like you, who is an avid hunter and never misses a season.'One day he was setting off to go hunting. In a bit of a hurry , he accidentally picked up his walking cane instead of his gun.' 'As he neared a lake , he came across a very large male beaver sitting at the water's edge. He realized he'd left his gun at home and so he couldn't shoot the magnificent creature. Out of habit he raised his cane , aimed it at the animal as if it were his favorite hunting rifle and went 'bang, bang' 'Miraculously , two shots rang out and the beaver fell over dead. Now, what do you think of that ?' asked the doctor. The 86-year-old said, 'Logic would strongly suggest that somebody else pumped a couple of rounds into that beaver.' The doctor replied , 'My point exactly.' |
|
|
|
And all of that was paid for by a conservative that actually had a job and paid taxes
|
|
|
|
Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to maketheir days interesting. Well, for example, the other day I went downtown and into a shop. I was only there for about 5 minutes and when I came out there was a cop writing out a parking ticket.
I said to him, "Come on, man, how about giving a retired person a break?" He ignored me and continued writing the ticket. I called him a "Nazi." He glared at me and wrote another ticket for having worn tires. So I called him a "doughnut eating Gestapo." He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he wrote a third ticket. This went on for about 20 minutes. The more I abused him the more tickets he wrote. Personally, I didn't care. I came downtown on the bus, and the car that he was putting the tickets on had a bumper sticker that said "Hillary in '08." |
|
|
|
Topic:
Kerry endorses Obama
|
|
One thing about a liberal socialist, he will continue to rattle on when there is nothing left to say. No amount of your smoke and mirrors will obscure the fact that your argument is lacking substance and therefore you have degressed to whatever you can to take the focus off the issue. Typical liberal socialist trick if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****. No porch, no rocking chain, no spit can and obviously much more intelligence that some who can't seem to stay focused on an issue for more than the blink of an eye.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Kerry endorses Obama
|
|
Ah you can always tell when a liberal socialist looses the argument they resort to personal attacks. So pathetic and so predictable. You still haven't offered the simple solution that I asked for could it be that it does not exist.
Once again in case you forgot as liberals are apt to do when it serves their purpose, show me a video of Obama saluting the flag with his lips moving and show me a a video of Kerry testifying before congress under oath that everybody that served in Viet Nam is NOT a murderer and rapist. If either video exists it should not be hard to find a link to it. Until then action talks and bull**** walks so take a hike dude |
|
|