Rumsfeld aka Ratbastard

[Axis Kast]

Ah, in AxisWorld, speaking anything but the exact same thing over and over like a record player is 'lying'. It's so nice to see the world from a deranged moron's point of view.

Ad-hominem argument.

For the umpteenth time, there is a world of difference between displaying some stupidity and being utterly stupid. You’ve vacillated.

And yet neither require beleif in a 5000 year old bile of stupidity. Yes, indoctorine is, sadly, still possible. Stupidity is thrust onto people.

Stupidity only from your point of view. It’s another appeal to popularity. You criticize those of faith on the basis of science, yet from their point of view, you are equally at fault.

Fundamentalism leaves people open to criticism from secular society; it hardly means however that they’ve received a lobotomy.

Wow, a son of a politician went far. Am I supposed to congratulate him..?

Not every son of every political ever makes it. You’re generalizing on the backs of stereotypes. The man still had to front for his own election and select his own “team,” even if you believe him to be at the center of some silly little conspiracy.

Hah! History also shows that Clinton was following tradition, and that Shrubbery is doing a pathetic job. Neither are claims you'll admit to. You are claiming he's intelligent, yet all you can say is 'He's President'. Circular fucking logic.

This is all opinion. I’ve offered three distinct examples: the Presidency, North Korea, and the Chinese spy plane issue. I also find the so-called "Bush doctrine" to be a hell of a lot more far-sighted than Clinton's spiel, but I'm sure you'll disagree.

[SirNitram]

Ah, in AxisWorld, speaking anything but the exact same thing over and over like a record player is 'lying'. It's so nice to see the world from a deranged moron's point of view.

Ad-hominem argument.

For the umpteenth time, there is a world of difference between displaying some stupidity and being utterly stupid. You’ve vacillated.

No, you're desperately trying to nitpick. It's fucking pathetic that you have to take any saying and twist it to try and claim I've changed my position.

And yet neither require beleif in a 5000 year old bile of stupidity. Yes, indoctorine is, sadly, still possible. Stupidity is thrust onto people.

Stupidity only from your point of view. It’s another appeal to popularity. You criticize those of faith on the basis of science, yet from their point of view, you are equally at fault.

Here's a newsflash, asscrack. Science isn't popularity based. It's based on empirical observations, IE, ones that anyone can make by observation.

Fundamentalism leaves people open to criticism from secular society; it hardly means however that they’ve received a lobotomy.

From this, I can either conclude you have never met a Fundie(Lucky son of a bitch), or are one yourself.

Wow, a son of a politician went far. Am I supposed to congratulate him..?

Not every son of every political ever makes it. You’re generalizing on the backs of stereotypes. The man still had to front for his own election and select his own “team,” even if you believe him to be at the center of some silly little conspiracy.

It's no conspiracy when famous/powerful people help their children. It's called reality. It's blindingly obvious that Shrubbery received lots of help from his father, anyone doing a media scan will tell you that much.

Hah! History also shows that Clinton was following tradition, and that Shrubbery is doing a pathetic job. Neither are claims you'll admit to. You are claiming he's intelligent, yet all you can say is 'He's President'. Circular fucking logic.

This is all opinion. I’ve offered three distinct examples: the Presidency, North Korea, and the Chinese spy plane issue. I also find the so-called "Bush doctrine" to be a hell of a lot more far-sighted than Clinton's spiel, but I'm sure you'll disagree.

Nice strawman; I never claimed anything about Slick Willie's intelligence, only that by what you referenced(History), he is in the clear(Because every president has had a mistress).

[Axis Kast]

No, you're desperately trying to nitpick. It's fucking pathetic that you have to take any saying and twist it to try and claim I've changed my position.

So now exposure of public backtracking is known as “twisting the truth,” eh? You’re the one who typed the statement, not me.

Here's a newsflash, asscrack. Science isn't popularity based. It's based on empirical observations, IE, ones that anyone can make by observation.

And yet Creationists find fault with one of the most challenging issues science has ever faced: “From where did it all come?” There’s nothing but conjecture on that topic; empirical data is not available in sufficient quantities to speak with any certainty on the worth of those theories, either.

From this, I can either conclude you have never met a Fundie(Lucky son of a bitch), or are one yourself.

Your personal bias runs this argument. If you can’t admit that even Creationists can be rational human beings when it comes to other topics, I’m wasting my time.

It's no conspiracy when famous/powerful people help their children. It's called reality. It's blindingly obvious that Shrubbery received lots of help from his father, anyone doing a media scan will tell you that much.

You intimate that Bush is being pushed along as a kind of vehicle in which others’ ambitions are heaped. While that may be true in fault, you have no evidence to suggest that it’s the entire case other than your own paranoia. It’s also highly unlikely that the Bush family could instigate such a farce in the modern era without George W. playing a role of his own.

Nice strawman; I never claimed anything about Slick Willie's intelligence, only that by what you referenced(History), he is in the clear(Because every president has had a mistress).

You challenged me to provide examples of intelligence on Bush’s part. I did. And I referred to Clinton the policymaker, not Clinton the average human being. You'll find I could care less about Monica.

[Edi]

The scientific theories put out over the Big Bang are few and far between, subject to little scrutiny and even fewer challenges by peers. No undeniably correct answer has ever been had.

There aren't a bazillion different theories because the ones that are there are quite sufficient. And even if most of them don't get the origins of the Big Bang correct, it doesn't alter the fact that the Big Bang happened! You should also take a little closer look at the theories in question before you blithely dismiss them, because right now you're just making yourself look completely ridiculous.

Nice try, but you – like Sirius – did indeed move from “total moron” to “not very intelligent.”

Are you familiar with the fact that there is a marked difference between the concepts of ignorance and willful ignorance? A person who is a creationist because they have never been told the facts can be very intelligent and is merely ignorant. Someone who has been given access to the facts and who has looked at them and still remains a creationist is being willfully ignorant, which is synonymous with being utterly stupid. Most creationists, when confronted with the facts, will simply stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Lalalalalalaaaa, can't hear you!", hence they are stupid. Bush, with the education he's had, has no fucking excuse being one.

Edi

[Stuart Mackey]

Are you familiar with the fact that there is a marked difference between the concepts of ignorance and willful ignorance? A person who is a creationist because they have never been told the facts can be very intelligent and is merely ignorant. Someone who has been given access to the facts and who has looked at them and still remains a creationist is being willfully ignorant, which is synonymous with being utterly stupid. Most creationists, when confronted with the facts, will simply stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Lalalalalalaaaa, can't hear you!", hence they are stupid. Bush, with the education he's had, has no fucking excuse being one.

Edi

If Bush is being willfully ignorant about cretionism, fine, he is entitled to.

However, what bugs me is insinuation that such a beleif must mean that Bush is in someway mentally deficiant. This is a tendency I have also seen in relation to his known ability to fuck up simple sentetances.

Unless someone here has access to Bushs medical history or is his doctor any accusation of Bush being a card short of a deck is unfounded speculation.

[Edi]

If Bush is being willfully ignorant about cretionism, fine, he is entitled to.

Yes, he is entitled to it. I'm not begrudging that, but it does not make him look very good or credible.

However, what bugs me is insinuation that such a beleif must mean that Bush is in someway mentally deficiant. This is a tendency I have also seen in relation to his known ability to fuck up simple sentetances.

I'm not saying he is mentally deficient. I don't think holding a stupid belief like creationism means that the person couldn't be very competent in some other area (e.g. be an excellent car mechanic or computer programmer or something), but at least where the subject of willful ignorance is concerned, it is being stupid.

Unless someone here has access to Bushs medical history or is his doctor any accusation of Bush being a card short of a deck is unfounded speculation.

I haven't been saying that he is mentally deficient. I'm just saying the he is being willfully stupid where the subject of religion is concerned.

Edi

[Stuart Mackey]

I haven't been saying that he is mentally deficient. I'm just saying the he is being willfully stupid where the subject of religion is concerned.

Edi

I was just making conversation..I wasnt picking a fight

[Iceberg]

This is all opinion. I’ve offered three distinct examples: the Presidency, North Korea, and the Chinese spy plane issue. I also find the so-called "Bush doctrine" to be a hell of a lot more far-sighted than Clinton's spiel, but I'm sure you'll disagree.

Yes, because preemptive war on anybody who might threaten us in the future (as long as they have oil) is SO much smarter than dealing with other nations and building coalitions of international interests.

The Bush Doctrine is one of PREEMPTIVE WARFARE, you idiot! That runs counter to 225 years of American foreign policy, which states that America ONLY ATTACKS IF ATTACKED FIRST. That's why foreign countries USED TO trust us to negotiate treaties and to be fair in their application.

Jesus, and people wonder why I don't like Dubya anymore...

[Axis Kast]

There aren't a bazillion different theories because the ones that are there are quite sufficient. And even if most of them don't get the origins of the Big Bang correct, it doesn't alter the fact that the Big Bang happened! You should also take a little closer look at the theories in question before you blithely dismiss them, because right now you're just making yourself look completely ridiculous.

But that’s just it. Religious justifications point out the fact that no theory has yet been proven in relation to the question, “Why?” “A little closer to the theories in question?” Do you have some kind of pet belief on which you think I am unfairly tramping? Which theory behind the origin of the Big Bang do you believe is one hundred percent proven fact?

Are you familiar with the fact that there is a marked difference between the concepts of ignorance and willful ignorance? A person who is a creationist because they have never been told the facts can be very intelligent and is merely ignorant. Someone who has been given access to the facts and who has looked at them and still remains a creationist is being willfully ignorant, which is synonymous with being utterly stupid. Most creationists, when confronted with the facts, will simply stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Lalalalalalaaaa, can't hear you!", hence they are stupid. Bush, with the education he's had, has no fucking excuse being one.

You’re overstepping the boundaries of acceptable speculation once more. Do not assume that George W. Bush ever accepted the justifications of secular education as completely correct. As I’ve pointed out above, certain loopholes exist with which religious fundamentalists declare the argument more stalemate than loss. The President has not held forth on his personal justifications for Creationism at this time; it’s too much to claim that he lacks any whatsoever. It’s also too much to claim that a subjective issue of religion marks him as “being utterly stupid.”

I'm not saying he is mentally deficient. I don't think holding a stupid belief like creationism means that the person couldn't be very competent in some other area (e.g. be an excellent car mechanic or computer programmer or something), but at least where the subject of willful ignorance is concerned, it is being stupid.

I agree that I find a belief in Creationism stupid. I do not however believe George W. Bush is a complete idiot on that account.

I haven't been saying that he is mentally deficient. I'm just saying the he is being willfully stupid where the subject of religion is concerned.

Then the argument is over and my point proven: one cannot accurately gauge the complete intelligence of George W. Bush on the basis of his belief in Creationism. While his faith may be subject to criticism, it is overstepped the boundaries of acceptable speculation to declare him completely idiotic.

Yes, because preemptive war on anybody who might threaten us in the future (as long as they have oil) is SO much smarter than dealing with other nations and building coalitions of international interests.

The Bush Doctrine is one of PREEMPTIVE WARFARE, you idiot! That runs counter to 225 years of American foreign policy, which states that America ONLY ATTACKS IF ATTACKED FIRST. That's why foreign countries USED TO trust us to negotiate treaties and to be fair in their application.

I find the justifications for war on Iraq to be correct. You’re forgetting that some people do in fact believe that we had causus belli. Preemption isn’t quite as arbitrary as you’d have us believe.

Again, it's also too much to declare George W. Bush a moron on that basis alone - especially if he had a hand in the practical development or political initiation of that theory, which marks him as able.