(V): I couldn't agree more. You're making my argument for me.

The Col: Good cya then

The Col: Yeah, that's what I said.

All scientists are skeptics. They ALL say, "prove it." So I'm in good company.

I don't believe in a young earth because I think the science speaks otherwise.

So much for your patently false statement. Now you can go back to being quiet.

"At some point people have forgotten that Atheism is as much a belief system as religions are. Interestingly, it is OK to discriminate atheists. If an atheists comes out and speaks against religion, he will be labelled a bigot. But not so when some preacher speaks against atheists. If I open a Christian school, it is OK. But if I were to open an atheist school that openly promotes atheism, I would probably be burned at the stake."

It seems to me that atheism isn't a system at all but rather a lack of belief or maybe more accurately skeptcism. After all, if there were no belief or knowledge in God, there would be no atheists.

I've never understood why people would want to promote atheism. I understand an atheist's criticism against "religion" but against the teaching of Christianity (notice I said teaching) that makes no sense.

"But what is truth is not a personal assertion?"

That is nonsense. A personal assertion is just that: a claim or opinion being made. It's not true just because you assert it.

"You tell me God exists and he is the truth giver. Why should I believe that? Because you say so? "

No, not because I say or because the Bible says. You have to examine the arguments and determine if there's credibility to them. If you are just going to reject them outright, then there's no point in the discussion.

I tell Christians NEVER to quote the Bible to an atheist. They think I'm nuts. But there's no point in trying to prove the Bible by quoting it. Especially to an atheist. Just because I believe the Bible to be from God doesn't mean I expect you to do the same. There are many rational and logically sound arguments for God's existence (the only place to start IMO) and none are dependent on the Bible. Many atheists reject these arguments because of an a priori commitment to materialism. Many other atheists have been convinced by the arguments.

" As an atheist I assert the following: "a human being killing another human being is wrong". Now, others can chose to believe it or they can ignore it. It is their right as free, thinking human beings. "

Yes that's true, you can assert that. However, is your claim objectively true? That's the crux of the matter. BTW, I would say your claim above is false. It is NOT wrong to kill another human being. It IS wrong to kill another human being without justification. But I claim MY STATEMENT is universally true. It's true for all people in all situations. You can disagree with the statement but you'd be wrong. It's not that I'm right, it's that my statement is objectively true.

"... I have conviction in my beliefs. Without conviction in our own beliefs we would immediately fold to anybody else's beliefs. I believe what I believe not because somebody told me so, or because a book told me so, but because after careful analysis and consideration, I have arrived at my convictions."

Don't assume that Christians only hold convictions because "somebody told them" or "they read it in a book." It's arrogant to think that Christians don't analyze their beliefs and convictions. We do that all the time. How do you think a 35 year old former atheist comes to believe in God? That happens a lot. I know of many former atheists and agnostics that came to believe in God after considering extra-biblical arguments. Atheists don't have a corner on the market of skepticism.

"There are many things that are wrong, and people do them for different reasons."

This is where you lose me. You use the same language as would a Christian when speaking of "things that are wrong." You don't seem to mean that you just don't like the thing but that it is objectively wrong and all people should know it. (if you don't think all people should "know it" then why say it is wrong? Why not just that you don't like it?)

Yes atheists can be moral and are. Yes they recognize when something is actually wrong (apart from opinions) and yes in may ways there is no difference in the behavior of a moral atheist or a moral person of faith.

The question I have asked of you is on what basis do you claim that something is actually wrong. You have not answered this question. You've made no argument for your position. On this question, you have no foundation on which to stand.

When you say something is "wrong" do you simply mean it's not the preferred way or not the accepted way? Or do you mean that it's objectively an immoral action?

When I say something is wrong, I say it's objectively true that it's wrong. It's not just that society says so. It's that the thing (such as killing babies for fun) is actually wrong. Period. Since we both agree that such a thing would be wrong, the question is, who has the best explanation as to why this is so? The atheist position falls far short of answering the question while the theist's position is strong.

Übergeek 바둑이: " We get back to the original question: Does good and evil come only from God? What if God does not exist?"

I'm actually not saying this. I'm saying that if objective truths actually exist, there has to be an explanation for those truths beyond our human experience. Since if those truths actually exist as a part of reality, then the explanation for those truths must also exist beyond or outside human experience. An Objective Truth Giver then must necessarily exist.

"And belief in God is not subjective? If anything, religion is the ultimate subjectivity."

I don't believe it is entirely subjective. We can look at objective evidence and infer God from many things. If that is not possible, then how can science claim not to be subjective when it too requires a look at objective evidence in which (a subjective) inferences are then made.

"I believe in a being that I can never prove exists."

You can't "prove" anything in science really can you. Aren't all scientific claims really just the current accepted theories? Right now, Einstein's theory is being challenged. What science does is offer evidence for a idea (hypothesis) and then test that hypothesis over and over. It's hypothetical and will always remain so. It may be accepted as fact but in science, we know that "facts" often change.

" I call my belief faith and that is the belief in something that has no concrete, scientific proof.""

What's interesting to me about scientific "proof" is that science rejects that which cannot be tested empirically. Yet, even the rule that things must be tested empirically cannot itself be tested. It fails its own test.

Science makes up the rules for what's acceptable as "evidence" and then refuses to listen to any voice that doesn't "play by their rules." The game is rigged.

"The atheists makes his argument from the opposite poit: "I believe that God does not exists. Nobody can prove God's existence. I cannot prove God's nonexistence. However, all concrete and scientific evidence before leads me to believe that God does not exist. My concept of good and evil exists outside of religious arguments.""

What's so peculiar about this last statement is as a Christian I could (and have) just as easily say, "However, all concrete and scientific evidence before me leads me to believe that a God does exist." Not only do I say this and believe it, but so do MANY scientists, past and present, echo this same sentiment. What separates the scientific skeptic and the scientific believer?

I have a great book, I'll look up the title later, where the author argues the existence of God based on mathematical truths. I don't understand the book fully but that is a topic that deserves exploration. I'm not doing the premise of the book justice so I'll dig it up and you can read some reviews etc if that interests you.

Not being a huge fan of the deeper math concepts (because it's not a skill I possess) I still know enough to be fascinated with just how precise math can work and solve deep mysteries. I don't for a minute think we as a human species invented math but only that we developed a language (mathematical equations) to understand what already existed.

Music is must the same. How 7 basic notes in a scale together with sharps and flats can produce harmonies, mood, and a seemingly endless number of different songs (millions). We didn't invent music either. We developed a language where we can manipulate what's already there.

What's most interesting to me is how chords are ALL constructed in thirds. There are other rules of course, but just understanding that rule, I can construct any chord in any key using either my guitar or piano. I don't need a chord chart and I can play all available variations of that chord. One simple rule and I can play all chords in existence. (or at least figure them out). That's order. Where did that order come from? It's not invented. Musical notes are not an invention but a discovery.

nuff of that....

Übergeek 바둑이: Artful Dodger:

Oi yoi yo... this seems a bit of a rabbit trail but I'll walk the path just a bit. It would actually be an interesting discussion between you as an atheist and me as a theist. But it's a huge topic to say the least so I won't tackle it here. But just a few comments.

"God exists" Isn't that an a-priori statement too?"

Yes

" After all, there is no CONCRETE and SCIENTIFIC proof of the existence of God."

But there are proofs. Atheists just reject them (not all atheists do however - as I know former atheists who no longer refused to accept the evidence presented to them).

" Just because it says so in a book it does not make it true."

Nor does it make it false.

"Neither does a lot of people believing it."

A fair point. The same can be said of many things. Believing something to be true doesn't make it true anymore than believing something false would make it so.

" Faith is not proof, if anything, faith is belief in the ABSENCE of proof."

Skepticism isn't proof either. So at best you can say you don't know if there is a God. An honest atheist should really loose the label and just call him/herself an agnostic. You don't know and you can't know. Not empirically.

"Just as you can question the atheist for believing things "a priori" so can all of religion be questioned, because other than your personal belief there is no proof of the existence of God."

Here's where you lose me. We are discussing the existence of an absolute standard. I say that if you think one exists, you have to have a basis for that belief. My claim is that an absolute standard of right and wrong exist apart from anything you or I think, feel, or believe. You likely agree with most of these absolute standards and my question is simple: for the atheist - based on what.

As you may have answered this further in your post (which I'll address later) there may be no need to readdress it here.

I generally ignore your posts because it was clear from the start that you sought only to prove yourself right and the other wrong and have no interest in discussions but only in finding fault in the argument of others.

A general apriorist fallacy is one in which the truth of a proposition is assumed apart from evidence. In my response to Übergeek 바둑이 I simply point out that it's HIS argument that the truth of a statement is in the statement itself is fallacious. Because if truth depends only upon what's being stated, then all statements are true and that of course is counter intuitive.

You incorrectly label my argument as an a priori fallacy. You clearly don't understand the rules of formal logic. My argument has NOTHING to do with common characteristics. And neither does the a priori fallacy have to do with common characteristics.

So before you insert yourself into a discussion, remember that your little drive by assaults on cherry picked points are doing very little to earn you any credibility here. Ubeergeek discusses. He challenges. He counters. He doesn't try to show others up. That is why I discuss with him.

And that is why, except for this one instance, I will simply continue to ignore you unless you actually seed honest discussion. Which I rather doubt.

Übergeek 바둑이: "Like a said in my previous post, many statements about what is right and wrong are made "a priori", meaning without no basis other than the statement itself. The decision to accept an act as right or wrong is a personal decision."

If a claim has no basis other than the claim itself, then all claims would be equal. So rape is wrong and rape is right. Both are statements and if the basis for each statement is simply the claim itself, both are right (which is a contradiction and won't stand).

"What society says and what an individual does are two different things. If I say it is wrong to kill and exploit others, it is my personal choice and something I believe not based on some socially agreed standard."

If you really believe this, then why do you complain that corporations do things to get rich? Isn't that simply their personal choice?


"If you say that the threat of violence is the only thing that stops people from being bad, then give me a reason why it is wrong for Al Qaeda to attack the USA, just because the USA will bomb them and kill them?"

I'm actually saying that as an atheist, you have no grounds to argue against things you claim are "wrong." I say Al Qaeda is "wrong" because they kill people without justification. But when I say justification, I mean more than I just don't like it. I mean it's objectively wrong to kill another person without moral justification. For the atheist, it is only subjectively wrong. They don't like it. But beyond not liking it, they have no foundational argument.

"Well, then why is ANYTHING wrong? I make this "a priori" statement: it is wrong to kill someone because of their race. You can choose to believe it or not. It is your INDIVIDUAL choice, and you are responsible for that choice."

Here's where you are wrong. You argue that simply because you say so, something is right or wrong. If something is truly wrong, it's wrong for both you and I. It's wrong independent of your feelings to the contrary. Otherwise it is benign. Consequences don't matter. They don't determine if something is right or wrong. Consequences are implemented by a society against a particular act it deems offensive. But for something to be objectively wrong, it would be wrong EVEN IF nobody believed it. (such as abortion).

Abortion is either wrong or it is not wrong. It is not both. Same with stealing or lying or killing. They are either morally justified or they are not. It is not a personal choice that determines right or wrong.

Since something can be truly objectively wrong (killing babies for fun) then they are transcendent truths. Since objective truth exists, there must be an objective truth giver that transcends our human intellect.

Übergeek 바둑이:
For one, you have given me no rational argument for why others should care about the suffering that goes around in the world. When I say, "who cares about the rest of the world?" I am pointing out that you have to have a basis in which to care about the suffering of others. Sure, you don't like that there is suffering but what if John Smith does't care? How will you convince him otherwise? You speak of selfishness but then that is a moral requirement of whom? Says you? I shouldn't be selfish? Aren't you being selfish to suggest how I should think? Is it wrong to be selfish? Who says?

You assume many things. And maybe I agree with much of what you say. But there must be a basis, a foundation that holds together the things you proclaim as truth. It's wrong to be selfish. This seems to be an assumption you have. Ok then, what is selfishness and why is it wrong? Who determines that it is wrong?

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

I am not a social darwinist. I'm asking you to show me why it's WRONG to exploit the weak. Because you say so? Why were the Nazis wrong and you are right? Is it more than just a difference of opinion? How so?

Two Occupy Wall Street protesters, one a key leader of the movement, stayed at a swanky, $700-per-night New York City hotel while their fellow protesters camped out in Zuccotti Park, the New York Post reported.

Peter Dutro, a member of Occupy Wall Street’s finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who attended demonstrations during a business trip, both stayed in the W New York Downtown Hotel last week, with Spitzer reportedly opening his room up to other protesters as well.

Übergeek 바둑이: you are simply blinded by your misguided hatred of capatialism. Again I ask, where is this perfect system in play so we can observe it? Which country?

Bernice:

Übergeek 바둑이: You want to single out capatilism as the culprit around the world for the poor being poor? How is it that they were poor before capitalism? Are there any poor in countries that are not capitalist? We are talking about a system and as a system, capitalism cannot oppress the poor anymore than any other system can.
People are the ones who oppress the poor. And it doesn't matter what economic system is at play, there will be poor. Do you think that under Communism there was an actual utopia? Is there no exploitation of the weak? How about a socialist utopia? Where is this place where everyone is equal? Why are people not flocking to live there? Instead, they want to come to America.

Texas is the most business friendly state in the Union and California is the worst (no surprise). They over regulate and over tax businesses to the point that they can't make a decent profit. Clueless twits. And there are now 13 billion in debt. No money to pay it off.

American's future under the socialist mindset. (see Europe)

Business flees People’s Republic of California – socialism wins


California was once the capital of business and technology innovation. Aerospace, computers, software – all manner of high tech industry was headquartered in California. All of that is changing, however, as this once great state has become the People’s Republic of California – a socialist, anti-business, anti-capitalist, collectivist state. In response to confiscatory taxes and oppressive environazi regulation, businesses are abandoning the state for more friendly environs.

He says it so well. And the idiots that run california (into the ground) won't connect the dots. Like most liberals, their heads are elsewhere.

California has the highest taxes, both sales and income, and can't pay their entitlement programs. They have been borrowing money for years to pay for entitlements. Businesses are leaving california to do business elsewhere.

Welcome to the future of America under Obama.

California is a perfect example of a socialist state. And they are out of money. Margaret was right.

How many people were poor in 2010?

In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000.


You can't count developing countries since they are developing. What was their poverty rate before capitalism? How long have they used a capitalist system? What are the other factors leading to poverty? on and on and on.

And here's a news flash for you libs: Unwed childbearing is the major cause of child poverty in America. That's a statistical FACT.

Übergeek 바둑이:

There are a lot of factors that lead to poverty. Capitalism leads to prosperity. Where has there been a system that has brought prosperity to so many? I'd like to know what you'd replace the system with.

And whenever we speak of capitalism, I speak of it as it relates to the US. I don't care about the rest of the world. It's good for the US and that's the context of this discussion. If you want to drag in developing countries, talk to someone else about that. I have no interest in that discussion.

When you speak of equality, you don't mean middle class equality. What you mean is poor equality. And 2/3 of the people in the US are not living in poverty. Show me the stats. BTW, it's true that you can be considered poor even though you own a house, and have more than one TV, and other expensive gadgets. That's laughable.

I"m saying that atheists have no basis for right and wrong.

Who says it's wrong to kill? On what basis?

Who says it's wrong to exploit the weak? Tough crap on them. Why are humans subject to such a rule but the animal kingdom lives by exploiting the weakness of others.

"This is a matter of belief. A person can believe that it is OK to kill for money. That does not make it right. Everybody has a sense of right and wrong. If exploiting others is right, then do not feel bad when somebody comes and exploits you or your family. If it is OK for somebody to profit by using others, then it is OK for everybody to do the same. It is the final conclusion of the existentialist ethic. My actions make a statement about the whole world. If it is OK to be selfish for one person, then it is OK to be selfish for everybody."

On what basis is any of this true? Who is to say what is right or what is wrong? You? How can you hold me to that standard apart from threat of violence? Is it objectively wrong or is that just an opinion that most have agreed to? And if in time, society decides it's OK to kill babies for fun, then is that act still wrong in your view? How so? Based on what?

"Who says? Well, you can ask 6 million Jews and 8 million gypsies that died in the Holocaust. If ANY cause is acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with the Nazis."

This is exactly the argument I am making. If there is an actual wrong here, who decides? Why couldn't the Nazis decide that for their culture, killing Jews is just fine?

"Why is exploitation wrong? Because it goes against the one principle that nobody can deny: human beings are equal."

This principle? Who made this principle? Who says people are equal? In the animal kingdom, if I'm stronger, you're toast. Sad for you but you get to die. So what separates us as human beings? How do the godless justify principles? Based on what???

"The only way a person can make a profit from others is by not paying them a fair wage for their labor."

This is a false statement.

"If wages were perfectly fair, nobody could make a profit."

You must have failed economics. If there were no profits, there'd be no business expansion. You couldn't restock the shelves. You couldn't keep up the store or save to open a second one.

You have a very simplistic view of how an economic system works.

"Our ideology is nothing but empty words. It is only through actions that we ultimately display our true sense of right and wrong."

Again with your "right and wrong." Why should I care what you think about right and wrong? What if my view differs and I want you to see my view of right and wrong? Why should I accept what you say as an objective fact?
Reply (box)

Übergeek 바둑이: You may joke about the rich playing golf but one has to wonder why, when trying to make a serious point, you resort to a sarcastic remark. The middle class play tennis too. So what? It's a meaningless statement and doesn't advance the discussion.

"Some rich people also took risks, opened a business and got rich by exploiting hundreds of people in their companies. It is not all about idealizing capitalism. Reality is never quite as nice as ideology paints it."

Some. so what? How exactly does the "some" have any significance when discussing the whole?

"I know another businessman like that. He owns a paving company here. He employs hundreds, runs a professional soccer team, and also finds the time to help others. Not everyone is a ruthless predator. The truth is that it is a mixed bag because the rich are as prone to the failings of human nature as the poor are."

This is not the narrative that is being pushed. The narrative is that all rich people should pay more, give more, because they "owe it to society." Meanwhile, what about those that have less? Shouldn't they do more too (as opposed to contributing nothing except to act as leeches sucking off the benefits of the hard work of others)

"Then there are those who would do anything to make more money. Ponzi schemes, big organized crime, exploiting and abusing others. subverting governments, corrupting politicians and law enforcement personnel, etc."

That's not news to anyone. It's these people who need to be opposed, not the rich as a class of people.

"We hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spending billions in charitable work. Then we hear of Bernie Madoff and other crooks."

So we applaud Bill Gates and put the Madoffs in jail. It works that way with all classes, or should.

"Some rich people go so far as to resort to murder to make a profit. For example, there is now big problems with a Canadian-owned gold mine in Guatemala where the company sent armed crooks to force peasants out of their land so that he mine could extract the gold. They killed several local activists that wanted the mine to stop polluting the local river water because people in nearby villages are developing cancer and other diseases. We have cases like the Bopal disaster in India. It has been 27 years and people in India are still trying to get compensation from Union Carbide."

Of course they do. There are evil people in the world. These people need to be exposed and dealt with. But that is NOT what's being advoated by the left.

"Reality is somewhere in between because we as human beings are full of contradictions. The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He became the world's first billionaire and gave millions to charity. He helped many poor people with all the money he made through his Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). At the same time, he gave millions of dollars to the Nazis and supplied the Nazis with the fuel and patents to power their war planes. Rockefeller also gave a lot of money to Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain. Rockefeller did these things because he hated communism and believed in eugenics. Rockefeller had a reputation for honesty and kindness, and also a reputation as a fascist."

Rockefeller is an exceptional case. And he is not an example to apply to the whole. It's cherry picking. You can come up with bad examples, I can come up with good. So what? How do any of these example apply to the bigger question?

"Unfortunately, capitalism has done more harm than good around the world."

Wrong. Capitalism hase brought more prosperity to the world than any other system. People who have exploited the system have done harm. But you have far more harm being done in a communist system than in capitalism.

" It is always easier to hide behind ideology than to admit that profitting though human suffering is wrong."

This can be said of any system. Again, people doing evil things. But for you as an atheist, isn't it difficult for you to justify the standard you are demanding? On what basis do you say a man can't exploit the weakness of others? Who says? Society? The world? By what authority do they say that? At the point of the gun? Then it boils down to who has the biggest gun. If there is no objective right or wrong, only a subjective one, then morals and ethics are up for grabs. Who says what Rockefeller did was wrong? YOu?? Who are you to make that claim? Why is it wrong to support a cause you beieve in? Who determines the value of any cause? Is exploiting the poor wrong just because you don't like it or is there a higher value at play? If so, what is it?

ohoh, OWS is now a failed enterprise. The "folks" have turned against the movement. 63% of Americans do NOT support the OWS movement. There is no place for it to go except down the toilet where it belongs.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.
Voters don't care for the Tea Party either, with 42% saying they support its goals to 45% opposed. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.

You've no doubt seen the videos where members of OWS or other 'Occupy' groups spew their hate filled speech at various groups or how, when the right cameras are on they are talking about "love, peace, harmony and everyone getting along and sharing" and all that nonsense. Here's more behind the scenes reality for you.

OWS has a finance committee which has raised more than $500,000 in donations but they aren't sharing. Bryan Smith, an L.A. based TV producer, joined the OWS movement 3 weeks ago. He organized the Comfort Working Group described as a small collective charged with finding out what basic necessities participants need and then raising money to provide those things; like thermal underwear or soap. Bryan said they stood on the street and raised about $2000; he used $650 to buy and distribute necessities and gave the rest to the finance committee. But when it turned out he needed more necessities, finance refused to give him any money. Then he was told he had to fill out some paperwork and his request would be 'considered.' Ha ha! He's not alone in his experience and now a large group of protesters are asking the Feds to jump in and audit the group's books.

Stacy Hessler is a mom of 4 from Florida. She just knew that she had to be part of the OWS movement and is married to a banker but 'knows' the system is broken because of her marriage. She left her 4 kids and said she would stay with the movement to the end, hoping to see her kids around the holidays but if not, no big deal. So who is taking care of her kids? She put out a plea on Facebook to her 'support group' and circle of friends, some of whom she only knows from FB and has never met according to reports; she believes they are taking care of her kids.

From the 'love everyone' rhetoric to the reality; more and more OWS participants are complaining that their stuff is being stolen from their tents. This was supposed to be another one of those "love and trust everyone" moments that proved we can all get along just fine with one another. But more and more OWSers are complaining that their iPhones, iPads, cash, personal property and even some musical instruments. One of the 30 or so 'cooperatives' that have sprung up to give some organization to the group had a problem with the drum circle that had sprung up; protesters began to get tired of the group because they drummed incessantly all day long as one OWS member complained so the Community Board decided to place limits on the circle dictating how long they could play; when they could play and how loud they could play; isn't that in direct conflict with OWS's stated goals of freedom? Now someone has stolen the groups' drums. Man you just can't trust the hippies these days.

It’s a den of thieves!

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

Übergeek 바둑이: They can afford to work on their golf swing. They employ 100s of people who otherwise might not have a job were it not for that rich person who took risks and started a business.

I know people who work for such rich bosses. They make a decent living wage plus benefits. I know at least one multi millionaire who started a trucking business here, and a landscaping business, and a coffee shop. He employs over 50 people. He doesn't golf. He does take frequent trips to Honduras and uses his money to help build churches and homes and wells.

You have stereotyped people with money, lumped them all into the same pot, made a caricature of them, and then made fun of the invention in your small mind.

8. @ExJon Nothing funnier than hearing Marxists complain about the state taking their property. #OWS

7. @derekahunter Funny how quickly the #OWS crowd went from "Everything belongs to everyone" to "Hey, that's my stuff!" #OccupyWallStNYC #MicCheck #p2

Bernice: I guess he got tired of losing the arguments against me and left.

OWS is fizzling out.

Iamon lyme: Did you know that one of the accusers works for Obama? Yeah, that's just a coincidence.

Iamon lyme: The Dems love mud. And the one thing that seems to be the easiest lie they can put forth is that of sexual misconduct. There are no witnesses. Just a she said (on national TV) and he said.

Some suggest that these women should take a polygraph. Not me. I say waterboard them and when they confess they lied, send them to Iran and drop them off. Kick them out of the country for good. hmmm, maybe Cuba is better.

a great political ad!

http://youtu.be/StbrLkXDJmM

rod03801: I heard about that. The warmers will likely blame it on global warming. A cow farts and thny lobal wa rm ing.lo larming. lol

October 30, 2011
How many eco-frauds can dance on a pin?
James Lewis




How many climate modelers can dance on the head of a pin?

As many as the Earth Goddess Gaia will permit, if you're a True Believer. The eye of faith beholdeth miracles.

The latest "scientific proof" of climastrology just blew up, after only a week of mendacious, worldwide propaganda. (Again!)

The world can thank Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech for tossing a Molotov Cocktail into


"...the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all - the research that, in the words of its director, 'proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer'."

The Mail on Sunday (UK) did its basic journalistic duty by telephoning Professor Judith Curry, the coauthor on the study, to ask her if she agreed with the headlines around the world.


"Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it."

And ... guess what?


"... today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller's team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST's research shows global warming has stopped. ...

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America's prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project's four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious 'Climategate' scandal two years ago."

Somebody's been doing journalism!

So here's a question for you.

What do the 99 percent kids on Wall Street have in common with climate modelers?

Neither of them can count.

And for the SAME SPACE, the Tea Party had to pay over ten thousand dollars in fees. But the Occupiers have paid nothing and they are breaking the law.

So why are they getting a pass? BECAUSE LIBERALS ARE IN CHARGE OF RICHMOND!

Dishonesty runs rampant in the mind of liberals.

(1) Richmond City Code Section 26-390: "It shall be unlawful for any person to camp, tent, encamp or quarter upon any public grounds, parks, playfields, playgrounds or any public property owned or maintained by the city or lie upon any benches located within any such public property."

(2) Richmond City Code Section 26-397(a): "Unless otherwise provided in this section, all public parks, playgrounds and recreation areas in the city shall open at sunrise and shall close at sunset each day of the year." (e): "It shall be unlawful for any person other than a police officer of the city or state, an employee of the department of parks, recreation and community facilities acting in the scope of employment, or any other employee of the city acting in the scope of employment and having authorization from the director of parks, recreation and community facilities to go on, to go into or to occupy a public park, playground or recreation facility or area during hours other than as set out in this section."

(3) The City Code also sets forth fees that must be paid for use of public spaces. It does not matter whether you call it a "rally" or a "protest." You absolutely have a First Amendment right to assemble and to speak your voice and express your opinions. But you don't have a right to violate the law in doing so.

Bernice: We're practicing to be liberal thinkers.

Iamon lyme: The liberals just don't get it. they don't live in reality. If a liberal was a fish, it'd be a bottom feeder.

I'll send you the money you ask for. There's no need to tell me what it's for. After all, I need to send you the money to find out what you need it for. And even then you may not tell me. But that's ok. It's not my money anyway. I just worked hard for it and earned it on my own. But I don't feel entitled to it all.

There is one problem, I went to the bank where I keep the money, and they said my account only has $4.89 in savings and $9.98 in checking. It will cost 25.00 to transfer the funds. Can you pay for that? Then I'll send the rest.

;)

Iamon lyme: Some area police are moving in and moving the losers out. About time too.

BTW, Bill O'Reilly's book is numbrer 4 on Amazon. Obama's is running #220,362.


Bet that drives the libs mad. And you can buy a hardcover of Obama's book for .01. That's too funny. It's not even worth a penny!

Occupy Protester Morons:

I nod yes, looking up at the building. I am asking Franzen about his latest proclamation, that he and the group intend to levitate the Georgia Pacific Building if the Koch brothers in New York do not withdraw their political money from Georgia Politics.

"We've been having a team of alchemists and faith healers and doctors of physics working together to develop a mathematical formula to levitate the building," Franzen said.

October 23, 2011
Gaddafi's haul from 40 years in power; $200 billion
Rick Moran

Awesome corruption. The Libyan dictator put every other thug in the Middle East to shame with his purloining of public monies.

LA Times:

Moammar Kadafi secretly salted away more than $200 billion in bank accounts, real estate and corporate investments around the world before he was killed, about $30,000 for every Libyan citizen and double the amount that Western governments previously had suspected, according to senior Libyan officials.

Bernice: A liberal friend of mine was defending the Wall Street occupiers. I was explaing that someone was stealing food and he replied, "maybe they were hungry"

So I invited a bunch of hungry homeless people over to his house and told them to take all the food they wanted.

he called the cops.

hmmmmm

Bernice: Yes he's dead. And he's officially dead and the proof is that he's now a registered voter in Chicago.

"White House trying to confirm Qaddafi's status".

Report: he is now registered to vote in Chicago.

Übergeek 바둑이:" The truth is that every American president since WW II has raised the debt ceiling and increased the deficit."

So what? It's still irresponsible. When does it end?

"I think that any president who comes to Washington is very quickly faced with the reality of ever increasing Department of Defense costs."

It is NOT the most cosly thing for the government.

"but the reality is that unless taxes are raised, the USA is never going to get out of its debt. Raising taxes is the most unpopular medicine to the current disease."

Rubbish. Raising taxes just gives the government more money to SPEND MORE! They won't pay down the debt. They are irresponsible dolts.

"Direct government investment and spending in infrastructure was effective in the past, but considering the current deficit any form of spending will be unpopular."

It effective on a limited basis. And amy more spending will NOT revive our economy. The last spending spree did nothing,

"I think that the only way Washington is going to get out of this mess is if both parties make a true effort to work together."

IT will never happen. We need to get rid of all progressives. That's a good start.

Your statement about Reagan's effect on the US economy is nonsense.

The free market will revive the economy. Reagan understood this. That's why under Reagan we experienced an economic boon! Under Reagan, we experienced the largest peacetime economic boon and added over 35 million jobs to the US economy.

Joint Economic Committee, The Great Expansion: How It Was Achieved and How It Can Be Sustained, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 2000, pp. 4-6.

October 19, 2011
'Sharing' Without Asking
Jeannie DeAngelis

The occupiers on Wall Street are busy occupying a street they don't own, demanding benefits they didn't work for, and are determined to pilfer the coffers of the rich to implement what they have determined is an acceptable standard of economic justice.

Yet a group of people who feel comfortable stealing from the rich and redistributing the spoils to those they deem less fortunate seem stunned and disappointed when "brazen crooks within their ranks...[robbed]...fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops - even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food."

Übergeek 바둑이: More specifically, the idea that the government can stimulate the economy by spending money is a deeply flawed idea. The liberals here think it's a good idea, even though it's been a proven failure. Yet they want to continue to do now and into the future that which has not worked in the past.

The current president has increased the nation debt more than all previous presidents combined. And no one is scratching their heads on that fact. Were Bush to have done that, the libs would be all over it. And rightly so. But it's the golden boy and he can do no wrong.