Caribou Barbie has told zillions of lies in her publ;ic life, way too many to list here in the time I have. The latest was amazing.

If you are not familiar with Troopergate, she and her husband tried to get a trooper (her former brother in law) fired by exerting influence improperly. A bi-partisan group investigated and reported that yes, she did in fact violate the state ethics law. Her response?

She said she was happy to have been vindicated? Vindicated! How does being found guilty "vindicate" a person, fer cirssake!

Just how stupid does that ignorant slut think we are? I could just scream. Sigh.

Moreso: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html?ouch

If, on her way to the polls (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/palin-will-travel-to-alaska-to-vote/), she was violently sodomized by a moose, I wouldn't mind it at all.

Seriously, does she even know what she is talking about anymore? Does she not see the complete lunacy of saying that her first amendment rights are being infringed by "attacks" by news media for her "attacks" on Obama? For fucks sake this woman is possibly the stupidest person in politics I have ever witnessed. Not even Bush engages in that level of self-irony.

Once again, she shows just how woefully ignorant she is when it comes to the Constitution.

Moreso: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html?ouch

If, on her way to the polls (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/palin-will-travel-to-alaska-to-vote/), she was violently sodomized by a moose, I wouldn't mind it at all.

Seriously, does she even know what she is talking about anymore? Does she not see the complete lunacy of saying that her first amendment rights are being infringed by "attacks" by news media for her "attacks" on Obama? For fucks sake this woman is possibly the stupidest person in politics I have ever witnessed. Not even Bush engages in that level of self-irony.

Once again, she shows just how woefully ignorant she is when it comes to the Constitution.

Lul, if she knew anything, she'd know that the first amendment only applies to the government not infringing on anyone's right to free speech. If any old regular Joe (preferably Joe the plumber) wants to go up and hit her over the head while she's talking and duct tape her mouth, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the 1st amendment. Where was this lady educated? She's not out of touch with society, she's out of touch with her job...the U.S. government.

Her ignorance is scary, to think that so many Americans like her because of her lack of sophistication and might even end up putting in a position of power, I don't think she's even qualified for the job of governor let alone VP.

We can all dig up sound bytes of politicians saying stupid things about the Constitution:


Senator Biden: 'The idea he [Vice President Cheney] doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.'

LOL- Article I defines the role and composition of the legislature. Article II gets the Executive Branch. What an IDIOT!



......see what I just did? Dude probably just got a little confused and said something off the cuff, and jumbled it. Big deal; it doesn't mean he doesn't know what Article I and Article II say, it just came out confused. Let's stop judging one liners and talk about policy.

Her ignorance is scary, to think that so many Americans like her because of her lack of sophistication and might even end up putting in a position of power, I don't think she's even qualified for the job of governor let alone VP.

i wouldnt trust that bitch flipping my bugers at mccdonalds

Caribou Barbie has told zillions of lies in her publ;ic life, way too many to list here in the time I have. The latest was amazing.

If you are not familiar with Troopergate, she and her husband tried to get a trooper (her former brother in law) fired by exerting influence improperly. A bi-partisan group investigated and reported that yes, she did in fact violate the state ethics law. Her response?

She said she was happy to have been vindicated? Vindicated! How does being found guilty "vindicate" a person, fer cirssake!

Just how stupid does that ignorant slut think we are? I could just scream. Sigh.

There were two sets of completely worthless reports on the subject. The one she was overseeing "vindicated" her.

So no, it's not a lie. Just political garbage. Troopergate is a fucking joke and an embarassment to Alaska.

There were two sets of completely worthless reports on the subject. The one she was overseeing "vindicated" her.

So no, it's not a lie. Just political garbage. Troopergate is a fucking joke and an embarassment to Alaska.

Au contraire, mon amie. She was referring directly to the one that said she was guilty when she said it "vindicated " her.

The stories appeared one right after another, front page, Anchorage Daily News.

However, I agree that Troopergate was a joke, but for reasons that largely went unnoticed. The trooper in question was a drunk and a thug, which does not change the fact that the Palins were way out of line when they tried to subvert due process.

Au contraire, mon amie. She was referring directly to the one that said she was guilty when she said it "vindicated " her.

The stories appeared one right after another, front page, Anchorage Daily News.

However, I agree that Troopergate was a joke, but for reasons that largely went unnoticed. The trooper in question was a drunk and a thug, which does not change the fact that the Palins were way out of line when they tried to subvert due process.

Could you link the article that said that? I read both when they came out and don't recall seeing anything like that.

The ironic thing about your comment is that according to the massive (like 236 pages) pdf what's his name put out for the bipartisan tools, is that Todd Palin was stated to be entirely within his rights - but Sarah Palin was not... and not because she actively did anything, but because she knew about the situation and allowed it to happen. So she didn't actually -do- anything either, but she's "responsible".

Caribou Barbie has told zillions of lies in her publ;ic life, way too many to list here in the time I have. The latest was amazing.

If you are not familiar with Troopergate, she and her husband tried to get a trooper (her former brother in law) fired by exerting influence improperly. A bi-partisan group investigated and reported that yes, she did in fact violate the state ethics law. Her response?

She said she was happy to have been vindicated? Vindicated! How does being found guilty "vindicate" a person, fer cirssake!

Just how stupid does that ignorant slut think we are? I could just scream. Sigh.


Fuck you, you fucking fatass eskimo.

So glad this hick retard will finally crawl back under her rock...for 4/8 more years at least.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/let-the-republican-bloodbath-begin

We now see the formation of the American wing of the Nazi party.

So glad this hick retard will finally crawl back under her rock...for 4/8 more years at least.
I already have a feeling that the Republican Party will be tut-tutting her for the Presidency in 2012.

I already have a feeling that the Republican Party will be tut-tutting her for the Presidency in 2012.

I do hope they are this stupid. It will make my vow to punish the Republican Party for the next 8 years (b/c of the last 8) by voting straight democratic, that much easier for me to do.

This cunt can go back to her frozen meth wasteland, skin polar bears, have a couple more waterheads, eat shit and die a slow political death now.

So, now she it comes out she didn't think Africa was a continent, but it's own country with 'South Africa' being just a part of that country...According to McCain aides that is.

How did 40% of you disregard things like this to vote for McCain/Palin?

So, now she it comes out she didn't think Africa was a continent, but it's own country with 'South Africa' being just a part of that country...According to McCain aides that is.

How did 40% of you disregard things like this to vote for McCain/Palin?

Wasn't that quote made -after- the election?

Wasn't that quote made -after- the election?

Yeah. but everyone (except the Republicans) could tell she was a goddamn moron even then. This just proves it, even to them (I hope)

Yeah. but everyone (except the Republicans) could tell she was a goddamn moron even then. This just proves it, even to them (I hope)

The point is, that hands down, this is THE most moronic thing she's said all campaign. Nothing else comes remotely close. Yet you say they've disregarded "things like this" when she's had nothing else even close to as dumb come out of her mouth.

when she's had nothing else even close to as dumb come out of her mouth.
Because there's nothing moronic about calling the concept of an atheist President "an oxymoron," or saying that U.S. military action in Iraq is "an act of God," amirite?

So Mccain's aides are saying all this shit about her, yet they're the ones who chose her to be their VP. The Repub's are showing how idiotic they really are.

Nothing like self-ownage.

So, now she it comes out she didn't think Africa was a continent, but it's own country with 'South Africa' being just a part of that country...According to McCain aides that is.

How did 40% of you disregard things like this to vote for McCain/Palin?

I heard that was just a rumor spread by McCain campaign people after they lost/realized they were going to lose. She's not very smart compared to some of the great intellectual politicians of our time and the past, but come on, she knows Africa is a continent.

Because there's nothing moronic about calling the concept of an atheist President "an oxymoron," or saying that U.S. military action in Iraq is "an act of God," amirite?

Absolutely not. It's all about the attitude, at least on that first bit about calling atheist presidents an oxymoron. That is a dominant attitude among the faithful in this country - the idea that you cannot be a leader and be without belief in god. This is not a logical idea, it is an emotional one, and subjecting it to logical analysis just makes you look foolish.

Attacking it from a logical perspective, when's the last time we had a presidential candidate that outright claimed to be atheist? Yeah, doesn't happen. Campaign suicide.

As far as calling the Iraq War an act of God, that's a deliberate misquote, made by anti-Palin reactionaries, usually the kind of idiots who perceive every religious association she's ever had as an attack.

This is not a logical idea, it is an emotional one, and subjecting it to logical analysis just makes you look foolish.

Are you smoking bleach?

Why can't you subject emotional ideas to logic without looking foolish? I can think of numerous examples where this total bullshit assertion of yours falls to complete shit.

As far as calling the Iraq War an act of God, that's a deliberate misquote, made by anti-Palin reactionaries, usually the kind of idiots who perceive every religious association she's ever had as an attack.

Palin wishes to stay in Iraq, and simply prays that it is God's will we do so.

Palin obviously wishes to do God's will.

This alone suggest, on some level, she hopes and has some inkling of an idea that the Iraq War is God's will.

If this simple logic (hope I am not applying it to an emotional situation here, lol) does not convince you, think on this.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9MMJESywA
In this video Sarah Palin CLEARLY believes an oil pipeline being built is God's will.

SO....you wish to assert that Palin believes a public works project is God's will, but is uncertain about God's will, when it involves the holy land, and holy war proclaimed on both sides, and is increasingly invovling a country who wishes to eradicate God's chosen people?

But Bckpckr looks foolish when he applies logic to someone's emotional hysterics?

No, your on the right track here, and your entire last post does not reek of rancid horseshit, at all...

Once again, your done here.

Are you smoking bleach?

Why can't you subject emotional ideas to logic without looking foolish? I can think of numerous examples where this total bullshit assertion of yours falls to complete shit.

Why? Because you can't argue with faith. Faith is typically irrational, and as such, attempts to argue with it are fundamentally irrational as well. You either have to accept or reject the premise that they begin with, and if you haven't done that, the entire argument folds. That's why it fails.

Example - Someone argues that the sky is purple. They extrapolate that because it's purple, it's also has invisible trapezoids inside it. Instead of pointing out that the sky is not indeed purple, the failure arguing with them instead states that there are no trapezoids.

Basically, instead of pointing out that it's possible for there to be atheist presidents because god either doesn't exist or doesn't care, you're simply arguing with the logic of the statement. Which, in context of their delusional thinking, is entirely wrong.

Result: Argument is a waste of time, and a failure from the start. It's an attempt to impress with your logical genius, by arguing against the irrational.

Failure.

Palin wishes to stay in Iraq, and simply prays that it is God's will we do so.

You can support the latter, but not the former. She prays that it is God's will that we do so. A prayer, in context of believers, IS a request. As a former "believer", I understand this. Maybe you don't. God doesn't hand out answers to prayers like candy. Any perception otherwise is ignorant outsiders or ignorant believers. Both exist.

Palin obviously wishes to do God's will.

Sure, she does. Supposely most "good" Christians do. She's praying that it's God's will, which means that she's expecting God to provide some insight. God supposedly talks to his believers, so why not?

This alone suggest, on some level, she hopes and has some inkling of an idea that the Iraq War is God's will.

Wrong tense. Not "has" but "will have". A prayer is not a demand, unless the believer is an idiot.

If this simple logic (hope I am not applying it to an emotional situation here, lol) does not convince you, think on this.........

It's simple, but incomplete. That's why it fails. The same applies to that clip you just showed me about that oil pipeline.

What I wish to assert is that she's praying that something is true and requesting that others do the same, and the unspoken request that goes along with that is that God enlighten them if it's not. Uncertain about his will? Sure, that's exactly what's implied if you really understand what's being said.

But Bckpckr looks foolish when he applies logic to someone's emotional hysterics?

Yeah, anyone who attempts to does. You can't reason with faith and hysterics, because they don't want to be reasoned with. You're not proving anything to anyone except yourself and your smug sense of superiority.

No, your on the right track here, and your entire last post does not reek of rancid horseshit, at all...

Before you start whining like you did last time, I'm going to point out that I'm not a Palin supporter. I voted for Obama, mostly for reasons involving McCain, but also in part Palin. The nonsense that's cropped up since, her spouting off about Africa simply assures me that I've made the right choice.

However, that does NOT mean that I will not point out bullshit when I see it. I'm not one of your little bitch followers that is going to accept everything you say as the gospel truth just because you have some kind of massive boner when it comes to hating on Palin.

Once again, your done here.

Spare the kidiot ego. If you can argue with what I'm saying, then do so.

Because you can't argue with faith.

Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference.

You say the sky is purple. I say prove it. Validly demonstrate that it is purple, I will then ascertain whether or not this demonstration is valid using logic. Sounds pretty foolish to me...

You failed.

There exist tons of formal arguments made on both sides of the faith arguement by men and women smarter than both of us and more versed in argumentation, formal debate, theology, and logic.

So take your ridiculous assertions that logic cannot be applied to ideas born of emotion without looking foolish, and that faith cannot be argued against, and shove them back in your diaper.

----

Palin knows the will of God where a pipeline is concerned, but is unsure when it comes down to a holy war, around the holy land, that threatens God's chosen people?

That about sum up your dumbshit idea?

However, that does NOT mean that I will not point out bullshit when I see it. I'm not one of your little bitch followers that is going to accept everything you say as the gospel truth just because you have some kind of massive boner when it comes to hating on Palin..

I don't have followers.

I have an asshole that likes to shit on mentally weak cunts such as yourself who pollute forums with assinine assertions like the ones already mentioned here.

Pigeonhole me into some type of cult leader position, or whatever you have to do, to convince yourself you are not a complete fucktard in this argument.

Go fuck your mother now.

Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference.

You say the sky is purple. I say prove it. Validly demonstrate that it is purple, I will then ascertain whether or not this demonstration is valid using logic. Sounds pretty foolish to me...

You completely missed the point. The point is that it starts with a ridciculous assertion, builds on the assertion with more ridiculous conclusions, and instead of arguing with the asertion, you argue with the conclusion, never contesting the assertion. That's failure. You CAN apply a sound inference to an unsound principle, and still be failing, because the principle you asserted in the first place was wrong. That's exactly what is happening there, and why arguing with it is failure. How can you sit there and argue that someone's conclusion that God determines whether or not a president can be atheist when you haven't determined that either a> there is no god or b> god doesn't give a shit?

There exist tons of formal arguments made on both sides of the faith arguement by men and women smarter than both of us and more versed in argumentation, formal debate, theology, and logic.

There certainly are. And their argument is meaningless. What does it achieve for anybody here? It's philosophy, not interweb debatez. Unlike them, the what's being argued here and by folks like Palin isn't that smart, based on logic, and therefore what I'm saying applies.

Different ballfield, different rules. Welcome to the minors, kiddo.
----

Palin knows the will of God where a pipeline is concerned, but is unsure when it comes down to a holy war, around the holy land, that threatens God's chosen people?

I watched the fucking clip. Don't sit there and tell me it said she knows god's will when I listened to it and it didn't say any such thing. It said that the project can't succeed without god's will (which if you believe in god, makes perfect sense) and for people to pray that it is. So yeah, again. Not a demand. A request. Something you completely ignored the first time around. Always gotta skip to the insults after the cursory "i win, shut up" don't you?

I don't have followers.

No, you don't. But you want to, and that's why you throw a tantrum any time I DARE to step out of line and question that what you say as anything other than the absolute 100% unadturated truth. You want to lead, you want people to step in line with what you think, and if they dare to act otherwise, by god, you will fucking wreck them, shut them the fuck down, and make sure everyone knows you think they're a dumb diaper-wearing slut whore idiot etc.

Then you have the balls to pretend your the mature party in this.

I have an asshole that likes to shit on mentally weak cunts such as yourself who pollute forums with assinine assertions like the ones already mentioned here.

Translated: If you don't agree with me, you're stupid, and I won't even argue the points you make because you're stupid and wrong and only make asinine assertions. Fuck, you can't even think things through, and you want me to fall in line. Sad.

I'm calling you on your behaviour. Cult leader? Hardly. You aren't respectable enough to earn that kind of following, you're just ignorant enough to expect it.

Go fuck your mother now.

Business as usual from you, eh?

You completely missed the point. The point is that it starts with a ridciculous assertion, builds on the assertion with more ridiculous conclusions, and instead of arguing with the asertion, you argue with the conclusion, never contesting the assertion. That's failure..

Bullshit. You say the sky is purple. That is your conclusion. Me asking you to prove that, is asking you for your evidence, premises, and/or assertions that lead you to that conclusion.

I then apply logic to your evidence, premises, and/or assertion which will either validate or invalidate your conclusion.

If you have no evidence, premises, and/or assertions for your conclusion, I don't require any to dismiss it as bullshit. THAT IS STILL LOGIC AT WORK!

How can you sit there and argue that someone's conclusion that God determines whether or not a president can be atheist when you haven't determined that either a> there is no god or b> god doesn't give a shit?.

That is not what I am arguing, and I have not. I am arguing against your assertion that using logic on someones irrational or emotional idea is somehow foolish.

There certainly are. And their argument is meaningless. What does it achieve for anybody here? It's philosophy, not interweb debatez. Unlike them, the what's being argued here and by folks like Palin isn't that smart, based on logic, and therefore what I'm saying applies..

I am glad you agree that faith can be argued against. It begs the question why you EVER FUCKING SUGGESTED IT COULD NOT.

Don't know what your point is suggesting it is philosophy, not interweb debatez. Logic was founded by and is a major part of philosophy and philosophical thought.

Just b/c someone you are arguing does not use logic, is not smart enough to use it, means you yourself should not use it? I see no logical reason how you reached this conclusion. Please provide either a syllogism outlining the premises that led to your conclusion, or some other type of compelling evidence that validates your assertion here.

See what I did there. Clearly you are a dumb fuck, not using logic, not very smart, and I still used logic and can continue to do so, to illustrate what a dumb fuck idea you have there. Doesn't matter if you are an inbred kicked in the head by a horse sack of meat with eyes, I can still use logic.

I watched the fucking clip. Don't sit there and tell me it said she knows god's will when I listened to it and it didn't say any such thing..

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."

CLEARLY what she suggests is God's will, is unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. She does not ask that they pray that it is God's will (as in the Iraq quote), she wants them to pray that God's will is done.

How do I know this?

Because SHE CLEARLY OUTLINES WHAT GOD'S WILL IS. The prepositional phrase (in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built) defines the direct object (God's will).

Welcome to 6th grade grammar, kiddo.

No, you don't.

Glad you admit it. First you assert that I have a following, now you assert that I wish I did, all without any evidence to indicate such...it isn't a wonder you do not comprehend how logic can be applied to an emotional argument.

Translated: If you don't agree with me, you're stupid, and I won't even argue the points you make because you're stupid and wrong and only make asinine assertions. Fuck, you can't even think things through, and you want me to fall in line. Sad.

I argued your points. Talked about your purple sky example, provided you with a definition for logic, pointed out that arguments exist against faith, and just now provided you with more substance on how logic plays a role in determining the validity of premise, and evidence, and informed you logic is a part of philosophy.........................but I ignore the points you made?

You are outright lying.

NOW you wish to pigeonhole me as a person who ignores valid points someone makes b/c I am so blinded by my desire to have a cult following and be right, and in the next sentence accuse me of not thinking things through?

Just stop while your way behind here. No since in feeling more stupid is there?

Bullshit. You say the sky is purple. That is your conclusion. Me asking you to prove that, is asking you for your evidence, premises, and/or assertions that lead you to that conclusion.

I then apply logic to your evidence, premises, and/or assertion which will either validate or invalidate your conclusion.

The problem here is that you are fixating on the analogy instead of grasping how it relates to the issue at hand. All that purple sky shit is just that - an analogy. The idea that there is a God is the premise. The idea that god gives a shit about our elections and only allows believers is one of many conclusions based on that premise. You're not talking about the purple sky, you're talking about the invisible trapezoids. When talk about this atheist president bullshit, you're not arguing the premise, you're accepting the premise and arguing something unrelated. Do you get it, or are you going to pull this autistic bullshit on me some more?

Pretending what you're doing is an argument or in any way logical is a joke. You're just stroking your ego. "Oh lol, I say there is no god, and I am right, therefore anyone that says anything that suggests otherwise is a fucking moron" "and since that's true, anyone that suggests atheists presidents are an oxymoron is a fucking moron" And that IS what you're suggesting here. You sound like an angry atheist, trying to force your hand by accepting the conclusion of an argument you haven't made, based on a premise that you have - that there is no god. Something you cannot prove.

I am glad you agree that faith can be argued against. It begs the question why you EVER FUCKING SUGGESTED IT COULD NOT.

Because I'm talking about people on the internet and not some philosophers a thousand times smarter than you are. You understand "case sensitive" don't you? Was it a generalization? Sure. My bad. Is that why you're throwing a fit? Your bad, get the fuck over it.

Just b/c someone you are arguing does not use logic, is not smart enough to use it, means you yourself should not use it? I see no logical reason how you reached this conclusion. Please provide either a syllogism outlining the premises that led to your conclusion, or some other type of compelling evidence that validates your assertion here.

What it means is that making the argument is irrational, not that logic should not be used.

The principle behind debate is that two sides argue a point, and a debate where there is no principle question, as it's already been dismissed out of hand by one party, and the other party is irrational... there's nothing resembling debate.

Those smarter people? They don't do that crap. They aren't faith-based, because a faith-based argument is illogical. They are intellectually based, starting on a premise that there is a god, with famous theorems on why, and expanding on those concepts. They don't just say "Well, my pastor told me so, so it's true, and thus he only allows christian presidents". That's not logic. You can't argue with -that-. That's the kind of shit I'm talking about.

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."

CLEARLY what she suggests is God's will, is unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. She does not ask that they pray that it is God's will (as in the Iraq quote), she wants them to pray that God's will is done.

Wow, you really need to fucking use those ears, and then understand what you've written. God's will has to be done to unify people and companies? How does that happen exactly... oh yes, god shows them his will. How do you get god to show you his will? You pray for it. Pray for god to show you his will if he wants them unified. Oh shit, he didn't show you his will? Guess he doesn't.

Because SHE CLEARLY OUTLINES WHAT GOD'S WILL IS. The prepositional phrase (in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built) defines the direct object (God's will).

Welcome to 6th grade grammar, kiddo.

Welcome to basic religion, kiddo. Understand what the words MEAN, instead of just the grammar. I think god's will has to be done in unifying people and companies. If she meant that was god's will, wouldn't she have said "by" unifying people rather than "in" unifying people? Yeah. Think about that. Understand what you are reading and hearing instead of going all Rust-arded on a grammar nitpick.

Glad you admit it. First you assert that I have a following,

Poor choice of language, as I was referring to your pisspoor attitude.. I'll get over it. I doubt you will.

now you assert that I wish I did, all without any evidence to indicate such

Oh, all I need is evidence is all that ridiculous flamefest you dish out when people dare to trespass against something you personally believe to be the gospel truth. I'm assuming you -mean- this shit your spewing, and aren't just being a flaming troll. If so, that's all I need, your constant childish insults - either you're under 12, have serious anger issues, or are simply trying to wreck anyone that transgresses against you by pouring on the "you're an idiot, Go fuck your mother" idiocy. Option three is the benefit of the doubt. Step in line, basically. Think the way I do, or shut the fuck up, because I'm logically right about everything, and you're an idiot.

...it isn't a wonder you do not comprehend how logic can be applied to an emotional argument.

It isn't a wonder that you think it can when applied irrationally.

I argued your points. Talked about your purple sky example, provided you with a definition for logic, pointed out that arguments exist against faith, and just now provided you with more substance on how logic plays a role in determining the validity of premise, and evidence, and informed you logic is a part of philosophy.........................but I ignore the points you made?

You are outright lying.

You attacked the analogy, dismissing what I was saying out of hand, and ignored the point about atheists presidents completely. Yet you have the balls to claim you argued the point? You did nothing of the sort. You're pulling that Rust-shit. Attacking a little point and thinking it addresses everything. You call that logic?

I'd call you a liar, but it's more obviously ignorance.

NOW you wish to pigeonhole me as a person who ignores valid points someone makes b/c I am so blinded by my desire to have a cult following and be right, and in the next sentence accuse me of not thinking things through?

Actually, that point was about me, and not about you. I told you I'm not going to simply take your shit and accept it on your demand because I'm not the bitch-follower you expect me to be. And that's what I would be, because you sure as hell are not being logical in behaving like an angry child. It's about your desire to be right, more than anything else, I suspect, and the step in line or I'll wreck you is pretty indicative of that. It's less about wanting the followers rather than expecting people to follow along without a word because you believe you're right.

The only thing I feel stupid about is wasting my time arguing with someone willing to throw a fit over the slightest thing, but hell... it's all wasted time on Totse. At least you're more interesting than the garden variety trolls, even if you're way too dependent on the flaming. Honestly, if you could stick to that logic you act like you worship rather than doing that shit, you wouldn't look like such a pretentious twit.

The problem here is that you are fixating on the analogy instead of grasping how it relates to the issue at hand. All that purple sky shit is just that - an analogy. The idea that there is a God is the premise..

I am responding to your foolish notion that logic cannot be used to argue an irrational emotional concept.

You start with the premise their is a God, I question your premise and ask for valid evidence, etc. that support it, to which will be subjegated to the rules of logic.

Doesn't matter if your premise is a purple sky, santa claus, God, or Godless presidents, logic can be applied.

Because I'm talking about people on the internet and not some philosophers a thousand times smarter than you are. You understand "case sensitive" don't you? Was it a generalization? Sure. My bad. Is that why you're throwing a fit? Your bad, get the fuck over it..

It doesn't matter who the fuck you are talking about when you make AN INCORRECT statement, like you did, that faith cannot be argued.

You were wrong. That is all I had to show you. It is not me throwing a fit, it is me CORRECTING you. You have been corrected. Calling me, correcting you, a child throwing a fit, does not change that your statement was completely incorrect, does it?

I will say again, and you can whine about this or own it: When you said faith cannot be argued....you were wrong.

If she meant that was god's will, wouldn't she have said "by" unifying people rather than "in" unifying people?

No. Just no.

The prepostitional phrase still defines the direct object in this case. Perhaps you would like to tell us how the preposition 'in' affects the phrase, so that it ACTUALLY does not define what God's will is. That is to say......prove your assertion.

You can't do it. You can't do it, b/c it is not possible to do that, in that sentence. Which you would realize, if you had a sixth grade command of the English language, kiddo.

It isn't a wonder that you think it can when applied irrationally.

Never suggested logic works when applied irrationally. Way to make up shit.

Logic works when applied TO an irrational argument. You still refues to accept this, and still are unable to show otherwise.

Your talking so mean and angry you troll, which is wrong, you fuckmouthed assmonkey shit for brains dickweed.

Fixed. I feel this cuts through your brainless rhetoric, and illustrates your hypocrisy fully.

^If any of you had actually read exactly what she said this summer speaking to her church group, you would know that she clearly indicated that our war with Iraq is ineed a "holy war," which is absurd.

Oh and, sure, she knows that Africa is a continent--NOW. I bet she doesn't know how many countries are in it.

There is no such thing as god!

politicians use "god" to manipulate the idiots that pass for the electorate in their shitty country.

whether that country is yemen, medieval france, or the united states of america.

Because there's nothing moronic about calling the concept of an atheist President "an oxymoron,"

I've never heard that one. Source?

I heard that was just a rumor spread by McCain campaign people after they lost/realized they were going to lose. She's not very smart compared to some of the great intellectual politicians of our time and the past, but come on, she knows Africa is a continent.

I watched a clip of her explaining herself on Fox about 3AM Sunday and she said that her statements in a meeting was "taken out of context." The McCain aid says that's what she said, and she could have said it is absolutely false (because there is no evidence to back it up), but she gave credence to it saying that her words were taken out of context. So you know she said something stupid and she is even more stupid because she isn't going to say one single sentence to cover her ass.

So the whole African thing was a hoax...But what does it tell you that so many people believed that she wouldn't know something as basic as whether Africa was a continent or a country (even Republicans were quick to jump on her - Faux news got sucked in).

So the whole African thing was a hoax...

Who told you that?

What turned out to be a hoax was someone who claimed he was the source of the story. That was the hoax: someone claimed he was the source and it turned out he wasn't the source.

Yet the people who broke the story didn't use him as a source, so his lies aren't relevant.


"To be clear, none of this means the Africa story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html) is false -- just that it didn't come from this source. Huffington Post has been told on background that Martin Eisenstadt was not one of Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron's sources."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/martin-eisenstadt-non-exi_n_142785.html

Understand what you are reading and hearing instead of going all Rust-arded on a grammar nitpick.

I enjoy that you're so butthurt. Thanks.


Oh, and just for fun:

Yet you say they've disregarded "things like this" when she's had nothing else even close to as dumb come out of her mouth."


You don't decide what's the dumbest thing is. That's an opinion. To him, the atheist comment could be dumber.

She must have felt vindicated because he wasn't found on any criminal charges only on "poor" ethics.

The trooper threatened her family's life, I don't blame her.

I've never heard that one. Source?
I'm still looking for this one so don't think I'm copping out. I do believe it was in an October interview.

Who told you that?

What turned out to be a hoax was someone who claimed he was the source of the story. That was the hoax: someone claimed he was the source and it turned out he wasn't the source.

Yet the people who broke the story didn't use him as a source, so his lies aren't relevant.


"To be clear, none of this means the Africa story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html) is false -- just that it didn't come from this source. Huffington Post has been told on background that Martin Eisenstadt was not one of Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron's sources."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/martin-eisenstadt-non-exi_n_142785.html

I got it from the NY Times - They seem to portray it as a hoax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?scp=1&sq=palin%20hoax&st=cse

Also the seem a little less biased than Huffington...just saying :D

Does that NYT article show that this hoaxster was the source of the Carl Cameron's report? No. In fact if you read it you'll see that it focuses on the bloggers and MSNBC for believing this guy was the source in the first place, not on Fox who was the one that broke the story.

Also, what does Huffington Post's bias have anything to do with this? Their bias doesn't magically materialize some evidence that this hoaxster was the source of the initial report.

Does that NYT article show that this hoaxster was the source of the Carl Cameron's report? No. In fact if you read it you'll see that it focuses on the bloggers and MSNBC for believing this guy was the source in the first place, not on Fox who was the one that broke the story.

Also, what does Huffington Post's bias have anything to do with this? Their bias doesn't magically materialize some evidence that this hoaxster was the source of the initial report.

I'm not arguing. In fact, that Palin might have actually said those things makes it all the more hilarious to me. Thanks for pointing out the misunderstanding.

Again, to be fair, when I posted it was after reading some before-bed Times (and I'd just gotten in from a party) - so maybe it was before the H-post article or maybe I just didn't read it close enough for &t's high standards. I apologize for my epic transgression.

Who said anything about an epic transgression? Spare me the indignation and shut the fuck up.

She must have felt vindicated because he wasn't found on any criminal charges only on "poor" ethics.

The trooper threatened her family's life, I don't blame her.

Two things--one, the FIRST report--the one she said "vindicated" her-- did say she violated the law.

Two, although he did threaten her family, I doubt she took it seriously since she ordered that the level of protection for her family be lowered, even after he made the threats. I assume he was drunk at the time

But the trooper WAS a scumbag and a thug, protected by cronyism and a strong union. This does NOT, however, justify the malfeasance and nonfeasance on the part of both Palins.

Two things--one, the FIRST report--the one she said "vindicated" her-- did say she violated the law.

Two, although he did threaten her family, I doubt she took it seriously since she ordered that the level of protection for her family be lowered, even after he made the threats. I assume he was drunk at the time

But the trooper WAS a scumbag and a thug, protected by cronyism and a strong union. This does NOT, however, justify the malfeasance and nonfeasance on the part of both Palins.

"Both" Palins? That report you're telling us didn't really vindicate her, didn't find any wrongdoing on the part of Todd Palin.

The panel found Mrs Palin in violation of a state ethics law prohibiting public officials from using their office for personal gain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7662820.stm

In a country where a good number of voters feel wearing a flagpin means you love America, and the absence suggests anti-american sentiment, Palin should be tremendously damaged by these findings.

Unless the folks who feel flagpins = superpatriot, do not feel violating ethics and prohibitions which were broken for personal gain, is as great a deal.

In which case their hypocrisy would be so palpable as to choke you tears.

Absolutely not. It's all about the attitude, at least on that first bit about calling atheist presidents an oxymoron. That is a dominant attitude among the faithful in this country - the idea that you cannot be a leader and be without belief in god. This is not a logical idea, it is an emotional one, and subjecting it to logical analysis just makes you look foolish.


^^^This^^^

I recently learned that Alaskans get a paycheck of 1200-1500 dollars every year because the people technically own the oil supply. I'm sure that's the only reason ArmsMerchant's foul, greedy ass moved there.

I recently learned that Alaskans get a paycheck of 1200-1500 dollars every year because the people technically own the oil supply. I'm sure that's the only reason ArmsMerchant's foul, greedy ass moved there.

That would be a pretty ignorant belief. Anyone moving to Alaska just to get the PFD is getting a shit deal. Higher COL, jacked up prices, due to shipping, and shitty weather.

That would be a pretty ignorant belief.

He's a pretty ignorant person.

either way if she runs in 2012 someone better shoot that bitch

^thought it needed something like this. i dont see why people get into politics anyway, its not like your opinion matters in the end. you really think the popular vote won the ballot? you think the most capable person gets the job? this isnt a meritocracy

I recently learned that Alaskans get a paycheck of 1200-1500 dollars every year because the people technically own the oil supply. I'm sure that's the only reason ArmsMerchant's foul, greedy ass moved there.

Actually, one reason was that pot was legal here then.