The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm having fun with him. 遊びだけですわ～

[Simfan34]

As am I. I'll admit to having invented part of it, and it's the most exciting part too.

[King]

Simfan, you need to start getting drunk and having fun with your socks.  Srsly bro.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wonder if this will have any effect on Latino voters defecting to Republicans like Romney.  Latino voters and Latin women are devout Catholics, and a cheating Latin man will turn off a lot of Latin women. 

This pretty much ruins any chances Menendez had at getting the VP nod in 2016.

[Comrade Funk]

Hillary's political career is over after Benghazi.

Cuomo would be your best bet, I really think Bloomberg will make a switch and go after it too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Can you list specifics of these policies that constituted a 'war on whites', and elaborate on how they constituted one?

I suspect that some of those policies included free cash for the teachers unions, free cash for the autoworkers unions, an attempt at free cash for the environmentalists, free cash for these green energy lobbying companies, and free cash for the recipients of the explosion in welfare spending.

Meanwhile, married Joes and Janes in the 53% felt that such was not consistent with their ideals of government and they would have to pay for all that stuff. And, the San Francisco social agenda was not consistent with their faith. Thus, whites had to flee to the Republican party to get the draconian spending cuts.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

In response to a story being reported by an Arab news outlet

Yes Obama is losing, if he's pulling this card, quick where's that cute pic of the grasping at straws thing....

Here ya go, Cliffy, you've earned this

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

here are my political views

Abortion:Leave the way it is.

Gay Rights:I oppose Civil Unions & Gay Marriage & Domestic Partnerships. And i oppose Adoption Rights & Hospital vists & all rights. My plan is to restore our policy on gays that we had in the 60s and 70s.

Environment:Global warming is fake & gay i hate it repeal all environmental legislation abolish the EPA and Drill baby drill open up all areas for drilling.

Israel & Palestine:I hate Both of them we need to help Palestine and kick out the Israelis like David Duke say but next we kick out the palestnians and we take over & make that area our 52nd state.

Patriot Act:I fully support for everybody but whites.

Campaign finance:I support at a national level however at local levels it is the states choices

Death Penalty:Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Support Expand & Make Bigger

School System:Let each state make there own laws on education

States rights:I am 100% for states rights if a State wants to get out of america okey go for it i support states rights over the federal government BY FAR

Healthcare:No Universal or Healthcare Reform. Cut Medicare and Medicade to if someone wants Healthcare go to your church for that or a private doctor which you pay for no government health care at all.

NSA:I want to X the funding of NSA by 10 we need to colonize saturn & mars.

Taxes:A 10% flat tax is the way to go. But if states want to change this then they can. Ether they create there own Tax plan or follow the national. Generally state by state but i believe 10% flat tax is the only smart way progressive tax is gay & dume.

Social Secuirty:This is dume & stupid if you benifits go to a church or your local group.

Welfare:let each state create there own welfare plans no federal government involovement each state makes there plans.

Washington DC:I support DCS state right so we can move blacks from Virginia there.

Miltary:We need more money support our troops we need more money going to the trops.

Immigrants:Ban all immigrants all of them and kick out all minorties america needs to be white only just whites.

Affirmative Action:simple kick out all the blacks,jews,mexicans and make america what it is a all white nation problem solved.

Corperate Tax rate: 5% tax

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Happier than ever to be a homosexual backing Romney.

[Lambsbread]

Happier than ever to be a homosexual backing Romney.

That's not absurd, ignorant or bad.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Happier than ever to be a homosexual backing Romney.

That's not absurd, ignorant or bad.

I'd say that it's kind of the first but not the second and only arguably the third.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I knew I was gonna get criticized for posting that.

Broadly speaking yes, although I'd dispute some of the specifics. If you're a serious Christian you're taking a serious gamble putting your kids in the public schools. I know I'll be homeschooling mine.

Not sure how one can justify this, though.

[TJ in Oregon]

I knew I was gonna get criticized for posting that.

Broadly speaking yes, although I'd dispute some of the specifics. If you're a serious Christian you're taking a serious gamble putting your kids in the public schools. I know I'll be homeschooling mine.

Not sure how one can justify this, though.

Why would that be absurd? I don't agree with it, but why is that in here? Isn't it obvious why he would consider it a gamble to send kids to public schools? The schools aren't allowed to teach Christianity so he likely views the moral code they would be teaching his children to be flawed in some way.

And Scott, why do you post so many things in here that aren't absurd just because you disagree with them?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I knew I was gonna get criticized for posting that.

Broadly speaking yes, although I'd dispute some of the specifics. If you're a serious Christian you're taking a serious gamble putting your kids in the public schools. I know I'll be homeschooling mine.

Not sure how one can justify this, though.

Why would that be absurd? I don't agree with it, but why is that in here? Isn't it obvious why he would consider it a gamble to send kids to public schools? The schools aren't allowed to teach Christianity so he likely views the moral code they would be teaching his children to be flawed in some way.

And Scott, why do you post so many things in here that aren't absurd just because you disagree with them?

Personally, I've never had a problem with the public schools I've gone to and rarely do I hear talk of sending someone's kids to them to be more of a 'gamble' than if the child learns in any other type of school, so the remark came off as weird to me.  I see no reason why someone can't learn the traditional curriculum in public school alongside religious studies privately and I really don't have a problem if someone goes to either a public or private school, as long as the science curriculum isn't modified so that students are taught certain things which, quite simply, can't be backed scientifically.

If I find a post absurd, I put it here.  What constitutes as absurd varies by individual.  But if we have to be politically correct about everything, maybe next time I'll post them in the Comedy Goldmine or something like that.

[TJ in Oregon]

I knew I was gonna get criticized for posting that.

Broadly speaking yes, although I'd dispute some of the specifics. If you're a serious Christian you're taking a serious gamble putting your kids in the public schools. I know I'll be homeschooling mine.

Not sure how one can justify this, though.

Why would that be absurd? I don't agree with it, but why is that in here? Isn't it obvious why he would consider it a gamble to send kids to public schools? The schools aren't allowed to teach Christianity so he likely views the moral code they would be teaching his children to be flawed in some way.

And Scott, why do you post so many things in here that aren't absurd just because you disagree with them?

Personally, I've never had a problem with the public schools I've gone to and rarely do I hear talk of sending someone's kids to them to be more of a 'gamble' than if the child learns in any other type of school, so the remark came off as weird to me.  I see no reason why someone can't learn the traditional curriculum in public school alongside religious studies privately and I really don't have a problem if someone goes to either a public or private school, as long as the science curriculum isn't modified so that students are taught certain things which, quite simply, can't be backed scientifically.

If I find a post absurd, I put it here.  What constitutes as absurd varies by individual.  But if we have to be politically correct about everything, maybe next time I'll post them in the Comedy Goldmine or something like that.

When did he say anything about science?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I knew I was gonna get criticized for posting that.

Broadly speaking yes, although I'd dispute some of the specifics. If you're a serious Christian you're taking a serious gamble putting your kids in the public schools. I know I'll be homeschooling mine.

Not sure how one can justify this, though.

Why would that be absurd? I don't agree with it, but why is that in here? Isn't it obvious why he would consider it a gamble to send kids to public schools? The schools aren't allowed to teach Christianity so he likely views the moral code they would be teaching his children to be flawed in some way.

And Scott, why do you post so many things in here that aren't absurd just because you disagree with them?

Personally, I've never had a problem with the public schools I've gone to and rarely do I hear talk of sending someone's kids to them to be more of a 'gamble' than if the child learns in any other type of school, so the remark came off as weird to me.  I see no reason why someone can't learn the traditional curriculum in public school alongside religious studies privately and I really don't have a problem if someone goes to either a public or private school, as long as the science curriculum isn't modified so that students are taught certain things which, quite simply, can't be backed scientifically.

If I find a post absurd, I put it here.  What constitutes as absurd varies by individual.  But if we have to be politically correct about everything, maybe next time I'll post them in the Comedy Goldmine or something like that.

When did he say anything about science?

Not the point.

[TJ in Oregon]

I knew I was gonna get criticized for posting that.

Broadly speaking yes, although I'd dispute some of the specifics. If you're a serious Christian you're taking a serious gamble putting your kids in the public schools. I know I'll be homeschooling mine.

Not sure how one can justify this, though.

Why would that be absurd? I don't agree with it, but why is that in here? Isn't it obvious why he would consider it a gamble to send kids to public schools? The schools aren't allowed to teach Christianity so he likely views the moral code they would be teaching his children to be flawed in some way.

And Scott, why do you post so many things in here that aren't absurd just because you disagree with them?

Personally, I've never had a problem with the public schools I've gone to and rarely do I hear talk of sending someone's kids to them to be more of a 'gamble' than if the child learns in any other type of school, so the remark came off as weird to me.  I see no reason why someone can't learn the traditional curriculum in public school alongside religious studies privately and I really don't have a problem if someone goes to either a public or private school, as long as the science curriculum isn't modified so that students are taught certain things which, quite simply, can't be backed scientifically.

If I find a post absurd, I put it here.  What constitutes as absurd varies by individual.  But if we have to be politically correct about everything, maybe next time I'll post them in the Comedy Goldmine or something like that.

When did he say anything about science?

Not the point.

Then what is? You want to prevent him from being able to teach his kids his religious beliefs? Or you want to put him in a situation where he would have his kids potentially being taught two different moralities, one at home and one at school? When you ban religion from everywhere else, you also effectively ban some people from those things as well.

And you don't even need to bother quoting this into the Deluge since it's already here.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I knew I was gonna get criticized for posting that.

Broadly speaking yes, although I'd dispute some of the specifics. If you're a serious Christian you're taking a serious gamble putting your kids in the public schools. I know I'll be homeschooling mine.

Not sure how one can justify this, though.

Why would that be absurd? I don't agree with it, but why is that in here? Isn't it obvious why he would consider it a gamble to send kids to public schools? The schools aren't allowed to teach Christianity so he likely views the moral code they would be teaching his children to be flawed in some way.

And Scott, why do you post so many things in here that aren't absurd just because you disagree with them?

Personally, I've never had a problem with the public schools I've gone to and rarely do I hear talk of sending someone's kids to them to be more of a 'gamble' than if the child learns in any other type of school, so the remark came off as weird to me.  I see no reason why someone can't learn the traditional curriculum in public school alongside religious studies privately and I really don't have a problem if someone goes to either a public or private school, as long as the science curriculum isn't modified so that students are taught certain things which, quite simply, can't be backed scientifically.

If I find a post absurd, I put it here.  What constitutes as absurd varies by individual.  But if we have to be politically correct about everything, maybe next time I'll post them in the Comedy Goldmine or something like that.

When did he say anything about science?

Not the point.

Then what is? You want to prevent him from being able to teach his kids his religious beliefs? Or you want to put him in a situation where he would have his kids potentially being taught two different moralities, one at home and one at school? When you ban religion from everywhere else, you also effectively ban some people from those things as well.

And you don't even need to bother quoting this into the Deluge since it's already here.

TJ, I'm surprised at you.  I've never seen a post strawmanned so brutally.  I just said I don't have a problem whether parents send their kids to public or private schools and I especially don't have a problem with parents teaching morality to them.  However, fearing public schools on the basis that 'it's a gamble' is highly irrational (as you seem to agree, somewhat) just as it would be to fear private schools for carrying any potential risks.  Banning religion?  What?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Scott, for many people ethics should not be something compartmentalized but something that is part of the whole day.  Sending your kids to a public school where there is no 'one true religion' would be exposing your kids a different set of values if you were one of those for whom the first question in deciding whether something is moral is "Does my god approve?" rather than "Does this hurt others?"  While in most cases the two questions will lead to the same definitions of right and wrong, it doesn't always do so.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Scott, for many people ethics should not be something compartmentalized but something that is part of the whole day.  Sending your kids to a public school where there is no 'one true religion' would be exposing your kids a different set of values if you were one of those for whom the first question in deciding whether something is moral is "Does my god approve?" rather than "Does this hurt others?"  While in most cases the two questions will lead to the same definitions of right and wrong, it doesn't always do so.

Kids are going to be exposed to various religious and moral viewpoints throughout life, and the school a person goes to doesn't change that.  Learning ethics which do not exclusively stem from religious teachings doesn't make the experience of public schooling any more of a "gamble," nor should it make religious ethics any less valid, either.  If, for a religious person, applying the wisdom of both those questions to moral concepts isn't ideal, then you've lost me there.  The only gamble that exists is one that's imagined, and to suggest that it's just "serious Christians" taking any kind of risk is downright absurd.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Scott, for many people ethics should not be something compartmentalized but something that is part of the whole day.  Sending your kids to a public school where there is no 'one true religion' would be exposing your kids a different set of values if you were one of those for whom the first question in deciding whether something is moral is "Does my god approve?" rather than "Does this hurt others?"  While in most cases the two questions will lead to the same definitions of right and wrong, it doesn't always do so.

Kids are going to be exposed to various religious and moral viewpoints throughout life, and the school a person goes to doesn't change that.  Learning ethics which do not exclusively stem from religious teachings doesn't make the experience of public schooling any more of a "gamble," nor should it make religious ethics any less valid, either.  If, for a religious person, applying the wisdom of both those questions to moral concepts isn't ideal, then you've lost me there.  The only gamble that exists is one that's imagined, and to suggest that it's just "serious Christians" taking any kind of risk is downright absurd.

The reason why there is for some religious a disconnect between the two queries is that the question used in the secular framing of morality "Does this hurt others?" suffers from the problem of who defines what hurts? For example, an addict would say being deprived of his fix would hurt, even as what he is addicted to is killing him.  While many on this board would disagree, for those who view homosexuality as a sin, they see it as an addiction that needs to be fought, not a lifestyle choice to be accepted or embraced.

Those religious people who are worried about the public schools see various activities that secular culture is either embracing or tolerating as sins that they are worried about their kids getting hooked on.  Their solution is to wall themselves off from the contagion of the immoral society around them, confident that in the end they and their progeny will be rewarded by their god for following the one true path of defining right or wrong not by perceptions of imperfect humanity, but of a perfect deity.

I agree that walling yourself off from the world is not a good solution, but it is one that quite a few religious people follow, and not just those who are Christian, which is why I've tried to express myself in this thread is as pantheistic a manner as I can.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who is going to pay for it? The money simply isn't there. What happens when Social security and medicare go bankrupt?

Ben, you cannot reason with today's liberals. They have been brainwashed into believing the world only consists of benefits, not costs and benefits. They believe they can have perpetual excess consumption without matching production. They believe the world owes them a living. The list goes on and on. Hell, most of the people who voted for Obama would fail a financial literacy test. Many of them can barely read "Obama," let alone comprehend the concept of cost-benefit analysis.

It is not the fault of young people, though. They were brainwashed in the cradle and classroom, and most of them will remain brainwashed until they hit the grave. If you want to blame somebody, blame the National Education Association, communists in academia, Ted Kennedy for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and woeful parents.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obama doesn't want Romney in his cabinet.

He is waiting for Ginsburg to resign so he can appoint Romney to the Supreme Court.  Romney does have a law degree as well as an MBA from Harvard after all.

[CountryRoads]

Obama doesn't want Romney in his cabinet.

He is waiting for Ginsburg to resign so he can appoint Romney to the Supreme Court.  Romney does have a law degree as well as an MBA from Harvard after all.

lolwut

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freedom area despite its uber-liberalism.

Click for context.