Creationists Take Another THWACK!

Kansas and Evolution

Creationists hiding under the guise of a philosophy called "intelligent design."
I wonder how Avida will impact this whole aspect of trying to destroy valid Scientific theories with philosophical ideas.

Avida Evolving

When Walking into your local grocery store you don't usually ask, How did i get here? or Why am i here? Unless of course you're as scatterbrain as i am--but even then it doesnt usually connote the existential weight it did when i walked into my local grocery store, and sprinted ritualistically to the magazine stand. It was there that i saw staring back at me, over the image of a primate, in bold yellow letters, the words "Testing Darwin, scientists prove evolution works." So i bought the magazine and read through the article as fast as i could. I, being an open-minded creationist, who by the way doesn't believe in the divine monarchy of christianity; nor the idea that the bible is the word or mind of god, was stunned and intrigued.

It seems that Michigan state researchers developed a computer program in the late 1990's called Avida. The program allowed them "to watch the random mutation and natural selection of digital organisms unfold over millions of generations." Now if you think of DNA as a set of instructions that tell cells how to assemble protiens, then it's easy to think of a computer program, or line of code, as virtually the same thing. These lines of code carry information on how to build a new line of code, or a new digital organism--just like DNA does in the physical world.The purpose of this program being to determine if a simple organism or line of computer code could evolve into a complex one. According to the article it has done just that.

The program was even shown to produce results similar to Richard Lenski's "longest continuously running experiment in evolution." Which profoundly demonstrated the idea of natural selection. Not only that but it also argued--with evidence to back up the aruments--against creationist ideas about intelligent design. Ideas such as "just how could they eye have evolved?" And destroyed the argument that mutations in an organism are unwelcomed and usually breeded out of a species after a few generations, and that one was based on a scientific experiment.

Though--even with the obvious breakthrougs achieved with the program--I believe that the crux of creationism was lost upon these men. The crux being that someone or something created us. Doesn't Avida in fact prove that without someone bothering to take the time to create us we would have never evolved into the "complex" organisms we've now become? After all Avida was created by these scientists right?

So why are we here? i mean, if something did create us, as those scientists created Avida, then it could be plausible that whatever did it may have done so to ponder how and why it was created. Though, that could just be nonsensical thinking. The only thing that steered me away from creationism is energy. The whole concept that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It lead me to think that if something can exist without having to be created then just maybe there was no "intelligent design" involved in our creation or evolution into being. Maybe some physiological programs won't allow themselves to compute that there was no grandiose purpose to thier existense. Maybe they need to believe that they were created for a purpose.

But,After all, in the end, people will just believe what they want to believe. Creationists will be hell bent on promoting thier beliefs and arguments. And evolutionists will do the same, albiet with much more proof than the creationists.
------

For more info on Avida go to: dllab.caltech.edu/avida

Or visit discover.com

Securing the Bomb

"Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 th eU.S. has secured less nuclear material than in the 2yrs prior."-Matthew Bunn assisntant director of science, technology and public policy program at Harvard.

when i first heard this story it was May of last year, last i heard about it bush threw some money at the problem, i still dont know if the Dept. of Energy has gotten the power it needed to do something about the hazardous nuclear material. I'll do some looking and let you all know.

Democracy

So the Iraqi elections went on without as big a murderous rampage as most were expecting, still 36 died last I heard, when an IED went off. Perhaps the recent capture of some high ranking insurgents payed off. In my cautious optimism I'd have to suspect that the real killing could begin after the election, taking out elected officials etc. From what i gather from everything i've heard so far this is just one hurtle for the Iraqi people. After this there will be a drafting of a constitution, something everyone will have a part in, unlike the elections that were boycotted by the Sunni. Though, from what i understand it may be more because of thier scant numbers than anything else.
It's been about fifty years since an election like this has taken place in Iraq. It seems, from newscasts and interviews of Iraqi's, that the U.S.'s image could gain some support from Iraqi's. In interviews with ex-patriots here in california there is a sense of pride and hope about what is happening. In Iraq there are mixed feelings some people voted no matter what, others were too scared of the insugency to make it out.
The whole purpose of our ousting of Saddam is plain to me, though, i could be wrong. It's all riding on this idea that democracy spreading in the middle east will somehow eradicate or dampen the extremism of terrorists. Islamic terrorists stuck in the 7th century and convinced that America is the great satan.
Despite the mistakes made post-war it looks as though there will be an Iraqi democracy. If it works out better than expected we could have a new ally in the fight against Islamic extremism. If it fails at worst a stronger enemy and another war.

Laura Ingraham and Right Thinking

So i'm listening to right wing radio, and there's Laura Ingraham with her smear campaign against eveything and everyone who doesn't fall in line with the path of the righteous man, also known as "right thinking." No one should really mind this, but when you complain day in and day out about how one-sided--left leaning--the mainstream media is, which is painfully true by the way, all while being blantantly one-sided yourself, it can get kinda bothersome. For instance last night's show had its share of contradictions, not that it had no redeeming quality, if you're LIBERAL enough you can see where sometimes they can actually make sense.
So, anyhow, last nite's show she starts off saying how the washington post's article on the march for life was written very well and without any sucker punches on the views of the people marching. Then, of course, she compares it to what she called "the march for death." Which is in reality the opposing view point of the march for life. She proceeds to take as many shots at those people and what they believe in as she can, until it's just redundant.
So Laura proves, once again, she's no better than any liberal-leaning newscast, talk-show host or article. At least she never went off like Brian Sussman did when he praised the B-2 bomber and made the comment "...Hey wouldn't that scare you from Allah to Jesus in no time?" If only everyone thought like these people we'd all be Right Thinking American Patriots who beleive in voo doo economics. God bless us everyone.

7yrs. left till the end of time

oneMoreGrainOfSand
"The study of ancient cultures, and the two oldest sciences in the world of Mathematics, and Astronomy have much to offer our modern world. One could believe that we are on the verge of an evolutionary jump in our culture that was predicted by ancient astrologers, both Mesoamerican, and Western. One may infer that the end of the fourth creation as predicted by the Mayans on December 23rd, 2012 offers a precise date of the same phenomena put forward by Western Astrologers concerning the Age of Aquarius. Now that you know the world isn’t going to end on Dec 23rd, 2012, you may be wondering what will happen, and what it means. My opinion is that this is a time of progression for humans, and one should not be ignore the possible importance of these events that we are so lucky to be alive to witness. "

Sorry for the gap between postings, and loss of continuity but oh well ay?

Another 4yrs of Bush jr. it was so predictable that it scares me.

I didnt plan on this blog being anything political, it just became that way out of nowhere. the trouble is i'm very inconsistent. I plan things out and never get them written on here i hope i can change that at least slightly.

The Washington Post published an article in which MR.BUSH says the '04 election ratified his Iraq-war Policy. And you know what? He's right, that's exactly what happend.

If ratifiying a war BUSH dove into head first with erronious reasons and without having a grasp on the reality of the post-war situation, then i'd HAVE to believe that the U.S. is more dumbed down than I could have ever imagined. Yes, I have to believe that because this is a president who was told, a short time after 9/11 there was a 10kilaton Nuclear bomb somewhere in N.Y. The very same president who allowed for the shittiest job of securing nuclear material scattered all over the world. Nuclear material that could be used on the U.S. And ppl vote for him and Feel safer? i can't believe that america is anything but completely out of thier fucking minds. But hey, after all, this is america, and i guess that's enough of an excuse.

"Another cowboy for the cattle."

380tons of Lies and Half truths

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared, and may have videotaped some of those weapons
...

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.
...
On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination.

...
"the Russians can't have absconded with the explosives before the war if a US camera crew still sees them there in April of 2003."-j.cole


Ok there's Waaaay too much info to get into at this point for me, I should've started in the morning but i had to convince someone ("a funny kid") that the russians weren't angels to chechens, i hope i did at least a fair job at that.

So for the sake of time i will leave a list of links to click to get the full story on the missing explosives. Note two things before hand though; There were reports of Iraqi weapons found in places like syria and iran, I believe, i'll try and get info on that if i can.

Second thing, while everyone seems to want to blame Bush, do not forget to note that the IAEA went ahead and let Saddam Hussein keep these types of weapons Specifically the Hdx and Rdx, which I believe, are used primarily for detonating Nuclear weapons. Saddam said he needed them for mining; if these types of Highgrade explosives aren't necessary and are in fact overkill for mining then why did the IAEA let Saddam keep them at all? Why weren't they destroyed? For that the IAEA must take responsibility.

Edit:Third note, there's also a sentiment in certain circles that holds the belief that the IAEA seals could have been removed the weapons stolen and then the said seals could have been placed back on the bunkers/weapons.

the links including the one Above^:

Washington Times

Josh Marshall questions satellite imagery, as cited in Juan Cole's blog

Juan Cole
---
Tomorrow, if i'm not procrastinating, some questions about the Adam Pearlman video which has apparently been authenticated by our Intel agencies according to Fox News.

Adam Pearlman

NewsLink

As first reported by internet shock columnist Matt Drudge earlier today, the hour-long videotape was obtained by America's ABC News in Pakistan over the weekend and was passed along to anti-terror groups in the US after being viewed by network exectutives.

ABC News vice president Jeffrey Schneider told Reuters that the network had been "working around the clock" to determine whether or not the tape was authentic.
...According to Matt Drudge, "The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. 'The streets will run with blood,' and 'America will mourn in silence' because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda. "
....
The MSNBC story quotes anonymous officials as saying analysts’ concerns about the tape's warnings were "low" because it was not clear that the tape was recorded recently and because the man on the tape, who spoke in what appeared to be an American accent, mentioned no details.

More on this and Russian Special Forces moving Iraqi Explosives into Syria and possibly Iran tommorrow.

Cofer Closes In On bin Laden

Much thanks to FPN and the DigiBoard for posting the News Link.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

Asked if concrete progress had been made during the last two months - when Pakistan has arrested dozens of terror suspects including some key al-Qaida operatives - Black said, "Yes, I would say this."-Excerpt


Joseph Cofer Black, The coordinator of the State Department's Counterterrorism Office. The State Department which presented, in April '04, a "Terrorism report" which claimed acts of terror dropped significantly in '03, when in fact the opposite was true. Two months later the State Department corrected their findings because of pressure from congressman Henry Waxman (D-Ca) who sought a review of the State Department's findings by the Congressional Research Service.

U.S.Raises Figures for '03 Terror attacks (june 22, 2004)


U.S. wrongly reported world terrorism in '03 (june 11, 2004)

Will "Intelligence Matters" Matter?

Democratic Sen. Bob Graham's book: "Intelligence Matters" alleges that the Bush admin. and the FBI are hiding evidence linking Saudi Arabia to Al-Qaeda.

NY times 9-5-04

Excerpts from Graham's book, which goes on sale on Tuesday, showed that at least two of the hijackers had support from Omar al-Bayoumi, whom the senator called a Saudi government spy and said was a ``ghost employee'' of a Saudi contracting firm, Erean. The owner of the firm, Graham said, was thought to be a supporter of Osama bin Laden.

Sen. John Kerry called for an immediate investigation into Graham's allegations.``If the White House and the FBI did in fact block an investigation into the ties between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers, then this would be a massive abuse of power,'' Kerry said in a statement.

The Bush campaign dismissed the issue.``John Kerry is flailing about making baseless attacks founded on the assertions of a failed presidential candidate,'' Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.Graham dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in October 2003.
---

According to this article Grahm Made the accusation as early as May.
5-11-04

Much thanks to Fake Plastic News for the LINK info.
---

Later Today in "8yrs": Cofer Black Predicts the future! after failing miserably to assess the past.

"Straight Shooter"

Below is a small portion of just why some ppl should think twice about Bush being a "Straight shooter" or any other politician for that matter, wether he's a Dem. or a Rep. The full list provided

HERE

, though i do not see all the points on this list as genuine "flip-flops" a small number of those i believe are are listed.

Also if you're someone who would profess that there's a reason why he changed his mind, even if it's more than twice, then take that reasoning into consideration no matter what party that person is in; not forgetting that they are after all "politicians" who will change their mind and make policies according to how many votes it could garner for them.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush,

3/3/01

]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]*link unavailable

2. Patient's Right to SueGOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon,

2-7-01

]...

CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush,

10-17-00

]...

PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post,

4-5-04

]


4. North KoreaBUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement,

11-15-02

]...

BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan,

6-23-04

]

5. AbortionBUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation,

6-15-00

, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]...

BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush,

10-3-00

]

12. Weapons of Mass DestructionBUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland,

5-29-03

]...

BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press,

2-7-04

]


If you find any of this information to be faulty please let me know by e-mail.

So you've Read the 9/11 Report...well...

You should read this too then...

Cover Up : What the Government Is Still Hiding About the War on Terror

"In Cover Up,[author Peter] Lance shows how the government chose again and again to sacrifice America's national security for personal motives and political convenience. In its first half, he unveils shattering new evidence that terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef ordered the bombing of TWA 800 from his prison cell in order to effect a mistrial in his own terror bombing case. Astonishingly, the FBI was alerted to Yousef's plans in advance by a prison informant who even passed along his detailed sketch of a bomb-trigger device -- a document seen here for the first time. And Lance reveals the shocking reason the Justice Department suddenly ruled the crash an accident despite overwhelming evidence of the bombing -- throwing away its best chance to penetrate the cell that was already planning 9/11."

TITLE of POST

So i was listening to Guliani's speech for the RNC When i heard him say that, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, he grabbed someone's arm and said "thank god George Bush is president." i couldn't help but be utterly amused at the prospect of what he would have said had the elections of 2000 gone the other way, "God help us all, Al Gore is president."

About the 9/11 commission and me calling them partisan i'm rescinding that remark as of now. They are actually, in my estimation, a Bipartisan commission who got stuck with the job, demanded by the public/families of the victims of 9/11, of investigating 9/11 to uncover what exactly went wrong, but apparently because some of them were actually partly responsible for intelligence failures and bad oversight they turned the report into something which would not place blame on anyone and just restated OLD intelligence problems dating back to the 90's i believe.

Some Staplers don't staple you.

I look to my awstralian friend, when i'm down, down, down...I look to my awstralien frien...when i'm down, down, down, when i'm....down down d o w n

Rant on Me

I've been watching c-span for the past couple of days. It's actually quite addicting if you're somewhat of a news junkie like I believe I've become. A few things I wanted to get to on this blog: 1. I've been reading the Preacher series from vertigo. It'd be pointless of me to point out how good it is, I mean it made Garth Ennis even more infamous than Judge Dredd did. 2.The 9/11 commission, I went and called them partisan on the previous blog, even though they're comprised of members of both Republican and Democratic parties. Well guess what? I'm still going to call them partisan because of the fact that they leaned for those in charge, and I'll get to just how, but maybe not why, later. 3. What else? I really don't know.

You're right outsourcing foreign policy is a bad idea and anyone who thinks it's a good idea may be a moron. Although if you think about it long and hard and ask: When was the last time America had express U.N. approval to do anything? Panama? Granada? Vietnam? ...Iraq? The U.N. has never actually been the last word in any nations foreign policy. Sadly, I don't think the U.N. has ever prevented any kind of military aggression through diplomacy. So then, my question would be how is the U.N. supposed to take over our ability to govern ourselves if it can't even prevent Russia from invading Afghanistan or America invading Iraq? The members of the U.N., again, don't have the final word on any part of the worlds foreign affairs, what they have are very official looking documents that are generally only backed by the nation supporting it (unilaterally or otherwise) and it's allies. Support for the U.N. means most likely support for diplomacy, something the Bush admin understood, to a degree, when they sent Mr. Diplomacy himself Colin Powell for U.N. support.


About the ceasefire, I assume you're referring to the
so-called "world [effort] to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people."(BushOct.7, 02) In that case the world only consisted of the U.S. and the U.K. the only nations (besides France who withdrew in 96) that recognized the UNSANCTIONED "no-fly" zones, which didn't protect the Kurds from Iraqi incursion in 1995-96 nor have they protected the Shi’a or the marsh Arabs from ground based repression throughout the decade. If the legitimate resolutions in violation by Iraq carried a weight that couldn't be called unilateral then why does Washington effectively block resolutions of the same type against nations/countries allied with the U.S.? For that matter, why do you even bring up these resolutions and state that the only reason to go to war is when there are violations of resolutions that have been established with the cooperation of the U.N. who you call a committee of socialists? If what you say is true--if violations of these resolutions are the only reason to go to war--then rivals of Turkey and Israel have every reason to target them.

As for propaganda I don’t think there has been another Admin that has taken such backlash from their own propaganda, that is to say I have yet to hear of any comparisons to that end. The propaganda that you say was used to gain support around the world obviously didn't sit right with most of the world; just look back at the worldwide protests going on abroad and in America where some news media outlets treated the thousands of protesters as ridiculous left wing clowns. Anyone who believed, as Bush did, that "Iraq had trained al Qaeda members in bomb making poisons, and deadly gases."(Bush Oct.7th2002) Had to take the administrations word on that, as well as with the accusation that Iraq had WMD's and was a clear and present danger to America. Even though there were many intelligence officials at the time who believed the contrary; the Administration chose to run with intelligence that made Iraq look like a threat--intelligence that has not been substantiated--rather than intelligence that claimed the opposite. Now that even the partisan 9-11 commission is saying there was no cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, I’m starting to believe that maybe it was certain people of the Bush administration who are retarded and incapable of making valid arguments based on reality. One point I believe is relevant is: if Iraq did have WMD’s or was trying to make some then where was the Israeli intelligence about them? Surely Iraq’s close neighbors and our consistent ally would keep a sharp eye on Iraq no?

I agree with you that we should not outsource our ability to govern ourselves but I don’t see Kerry's winning of the presidency as that kind of a threat. When you play partisan politics and try to say that democrats aren’t suited to handle “this type of situation” consider that Bush had only five or so years of public service to account for, before becoming president and facing the situations he faced. I only speak against Bush in that way because although you make no claim that you are going to vote for him you clearly don’t seem as though you’d vote democrat. And if anyone wants to I’d have to ask the same question you posed, only from a different perspective, which is “what do you really think Kerry is going to do that is better than how it’s being handled now?” Besides the Draft (a possibility only furthered by the incompetence of this Administration) and the very imaginative Socialist take over? The answer in my opinion is not a whole lot, I mean Do the differences in Bush and Kerry really amount to all that much of a difference? I don’t think so. Indeed not very much would be different.

I will have to disagree with you about propaganda, because if we start to believe this then what is the use of actual evidence and logic when making major decisions? Will the government be reduced to listing wild accusations for any and every argument/situation within American politics? And we’ll all just sit by and say it’s okay till one day someone goes too far with their propaganda and not only wants to make up a reason to do this or that but wants to give us a very real justification, the cost of this justification being American lives and liberties taken by the very gov’t. that was set up to ensure those liberties and protect those lives.

Kerry the U.N.'s Socialist posterboy

Excuses, Excuses

POSTED BY "SOMEONE2"
you wont vote for kerry for two reasons

1. you're not an idiot
2. you're not a socialist

and with his recent talk of being a clinton-esque democrat, Kerry is proving to be both.

That and he supports the UN, and anyone who
thinks its a good idea to outsource or foreign policy into the hands of a committee of socialists is just a fucking moron.

-------------------------------

yeh but Kerry has already stated that he wants to send MORE troops into Iraq and that he is supportive of reinstating the draft. Two things that I TOTALLY disagree with.

What do you really think Kerry is going to do that is better than how it is being handled now? At least we're following along with the deadlines and preparing to hand Iraq over.

With kerry taking over, you can be sure that your taxes will be raised, that defense spending will go down, and that our ability to rule ourselves will be handed over to failing socialist countries like france or germany.

I don't know where you stand on these kind of things, but in my opinion, the slogan should be ANYONE BUT KERRY.


--------------------------

Saddam broke the cease fire and refused to cooperate with 19 different resolutions that were attempting to totally disarm him. That always the only reason to go to war. For those reasons alone he and his country should have been bombed into oblivion.

Every other reason was just used as propaganda to gain public support around the world, and I think both you and I know that propaganda (lies if you want to call it that) is actually a good thing, and its just how politics work, because most people are retarded and incapable of making decisions based on reality. Especially at a time when being a realist is considered less intelligent than being an idealist.

But we didn't bomb anyone into oblivion, we tried to wage a war with a low levels of casualities so we could appease radical muslims in the middle east (well that was just a terrible fucking idea, because we should be bombing radical muslims not trying to make them feel better)

But when you look at it, although Bush has fucked up ( i totally agree that he has), if we're talking in ideologies here, which ideology would be better suited to handle this type of a situation?

I don't know how anyone could say democrats in this case.

-----------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SOMEONE1:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SOMEONE2:
and I think both you and I know that propaganda (lies if you want to call it that) is actually a good thing,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



what the fuck are you on?


RESPONSE OF SOMEONE2:

It's called common sense. Making up other reasons to go to war besides the obvious and totally justified ones were a way to simply sway people of other ideologies to agree with what we were already going to do.

There were tons of reasons to go into Iraq, and we had our core ones, and we just emphasized the others to attract more people to the cause. If you think that type of a tactic isn't used by almost everyone who is trying to persuade anyone about anything, then I don't know what else to say to you.

------------------------------

OKay This is a bunch of Quotes from another board i just have to say what about these Quotes i think makes very little sense, with all due respect to the person who wrote them. I just sharply disagree. i should post within the end of next week if i push myself out of my Hole

Dolphin Suicide

"FLIPPER COMMITTED SUICIDE"
Confined, whored..,
Sunburned in shallow water.
Won't surface to breathe.

This is a Haiku i wrote whilst extremely bored.
It's more of a joke than an actual meditation on
the fact that a dolphin chose to drown himself in
a hellishly small tank in which he/she/it spent the
later part of it's life in. I can't bring myself to
understand how or why i think it's funny...so maybe
someone else can tell me?...maybe.

NEWS FLASH

The Story

"News flash!
YOU are going to DIE sometime, somehow, somewhere, and theres no way to know ahead of time. Just a warning. Brought to you by FOX News."-Dano

i think it's being a tad overblown here, not too long ago was when i first heard about how there'd be an attack during the summer. With probable targets mainly in public transportation. The reason it's getting more emphasis now is likely because of a good source of human intelligence. Though given the FBI's sketchy track record on terrorism; i can only pray that the mighty patriot act, endorsed by JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF the prince of democracy, is as strong as the hard head of our APOSTLE President BUSH at preventing acts of terror to further terrorize us all. i mean thank the saviors of the Bush admin that we went to Iraq in the first place, i mean imagine the utter RUIN we'd be in by now if we hadn't gone. Thank you oh great and righteous leaders of the free world.

MOORE CENSORSHIP Fahrenheit 9/11

This is an excerpt from a board Discussion i was partially involved in:

Moore claims it's censorship by Eisner, and sites a NY times article that basically says that it's because of the political view of the film. That is legitimate, Eisner has the right to do that, and it's probably more because of Eisner's political views than from the fear of Florida's Governor. So the florida conspiracy is shot, with the fact that Disney is supportive to Florida's economic well being at around the tune of 50 million$, why on earth would Jeb cripple something that is healthy to florida's economy? he's got it bad enough as an adulterer afterall.

As for it being smart business on Eisner's part i don't believe that to be so. If you take into account that Moore's last film made more money than any other film of its kind, and that he's raking in "censorship" publicity just before this release to rev up the conspiracy wacko's who pine for this kind of thing, it spells Profit to me.


Moore apparently knew about the fact that mirimax wasn't going to distribute his film back in 2003 anyway. Maybe this stunt is not only for publicity but to ruin Eisner who is a republican supporter, and a bad businessman (ask disney shareholders).


The saudi bush connection is a joke considering Bin Laden has not actually been connected to his family for sometime now, thier views are so obviously different. (mp ,syyrt ejsy [s;sdy yr;;d upi)


Quote:
"Like the fear in the media, or why we have such gun and violence problems while other gun heavy counties (like canada) dont, or why countries with even worst historys dont. "-PinkGirl




Fear was a half assed attempt at a theory, they have very strict gun control laws and NO bill of rights (canadians i mean).


Quote:
"Don't forget that the Bible sells as many or more copies annually than any best selling book. So of course a biblical movie based on one of the most important events in history is going to sell like hotcakes." -Jay




That's probably because churches buy those books, they have to have something the herd can pretend to relate to and understand, top that off with the fact that there are lots of different versions of the same bible.

in review!

It's NOT censorship it's Eisners political view driving the decision.

Moore wants ppl to believe it's censorship so ppl can believe he's this guy fighting through the corrupt system of things trying to stop his "truth". (and also maybe to hurt Eisner and Jeb) Not to mention that it's TWO weeks before Canne the perfect opportunity to get another distributor.

The bush saudi connection is a Joke.

The Passion made lots of money cause of both fanatical christians and the support of churches who bought lot's of tickets and gave them out to church members. (though i heard that from this board so who knows?)

hope it all makes some kinda sense.