On the subject of the intelligent design hypothesis, Mr Bishop feels entitled to dismiss with religious bigotry and inane assertions. It seems it would be more prudent to disprove. Nah, I guess not for a bullying leftist.
What would disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, Mr Bishop? Is that science or a faith?
Can we expect someone who does not know the difference between a personal attack and an observation to know the difference between a valid scientific assertion and faith?
Why is academic freedom only important when you want to teach 2nd graders how to put a condom on a cucumber, or sing chants of praise to Barrack Obama, or indoctrinate with silly anthropogenic global warming B.S., etc..
More:
Stephen Bishop: "No… I was correlating stupid happy people with people in Tennessee. For example the ridiculous religious who profess creationism and are subverting science. Like retards who smile all day long yet can’t get on the short bus without assistance."
willhelm: "How do they subvert science? If there is something wrong with their hypothesis, then disprove it. That should be pretty easy since they ride the short bus. Asking questions and proposing hypotheses upholds science. Science ENDS at certainty or by fascistic force and bullying, which you seem to be very good at. By the way, don’t you subvert science by blathering on about AGW, when the science disproves what you would refer to as a “consensus”. Claiming “consensus” is what actually subverts science, not smiling loons who ride the short bus." Science doesn’t make up theories and then its everyone else’s job to disprove that theory, that’s call religion, and it has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Since you don’t understand, I will explain… in science, you do often propose a theory,... more Science doesn’t make up theories and then its everyone else’s job to disprove that theory, that’s call religion, and it has nothing to do with the scientific method. |
Idiot leftist making the case that abortion OK until a child becomes a fully developed person. Life does not begin at conception. It begins when oortcloud says it does. Since you cannot see a soul, measure it, watch it, observe it, detect it, or even prove its existence, then how in the world are you going to be able to claim when such a thing would "enters the body". |
You can't. All you can do is pick some point and say "it happens then" but there is no way you can prove such a thing other than to choose to just believe that. |
I also think that you are confusing 'self' with 'life'. The debate isn't about life. It's about personhood. |
Alive? Yes. Human? Potentially, in the sense of development. You are making and argument of life, which this is not about.We are talking about when a fetus becomes a fully biologically developed person. |
In another clip h calls libertarians fascists, while promoting authoritarian laws enforced with IRS goons with sidearms. Full scale war on women, minorities and the poor. |
I actually provided more sources, but could not clip due to clip limit. The clip is a good read for an education into the idiotic thickness of the leftist boneheaded mind. No amount of facts can crack the lost mind, but we can learn from their examples, and educate the savable masses of lost loons. Collapsing eco-systems do not bode well for the future. |
In other parts of the country the Bald Eagle populations are growing dramatically. |
So, your anecdotal evidence coupled to unrelated statistics (which I have browsed) trump on the ground bird rescue sanctuary reports and the observations of a biologist who is a recognized expert in the field of some 50 years standing. |
It does not matter what my expertise is. No, I guess not, after all, one need to be an expert on anything to make $^#@! up. |
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/33BE1DB8-F47D-4545-8F5B-918AE3E2F8C9/
See, to you the truth is an unpleasant thing. Yet you engage in that which you blame others for. You make a habit of belittling others for their faith, but are completely incapable of a rational discussion because you cannot even get past the first point of logic.
You belittle others who hold to scientific evidence, yet drape yourself in all sorts of climate alarmism and ignorant fantasy.
So, thanks for going out of your way to display what you call a "horrid quality". Loon! No thanks.. why on earth would I want to engage with such an unpleasant twat? You are now the first person I have blocked in over 4 years here on clipmarks. You are the sort of person I just don't need in my life. You go out of your way to belittle and insult others...such a horrid quality. Bye. |
This is the typical leftist thoughtfulness that comes when there is the potential of blood running in the streets. Democratic uprising? LOL. Is this an American style revolution, an Islamic-Iranian style revolution, or a Russian-fascistic Revolution? If you're an idiot, you might need three guesses. If it does indeed turn out to be an American style revolution, then what is the evidence that this is the case at this point? It shouldn't be a surprise that an outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose media empire routinely gives voice to Islamophobic paranoia and was instrumental in inciting and promoting the "ground zero mosque" controversy, would frame the Egyptian revolution not as a popular democratic uprising but rather as the sinister work of radical "Islamists" -- and a potential threat to the United States Read more at clipmarks.com |
continue to be amazed at Conservatives who still oppose it. What is his angle, I wonder? |
Probably moving the stuff! And no I am not anti gunge. Used to quite like the stuff actually. Way back when. |
Nah, he would have to do it with his head in a toilet bowl! Where it belongs. Good vid but. |
Oh, they are soooo smart, aren't they? FACTS PLEASE?
Fascism is totalitarian. The Constitutionalists and Libertarians are the direct opposite.
Fascism is Big Government, Statist control. The Constitutionalists and Libertarians are the direct opposite.
There was time in America when Progressives proudly called themselves fascists. Research articles in the New Republic from this era. Or the writings of HG Welles, Margaret Sanger, Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, The Jacobins, and many others within the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations.
If the argument were to be made that Neo-conservatism were resurfacing , then I could understand the fear of fascism. Neo-conservatism is a Progressive, fascist movement, but that is not what the Tea Party is . The Tea Party was developed to take control away from Neo-cons.
The word fascism was created by Mussolin and it was defined as " a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside"
Fascism is the legacy of Jean Jacques Rousseau NOT Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, or Jay.
Anything in the social or political realm that places unity and a socially organic paradigm above the individual IS fascist. Tea Parties support individual liberty, which is the OPPOSITE. the point beyond which no country has ever turned back from the full fascist nightmare -- may well be behind us when we wake up on November 3.
Climate and evolution denialism, banning contraception, sovereign citizenship, End Times theology, white nationalism, all of it
Be the one who sees where this is taking us.
Be the one who stands while you still can. |
And what do you think a Republic is, if not a form of democracy? |
While I would not reject the idea that fascism is ultimately coming to America, I would still say it is a generation away. |
Who is she talking too? Herself? Cuckoo!
All these comments followed by:
"You are not permitted to comment on this user's clips"
Brave, confident, and sure this loon is! "I simply cannot belieeeve the size of your stupidity", |
I simply cannot belieeeve the size of your stupidity |
Do you know what an encyclopedia is? |
Good idea, Einstein! Fifth graders will buy it, so go for it |
"CO2 increases PRECEDES warming!!!! Waaaah!" *LOOOL* As if that's a new revelation or something. Did you have an epiphany all on your lonesome, or did your God speak to you? |
You don't get out much, do you? |
Which is why it's all news to you, I guess, eh, Einstein? |
Oh! And that Al Gore thing? You're such a yank. |
Waaah and boo hoo! No pretense needed! And who's counting? Wazzup, Einstein? You don't like it? Well, waddayaknow. |
There's one more minuscule thing, I'd like to mention in closing; |
Loonies always quick to fall pray to propaganda. yet, theirs is more likely ignorance. FACTS PLEASE?
Facts:
1. The Republican Party was formed by abolitionists.
2. Woodrow Wilson (D) raving Progressive racist was the first to segregate the military and government office buildings.
3. The KKK was formed by democrats and served as an appendage of the party in the South.
4. The Dems were pro segregation, the Republicans were not.
5. It was the Republicans that passed the ERA. LBJ's party opposed him.
6. It was WHITE REPUBLICANS who founded the NAACP.
7. Condleeza Rice and Colin Powell are America's highest appointed blacks..bothe Republicans appointed by a Republican.
8. Dems passed the Jim Crow laws.
9. MLK was a Republican. He was accused of being a Communist and an anarchist by Dems.
10. Lincoln (REPUBLICAN) abolished slavery in D.C. ...99% of R vote yes, 83% of D vote NO.
11. Republicans passed the Land Grant Act, which established college educational opportunities.
12. Over UNANIMOUS Dem opposition, Republicans passed the Confiscation Act, stating the slaves of the Confederacy shall forever be free.
13. Democrats institutionalized the "Black Codes" in Mississippi which institutionalized a culture of oppression and racism.
14. Republican Party worked for and passed 13th Amendment.
If anyone is interested, here are some names of Black Republicans who were on the national political stage in the 19th century.
Robert C Delarge
Blanch K Bruce
Richard H. Cain
Joseph H Rainey
James T. Rapier
Alonzo J Ransier
Robert B Elliott
John R. Lynch
Josia T. Walls
John A Hyman
Benjamin S. Turner
Robert Smalls
Jefferson Long
Jeremiah Haralson
Why DO YOU not know who they are? Do you not know because of Republicans, Progressives, or because you don't care? The American Civil War is an odd case in which the supposed losers managed to re-write history in order to continue their policies (slavery became segregation) until the 1960s. |
Well, there is one fact that not many would dispute, that is that it's the winners that get to write the history books. |
|
Hypotheses, Science, Academic Freedom
