America dumbs down

[Sonny Clark]

I'm not assuming anything, and I haven't been mislead nor misinformed. In my opinion, and until someone proves me wrong, yes, intelligence created the beginning of everything. That is my opinion, and nothing will ever change my mind until absolute proof is presented that counters that. Simple logic tells me that such complex matter as there is that makes up everything known to mankind, didn't come about merely by accident or chance. We have millions of things in this universe that are complex and beyond anyone's understanding. Even the human body is still a mystery to science. So, again, using simple logic, intelligence had to have been the original source of the very beginning of everything. Again, my opinion, and until I'm proven wrong, it'll remain my opinion.

your opinion is based on a false premise making any conclusions, speculations, etc. false...
yes you have been mislead and misinformed......your posts prove that.

Nope, sorry. I have not been misinformed nor mislead. Please tell me exactly where I've been misinformed or mislead. Thanks.

if you understood what a false premise was you would not have to ask.

OK. Fair enough. We'll do this your way. What "false premise" am I believing? What is it that I don't understand? And, what exactly do my posts prove? Please give details instead of general slurs or slams. And, if it all "began where it began", as you say, and have said, where exactly was that, and who or what set it in motion? I would greatly appreciated it if you would make an effort to answer those question. Thanks.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

the false premise you are buying is god exists as there is no proof of it....(can we do this without needing to explain again what no evidence either way means ) that makes it and every conclusion, idea, opinion, etc. false .
is that clear enough?
as to the rest of your "questions" if you understand these false premise and logical fallacy
fallacy
noun fal·la·cy \ˈfa-lə-sē\
: a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea

: the quality of being false or wrong

those questions become irrelevant.

Nice try. Still not willing to answer the questions? No problem, I understand. How can I be wrong when it's ONLY your opinion that I'm wrong? You haven't provided any facts or data to prove me wrong. All you're doing is say that GOD, or believing in GOD, is a false premise. Can you provide anything other than just your opinion on this matter? If you're going to say that I'm wrong, which you have several times already, at least show proof that I'm wrong. Giving just your opinion doesn't hold any more water than me giving my opinion.

Also, again, I fully understand what a false premise is. I gave the definition that I was directed to. All I'm asking is "what false premise" do you think I believe or understand, and why do you think that? Very simple questions. Please answer them. Thanks.

 

[Katzndogz]

At least everyone is on the same page identifying the state fossil.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

True but I didn't really expect this degree of angst poured into defending a clear case of state legislator idiocy.

I didn't expect this sort of Spanish inquisition !

Nobody does.
Their weapon is deflection, bringing in discussions of theism and Obamacare... their two weapons are deflecting with theism, Obamacare, climate change.... their THREE weapons aagggh......

Amongst their weapons are deflection, ad hom...

Amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements as deflection with theism
I'll come in again.

Did the root post mention GOD, and creation? Yes or no? If yes, then how is this a deflection? Thank.

 

[initforme]

Its surprising they can read and write down in SC.

 

[Pogo]

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

True but I didn't really expect this degree of angst poured into defending a clear case of state legislator idiocy.

I didn't expect this sort of Spanish inquisition !

Nobody does.
Their weapon is deflection, bringing in discussions of theism and Obamacare... their two weapons are deflecting with theism, Obamacare, climate change.... their THREE weapons aagggh......

Amongst their weapons are deflection, ad hom...

Amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements as deflection with theism
I'll come in again.

Did the root post mention GOD, and creation? Yes or no? If yes, then how is this a deflection? Thank.

Their weapon is Deflection. That's all -- just deflection. And a nice red uniform.

The OP mentioned state legislators making a mockery of their own job trying to make state government into theocracy. How can you defend that?

I originally thought the OP was jumping on you too harshly back there but at some point I came to understand he had you pegged. The idea of defending this sort of idiocy is just hard to believe.

 

[Pogo]

No, not right. When we speak of creation and universe mysteries we're well past the limits of science and physics. Therefore none of those assumptions can be safely assumed.

Thank you. Exactly my point. We don't know, simply do not know. No one knows. I have been trying to get that point across for what seems like hours now. This subject has been debated since the beginning of time, and it has yet to be solved.

Then what was all that song and dance about demanding "proof"???

Ai-yi-yi....

Your assumption above is that "Everything has to have an origin, right?" --- yet in the same breath you turn around and acknowledge we don't know that at all.

You owe me a laundry bill for this soiled sheet. My head just exploded.

I'm sorry about your soiled sheet. Go ahead and bill for it. Put it on my running account. I'll pay you either the second Tuesday of next week, or when my humped-back brother gets straightened out, which ever comes first. --- Now, as for as "origin" goes, yes, everything has an origin. Nothing just goes "poof" and appears, nothing.

And there you go starting the same circle all over again.

First you agree that there are mysteries we don't know and can't prove.
Then a moment later you do a 180 and claim to "know" that "nothing just goes 'poof' and appears".

When you decide which one of those you wanna go with, maybe we'll pick it up. In the Religion forum. This thread is about wacko state legislators in South Carolina making a mockery of their job.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, not at all. I'm merely stating that logic tells us that something can not come from nothing, and it can't.

QED.

 

[Sonny Clark]

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

True but I didn't really expect this degree of angst poured into defending a clear case of state legislator idiocy.

I didn't expect this sort of Spanish inquisition !

Nobody does.
Their weapon is deflection, bringing in discussions of theism and Obamacare... their two weapons are deflecting with theism, Obamacare, climate change.... their THREE weapons aagggh......

Amongst their weapons are deflection, ad hom...

Amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements as deflection with theism
I'll come in again.

Did the root post mention GOD, and creation? Yes or no? If yes, then how is this a deflection? Thank.

Their weapon is Deflection. That's all -- just deflection. And a nice red uniform.

The OP mentioned state legislators making a mockery of their own job trying to make state government into theocracy. How can you defend that?

I originally thought the OP was jumping on you too harshly back there but at some point I came to understand he had you pegged. The idea of defending this sort of idiocy is just hard to believe.

I wasn't defending anyone. Obviously, you misunderstood my comments. I have no reason to defend anyone. I certainly wouldn't defend a politician. I was defending a position, not a person. I think if you go back and re-read my comments, you'll see that I wasn't defending anyone. Politicians are one of the lowest forms of humanity. They're the last ones that I'd ever defend.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Thank you. Exactly my point. We don't know, simply do not know. No one knows. I have been trying to get that point across for what seems like hours now. This subject has been debated since the beginning of time, and it has yet to be solved.

Then what was all that song and dance about demanding "proof"???

Ai-yi-yi....

Your assumption above is that "Everything has to have an origin, right?" --- yet in the same breath you turn around and acknowledge we don't know that at all.

You owe me a laundry bill for this soiled sheet. My head just exploded.

I'm sorry about your soiled sheet. Go ahead and bill for it. Put it on my running account. I'll pay you either the second Tuesday of next week, or when my humped-back brother gets straightened out, which ever comes first. --- Now, as for as "origin" goes, yes, everything has an origin. Nothing just goes "poof" and appears, nothing.

And there you go starting the same circle all over again.

First you agree that there are mysteries we don't know and can't prove.
Then a moment later you do a 180 and claim to "know" that "nothing just goes 'poof' and appears".

When you decide which one of those you wanna go with, maybe we'll pick it up. In the Religion forum. This thread is about wacko state legislators in South Carolina making a mockery of their job.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, not at all. I'm merely stating that logic tells us that something can not come from nothing, and it can't.

QED.

What is QED ?? What does it mean?

 

[Pogo]

Then what was all that song and dance about demanding "proof"???

Ai-yi-yi....

Your assumption above is that "Everything has to have an origin, right?" --- yet in the same breath you turn around and acknowledge we don't know that at all.

You owe me a laundry bill for this soiled sheet. My head just exploded.

I'm sorry about your soiled sheet. Go ahead and bill for it. Put it on my running account. I'll pay you either the second Tuesday of next week, or when my humped-back brother gets straightened out, which ever comes first. --- Now, as for as "origin" goes, yes, everything has an origin. Nothing just goes "poof" and appears, nothing.

And there you go starting the same circle all over again.

First you agree that there are mysteries we don't know and can't prove.
Then a moment later you do a 180 and claim to "know" that "nothing just goes 'poof' and appears".

When you decide which one of those you wanna go with, maybe we'll pick it up. In the Religion forum. This thread is about wacko state legislators in South Carolina making a mockery of their job.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, not at all. I'm merely stating that logic tells us that something can not come from nothing, and it can't.

QED.

What is QED ?? What does it mean?

"As is demonstrated".
Means you just demonstrated the same thing again.

Look -- did we or did we not agree that the mysteries of creation, creator, origin of the universe are ones we just don't know and cannot definitively explain?

Assuming we did .... you cannot then turn around one sentence later and declare you "know" that something cannot come from nothing. Because the previous sentence, which still sits right above this one, just got done establishing that we don't know that.

That's why I keep asking which one you want to go with. You can't have both.

I'm sorry, we cannot 'not-know' something in one moment, and then suddenly 'know' it in the next sentence. Hence the exploding head.

 

[Sonny Clark]

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:
>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<
I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

The point of the OP was first to kick up a bunch of dust about how religious people are ridiculous. There was no middle ground, like the fact that many esteemed biologists work at Catholic universities. You would think the OP had never heard of Notre Dame or Boston College. The OP piles crap on South Carolina, the home of the Methodist-affiliated Wofford College where biology students study evolution as well as stem cells, the human genome, ecology and brain science. The OP defines South Carolina as a state where people deny that dinosaurs ever existed.

The OP ends by saying that America needs to come to "a uniformed opinion" on established scientific dogma.

The message in the linked article is clear; Obey the scientific priesthood. Don't question the judgement of pharmaceutical companies, errrr, doctors. Opposition to Obamacare is stupid, so just remain Grubered. Don't look under the hood of NOAA and NASA climate change studies. Don't think. The authorities have done that for you.

You clearly took a Bridge to Nowhere to make a leap like that. There's nothing in the story about "Obamacare", "NOAA", a "scientific priesthood" or anyone at all named "Gruber".

The story simply mocks the inane posturing of state legislators abusing their authority. There's no way around that fact.
And they fully deserve that mocking, and not just for being from South Carolina.

It's what politicians do. They play politics, nothing more.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I'm sorry about your soiled sheet. Go ahead and bill for it. Put it on my running account. I'll pay you either the second Tuesday of next week, or when my humped-back brother gets straightened out, which ever comes first. --- Now, as for as "origin" goes, yes, everything has an origin. Nothing just goes "poof" and appears, nothing.

And there you go starting the same circle all over again.

First you agree that there are mysteries we don't know and can't prove.
Then a moment later you do a 180 and claim to "know" that "nothing just goes 'poof' and appears".

When you decide which one of those you wanna go with, maybe we'll pick it up. In the Religion forum. This thread is about wacko state legislators in South Carolina making a mockery of their job.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, not at all. I'm merely stating that logic tells us that something can not come from nothing, and it can't.

QED.

What is QED ?? What does it mean?

"As is demonstrated".
Means you just demonstrated the same thing again.

And what was that that I demonstrated again?

 

[AmericanFirst]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

Hasty Generalization ad hom double fallacy.

The fact is males do not procreate; only females do. That's why God, if such exists and has gender, must be by definition, female.

Not that God would need gender anyway, because then it would need a mate. There is no "male" without a female to make it so. So if God be a "He" -- there has to be a She. Or else he's powerless.

This is all over your head, isn't it...

No, because you are an idiot trying to explain God whom you obviously don't believe in. Retard.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

True but I didn't really expect this degree of angst poured into defending a clear case of state legislator idiocy.

I didn't expect this sort of Spanish inquisition !

Nobody does.
Their weapon is deflection, bringing in discussions of theism and Obamacare... their two weapons are deflecting with theism, Obamacare, climate change.... their THREE weapons aagggh......

Amongst their weapons are deflection, ad hom...

Amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements as deflection with theism
I'll come in again.

Go take your medicine idiot.

 

[Treeshepherd]

evolution as fact has not been debated by scientists for that long, what has been is the evolution of evolution.. note the difference..

You didn't note the difference. You merely said that evolution hasn't been seriously debated for 155 years.

I suppose I just wasn't very interested in the legislative part of the story.

I found the rest of the linked article to be pedantic. I brought up those issues that were mentioned in the article, and some people viewed that as a 'deflection'.

 

[Pogo]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

Hasty Generalization ad hom double fallacy.

The fact is males do not procreate; only females do. That's why God, if such exists and has gender, must be by definition, female.

Not that God would need gender anyway, because then it would need a mate. There is no "male" without a female to make it so. So if God be a "He" -- there has to be a She. Or else he's powerless.

This is all over your head, isn't it...

No, because you are an idiot trying to explain God whom you obviously don't believe in. Retard.

So that would be a "yes". You're dismissed. It's a school night.

 

[Treeshepherd]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

I'm opposed to nuclear power, but that's an excellent post you wrote.

Like you suggested, if representatives of conservative states represent the interests of their constituents, that's how it's supposed to work. America should be a quilt of different squares.

We have some new laws for California schools that many people would find wacky. Public school children may now use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, and play on the gender-segregated sports team they identify with. I joked to my friend's son to change his name to Jennifer and lead the girls middle school basketball team to the State Championship.

And there's also the new mandatory gay, bi, tranny history curriculum;
"At Wonderland Avenue Elementary School in Laurel Canyon, there are lesson plans on diverse families -- including those with two mommies or daddies -- books on homosexual authors in the library and a principal who is openly gay.

But even at this school, teachers and administrators are flummoxed about how to carry out a new law requiring California public schools to teach all students -- from kindergartners to 12th-graders -- about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans in history classes.

"At this point, I wouldn't even know where to begin," Principal Don Wilson said.

Educators across the state don't have much time to figure it out. In January, they're expected to begin teaching about LGBT Americans under California's landmark law, the first of its kind in the nation.
The law has sparked confusion about what, exactly, is supposed to be taught. Will fourth-graders learn that some of the Gold Rush miners were gay?"
California schools scrambling to add lessons on LGBT Americans - latimes

 

[suplex3000]

“Barack Obama, the most cerebral and eloquent American leader in a generation”
You just lost your credibility with that assertion. Obama does a great job reading a speech written by someone else (as long as the techs have set up the teleprompter correctly), but cerebral….sorry. Arrogance, mixed with authoritarian tendencies does not make one cerebral.

 

[Pogo]

“Barack Obama, the most cerebral and eloquent American leader in a generation”
You just lost your credibility with that assertion. Obama does a great job reading a speech written by someone else (as long as the techs have set up the teleprompter correctly), but cerebral….sorry. Arrogance, mixed with authoritarian tendencies does not make one cerebral.

Ever hear George W. Bush speak?

 

[AmericanFirst]

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

Hasty Generalization ad hom double fallacy.

The fact is males do not procreate; only females do. That's why God, if such exists and has gender, must be by definition, female.

Not that God would need gender anyway, because then it would need a mate. There is no "male" without a female to make it so. So if God be a "He" -- there has to be a She. Or else he's powerless.

This is all over your head, isn't it...

No, because you are an idiot trying to explain God whom you obviously don't believe in. Retard.

So that would be a "yes". You're dismissed. It's a school night.

That would be no. You are a typical libtarded idiot , you know nothing and try to tell others that youre stupidity is the right way. What an idiot.

 

[AmericanFirst]

“Barack Obama, the most cerebral and eloquent American leader in a generation”
You just lost your credibility with that assertion. Obama does a great job reading a speech written by someone else (as long as the techs have set up the teleprompter correctly), but cerebral….sorry. Arrogance, mixed with authoritarian tendencies does not make one cerebral.

Ever hear George W. Bush speak?

Bush was a smart man, unlike the puppet in office now.