Howard Baker passes

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can't believe you are asking me to provide liberal articles that claim christians and/or conservatives are racist. That would be like me asking you to provide proof that conservatives don't like Obama. Here are a couple of article that claims many christians and/ or conservatives are racist. There are thousands of these types of articles out there.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/24/evan...stian_racists/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...ves-and-Racism

But neither of those articles are criticizing Christianity (the first one was written by an Evangelist, for chrissakes); they're criticizing racism. Are you saying you think racism is a good thing, then? (Reminder: your whole thing was that "progressive sites" were chock full of writers denigrating Christians and Christianity)

Your comments comparing Christians to Muslims when it comes to terrorism are absurd. Comments like that are the reason that "political correctness" is so ridiculous. For the PC person such as yourself, we should throw out all rational thinking and all reason. Terrorism is a big problem in the world right now and one group is responsible for practically all of it. That is a fact. In addition, a large percentage of that particular religion supports it. The name Osama was one of the most popular baby names in Muslim countries after 9/11.

No. Global climate change is a big problem in the world right now. Limited resources is a big problem. Overpopulation is a big problem. Terrorism, by comparison, is a small problem. You're more likely in this country to be killed by a football than killed in a terrorist attack.

Our government spends a huge amount of resources all over the world fighting terrorism. What group do you think their focus is on? Since our government's anti-terrorism focus around the world is on Muslims, does that mean our government is prejudice?

Our anti-terrorism spending is a huge boondoggle giveaway to people with government connections. http://waronirrationalfear.com/facts

With regards to the Duck Dynasty guy, you said you thought he was racist and homophobic. Racism means different things to different people. Depending what your definition is, I guess a person could be a racist without disliking the group he is accused of being racist against. I assumed you meant that he has a strong dislike of blacks and gays, but I wasn't sure. That was why I said, "If" you think he has hate in his heart, I disagree with you. I wasn't sure what your definition was.

He compared homosexuality to bestiality. How do you interpret that, Rupe? He thinks blacks were happier during Jim Crow. How do you interpret that?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

My only question is how human life started. I believe there is a Creator. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in natural selection. I do believe in natural selection. I think it is a fact that species "evolve". But knowing that species evolve does not show how life actually started.

With regards to gravity, I assumed that gravity was more than a theory. We hear about the "laws of gravity". But after doing an internet search, I do see that it says gravity is technically still a theory, so you may be right with your analogy.

As Danzig said below, how the universe came to be is not the purview of evolution. There are three branches of Science- Physics, Biology and Chemistry. It's an easy way to weed out a lot of Creationist sites that insist they're approaching evolution scientifically. If they bring up the Big Bang, they're not talking about Biology; they're talking about Physics and a site that doesn't know the difference is not going to be very informative.

As to whether she "may" be right with her analogy- there's no "may" about it; she is right. Theory with a big T vs theory with a small t. Seriously, look at the link I posted about 5 misconceptions about evolution. It'll make things much clearer to you.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But neither of those articles are criticizing Christianity (the first one was written by an Evangelist, for chrissakes); they're criticizing racism. Are you saying you think racism is a good thing, then? (Reminder: your whole thing was that "progressive sites" were chock full of writers denigrating Christians and Christianity)



No. Global climate change is a big problem in the world right now. Limited resources is a big problem. Overpopulation is a big problem. Terrorism, by comparison, is a small problem. You're more likely in this country to be killed by a football than killed in a terrorist attack.



Our anti-terrorism spending is a huge boondoggle giveaway to people with government connections. http://waronirrationalfear.com/facts



He compared homosexuality to bestiality. How do you interpret that, Rupe? He thinks blacks were happier during Jim Crow. How do you interpret that?

I think the opinions of those authors is very clear. They are accusing christians of being racists. To answer your question, no, I don't think racism is a good thing.

With regards to the discussion about terrorism, if you don't think it's a major problem in the world, I don't know what to tell you. Do you have any idea how many terrorist attacks around the world are thwarted? You may want to research that. There would probably be 100x more attacks if governments weren't so active in counter-terrorism.

The Duck Dynasty guy was asked to give some examples of sin. I wouldn't define his answer as meaning that he is comparing those sins to each other. If you ask me to name some sins and I mention both stealing and murder, that doesn't mean I'm comparing stealing to murder.

With regard to Robertson's comments about blacks being happier during Jim Crow, I don't think it was a very smart thing to say. But that was just his opinion based on what he has seen. That doesn't mean he dislikes blacks. I think I understand what he was saying. Sometimes people are happier when their lives are simpler. How many people have we heard about that hit the lottery and then their lives got worse? They were happier when they had no money and their life was simple. That may be what Robertson was saying. Either way, it was a stupid thing to say.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JZEIMQ42-oU

I can live with that. It could have been worse. You could have compared me to Chuck Wepner.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can live with that. It could have been worse. You could have compared me to Chuck Wepner.

Look in todays 9th at Belmont. I had no idea when I posted that link. if that isn't worthy of a hunch play, nothing is.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regards to the discussion about terrorism, if you don't think it's a major problem in the world, I don't know what to tell you. Do you have any idea how many terrorist attacks around the world are thwarted? You may want to research that. There would probably be 100x more attacks if governments weren't so active in counter-terrorism.

Actually, we do have an idea. From the link I posted:

"When terrorism cases result in arrests it becomes part of the public record. Therefore, thwarted terrorist attacks that involve arrests cannot legally be kept secret when the activity is in the United States. So we can get a rough picture of what the threat of terrorism in the U.S. looks like by surveying these cases.

Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University has compiled a report that includes all known cases of Islamic extremism10 which have occurred within, or have been targeted against the United States since 9/11. Out of a total of 52 cases:

3 involved situations where no plot had yet been hatched, but authorities worried one might arise.
27 were “essentially created or facilitated in a major way by the authorities.” In other words, a would-be jihadist, often mentally ill, would be provided the coaxing and resources necessary to carry out an attack, and then arrested upon proving that they were willing participants.
There are no known plots disrupted that involved weapons of mass destruction.
All but two cases involved nothing more than a plan to set off conventional explosives.
Of the two cases which included something more dangerous than conventional explosives, one involved a ludicrous scheme to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a simple blowtorch, which the plotters abandoned before they were even arrested. The other was a plan by a group of Lebanese men to flood railway tunnels under the Hudson River in which the plotters never acquired bombs, nor did they ever make it to the United States.

Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, terrorists within the United States have proven inept, as written about by Bruce Schneier. In only one of the four cases in which terrorists attempted to set off a bomb since 9/11 did they succeed in even igniting it."

Meanwhile, 45,000 people die in the US every year from lack of adequate health care, and we currently have 60,000 children coming into the United States because the War on Drugs has destroyed Mexico and Central America. And you think terrorism is the bigger threat?

The War on Terror is as big a boondoggle as the War on Drugs.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Actually, we do have an idea. From the link I posted:

"When terrorism cases result in arrests it becomes part of the public record. Therefore, thwarted terrorist attacks that involve arrests cannot legally be kept secret when the activity is in the United States. So we can get a rough picture of what the threat of terrorism in the U.S. looks like by surveying these cases.

Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University has compiled a report that includes all known cases of Islamic extremism10 which have occurred within, or have been targeted against the United States since 9/11. Out of a total of 52 cases:

3 involved situations where no plot had yet been hatched, but authorities worried one might arise.
27 were “essentially created or facilitated in a major way by the authorities.” In other words, a would-be jihadist, often mentally ill, would be provided the coaxing and resources necessary to carry out an attack, and then arrested upon proving that they were willing participants.
There are no known plots disrupted that involved weapons of mass destruction.
All but two cases involved nothing more than a plan to set off conventional explosives.
Of the two cases which included something more dangerous than conventional explosives, one involved a ludicrous scheme to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a simple blowtorch, which the plotters abandoned before they were even arrested. The other was a plan by a group of Lebanese men to flood railway tunnels under the Hudson River in which the plotters never acquired bombs, nor did they ever make it to the United States.

Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, terrorists within the United States have proven inept, as written about by Bruce Schneier. In only one of the four cases in which terrorists attempted to set off a bomb since 9/11 did they succeed in even igniting it."

Meanwhile, 45,000 people die in the US every year from lack of adequate health care, and we currently have 60,000 children coming into the United States because the War on Drugs has destroyed Mexico and Central America. And you think terrorism is the bigger threat?

The War on Terror is as big a boondoggle as the War on Drugs.

How has the war on drugs destroyed Mexico?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Actually, we do have an idea. From the link I posted:

"When terrorism cases result in arrests it becomes part of the public record. Therefore, thwarted terrorist attacks that involve arrests cannot legally be kept secret when the activity is in the United States. So we can get a rough picture of what the threat of terrorism in the U.S. looks like by surveying these cases.

Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University has compiled a report that includes all known cases of Islamic extremism10 which have occurred within, or have been targeted against the United States since 9/11. Out of a total of 52 cases:

3 involved situations where no plot had yet been hatched, but authorities worried one might arise.
27 were “essentially created or facilitated in a major way by the authorities.” In other words, a would-be jihadist, often mentally ill, would be provided the coaxing and resources necessary to carry out an attack, and then arrested upon proving that they were willing participants.
There are no known plots disrupted that involved weapons of mass destruction.
All but two cases involved nothing more than a plan to set off conventional explosives.
Of the two cases which included something more dangerous than conventional explosives, one involved a ludicrous scheme to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a simple blowtorch, which the plotters abandoned before they were even arrested. The other was a plan by a group of Lebanese men to flood railway tunnels under the Hudson River in which the plotters never acquired bombs, nor did they ever make it to the United States.

Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, terrorists within the United States have proven inept, as written about by Bruce Schneier. In only one of the four cases in which terrorists attempted to set off a bomb since 9/11 did they succeed in even igniting it."

Meanwhile, 45,000 people die in the US every year from lack of adequate health care, and we currently have 60,000 children coming into the United States because the War on Drugs has destroyed Mexico and Central America. And you think terrorism is the bigger threat?

The War on Terror is as big a boondoggle as the War on Drugs.

I was talking about worldwide terrorism. In a place like England, they have a huge problem with Islamic extremists, yet there aren't that many attacks because the government has an extremely aggressive counter-terrorism task force.

With regard to what is a bigger threat between terrorism vs other problems in our country, I don't think I can answer that one. That would be a little bit too difficult too quantify. I would assume the government could spend our money in a more efficient way than they do but it doesn't seem like either side (republicans or democrats) has a great solution. If they could cut defense spending without risking our safety, that would be a good thing. But I don't if it could be done. I'm sure most of the experts (or so-called experts) at the Pentagon would probably say we can't afford to come back on military spending.

These things are extremely hard to quantify. For example, let's say you have a large house and you spend thousands of dollars on security. You have the best alarm system, a high fence, and a 24 hour guard. You never have any problems. Was all the security a waste of money? I would say probably not. All the security may have been the main reason that you never had any problems.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Look in todays 9th at Belmont. I had no idea when I posted that link. if that isn't worthy of a hunch play, nothing is.

If that horse was named "Down Goes Rupert" I would have loaded up.

[Danzig]

Went to slate and saw this article, interesting stuff


http://www.slate.com/articles/health...or_living.html