America dumbs down

[TyroneSlothrop]

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

Its the Bushlexia that made him be dumb...

 

[DGS49]

Barry may be an intelligent man, but nothing he has done in the public sphere has proven that he is anything more than a mediocre attorney and a passable public speaker. Indeed, when he has spoken out publicly about both simple and complex legal topics, he has generally been wrong - and laughably so. For a person who supposedly taught ConLaw in Chicago, his ignorance of the Constitution is stunning.

And don't forget, he is the ONLY president in recent years who has steadfastly refused to make public his academic records.

Any statement that he is anything more than "an attorney" immediately disqualifies the speaker from an honest dialog about this President.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Its the Bushlexia that made him be dumb...
View attachment 38008

Self portraits don't help your cause.

 

[DGS49]

The Catholic Church does not officially dispute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is taught in biology classes at Notre Dame(!). The Catholic Church teaches that the stories in Genesis are allegorical, and not to be taken literally.

It is not the obligation of scientists to conform with accepted religious beliefs. It is the obligation of religion to explain beliefs that can be proven false by settled science (e.g., the earth being 5,000 years old).

"Arrogance" becomes an issue in arguments like this when people with degrees in - for example - Wimmins' Studies lecture others about the science of "climate change."

 

[AmericanFirst]

The Catholic Church does not officially dispute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is taught in biology classes at Notre Dame(!). The Catholic Church teaches that the stories in Genesis are allegorical, and not to be taken literally.

It is not the obligation of scientists to conform with accepted religious beliefs. It is the obligation of religion to explain beliefs that can be proven false by settled science (e.g., the earth being 5,000 years old).

"Arrogance" becomes an issue in arguments like this when people with degrees in - for example - Wimmins' Studies lecture others about the science of "climate change."

That is one of many reasons I am not catholic, they are untruthful.

 

[Pogo]

Barry may be an intelligent man, but nothing he has done in the public sphere has proven that he is anything more than a mediocre attorney and a passable public speaker. Indeed, when he has spoken out publicly about both simple and complex legal topics, he has generally been wrong - and laughably so. For a person who supposedly taught ConLaw in Chicago, his ignorance of the Constitution is stunning.

And don't forget, he is the ONLY president in recent years who has steadfastly refused to make public his academic records.

Any statement that he is anything more than "an attorney" immediately disqualifies the speaker from an honest dialog about this President.

Number one, academic records are not an eligibility requirement, and number two --- what are you going to do with them?
What did we do with Bush's? Clinton's? Reagan's? And so on...

(/offtopic)

 

[Pogo]

It is not the obligation of scientists to conform with accepted religious beliefs. It is the obligation of religion to explain beliefs that can be proven false by settled science (e.g., the earth being 5,000 years old).

Zackly, thank you. And it is the obligation of state legislators to do their job based on the welfare of their constituents and the Constitution, and not come cockamamie nutjob theory.

There, back on topic.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Barry may be an intelligent man, but nothing he has done in the public sphere has proven that he is anything more than a mediocre attorney and a passable public speaker. Indeed, when he has spoken out publicly about both simple and complex legal topics, he has generally been wrong - and laughably so. For a person who supposedly taught ConLaw in Chicago, his ignorance of the Constitution is stunning.

And don't forget, he is the ONLY president in recent years who has steadfastly refused to make public his academic records.

Any statement that he is anything more than "an attorney" immediately disqualifies the speaker from an honest dialog about this President.

Number one, academic records are not an eligibility requirement, and number two --- what are you going to do with them?
What did we do with Bush's? Clinton's? Reagan's? And so on...

(/offtopic)

If you don't have anything to hide they would be public. Obuthole is the biggest scam perpetrated on America.

 

[Pogo]

Barry may be an intelligent man, but nothing he has done in the public sphere has proven that he is anything more than a mediocre attorney and a passable public speaker. Indeed, when he has spoken out publicly about both simple and complex legal topics, he has generally been wrong - and laughably so. For a person who supposedly taught ConLaw in Chicago, his ignorance of the Constitution is stunning.

And don't forget, he is the ONLY president in recent years who has steadfastly refused to make public his academic records.

Any statement that he is anything more than "an attorney" immediately disqualifies the speaker from an honest dialog about this President.

Number one, academic records are not an eligibility requirement, and number two --- what are you going to do with them?
What did we do with Bush's? Clinton's? Reagan's? And so on...

(/offtopic)

If you don't have anything to hide they would be public. Obuthole is the biggest scam perpetrated on America.

Conclusion without a bridge. You failed to address either point.

And btw "if you don't have anything to hide" you won't mind the gummint watching what you're doing on the internet or listening in on your phone calls. Your logic...

Then again I believe you're the same sterling intellect who came back on a tangent about the gender of "God" with the profound proclamaition

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

... so one doesn't expect much.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Barry may be an intelligent man, but nothing he has done in the public sphere has proven that he is anything more than a mediocre attorney and a passable public speaker. Indeed, when he has spoken out publicly about both simple and complex legal topics, he has generally been wrong - and laughably so. For a person who supposedly taught ConLaw in Chicago, his ignorance of the Constitution is stunning.

And don't forget, he is the ONLY president in recent years who has steadfastly refused to make public his academic records.

Any statement that he is anything more than "an attorney" immediately disqualifies the speaker from an honest dialog about this President.

Number one, academic records are not an eligibility requirement, and number two --- what are you going to do with them?
What did we do with Bush's? Clinton's? Reagan's? And so on...

(/offtopic)

If you don't have anything to hide they would be public. Obuthole is the biggest scam perpetrated on America.

Conclusion without a bridge. You failed to address either point.

And btw "if you don't have anything to hide" you won't mind the gummint watching what you're doing on the internet or listening in on your phone calls. Your logic...

Then again I believe you're the same sterling intellect who came back on a tangent about the gender of "God" with the profound proclamaition

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

... so one doesn't expect much.

Yep, you are stupid. I don't mind the government looking into my business, I am a retired federal LE. Idiot.

 

[Pogo]

Barry may be an intelligent man, but nothing he has done in the public sphere has proven that he is anything more than a mediocre attorney and a passable public speaker. Indeed, when he has spoken out publicly about both simple and complex legal topics, he has generally been wrong - and laughably so. For a person who supposedly taught ConLaw in Chicago, his ignorance of the Constitution is stunning.

And don't forget, he is the ONLY president in recent years who has steadfastly refused to make public his academic records.

Any statement that he is anything more than "an attorney" immediately disqualifies the speaker from an honest dialog about this President.

Number one, academic records are not an eligibility requirement, and number two --- what are you going to do with them?
What did we do with Bush's? Clinton's? Reagan's? And so on...

(/offtopic)

If you don't have anything to hide they would be public. Obuthole is the biggest scam perpetrated on America.

Conclusion without a bridge. You failed to address either point.

And btw "if you don't have anything to hide" you won't mind the gummint watching what you're doing on the internet or listening in on your phone calls. Your logic...

Then again I believe you're the same sterling intellect who came back on a tangent about the gender of "God" with the profound proclamaition

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

... so one doesn't expect much.

Yep, you are stupid. I don't mind the government looking into my business, I am a retired federal LE. Idiot.

TMI. I don't need to know. But you have a superfluous period and space at the end there. Free proofread, you're welcome.

 

[daws101]

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.

how many times does this question and in how many ways does this circular reasoning have to be answered.
once more in to the breach.....
god is a false premise because the is no evidence that god exists.... no extra data is needed, this is not my opinion it's a fact, period.
no matter what kind of alleged evidence you produce it's
not viable because it is based on the aforementioned false premise .
believing in god is a logical fallacy the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion in the premises; begging the question.
a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.

 

[daws101]

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.

you are vigorously defending a belief....

 

[Dan Daly]

Not doubt that America is dumbed down. I've noticed that our scientists, intellectuals and political hacks have been getting progressively dumber over the last 50-some years.

 

[daws101]

(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.

it you that has mental problems it is completely unnecessary to believe something in order to understand it.

 

[daws101]

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'.

could it be that they are?

 

[daws101]

“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.

it's funny because it's a steaming pile !

 

[daws101]

The Catholic Church does not officially dispute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is taught in biology classes at Notre Dame(!). The Catholic Church teaches that the stories in Genesis are allegorical, and not to be taken literally.

It is not the obligation of scientists to conform with accepted religious beliefs. It is the obligation of religion to explain beliefs that can be proven false by settled science (e.g., the earth being 5,000 years old).

"Arrogance" becomes an issue in arguments like this when people with degrees in - for example - Wimmins' Studies lecture others about the science of "climate change."

That is one of many reasons I am not catholic, they are untruthful.

ok. how?

 

[daws101]

Not doubt that America is dumbed down. I've noticed that our scientists, intellectuals and political hacks have been getting progressively dumber over the last 50-some years.

and lots of the general populous....that is being demonstrated to full effect by some of the right leaning posters..

 

[AmericanFirst]

The Catholic Church does not officially dispute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is taught in biology classes at Notre Dame(!). The Catholic Church teaches that the stories in Genesis are allegorical, and not to be taken literally.

It is not the obligation of scientists to conform with accepted religious beliefs. It is the obligation of religion to explain beliefs that can be proven false by settled science (e.g., the earth being 5,000 years old).

"Arrogance" becomes an issue in arguments like this when people with degrees in - for example - Wimmins' Studies lecture others about the science of "climate change."

That is one of many reasons I am not catholic, they are untruthful.

ok. how?

The stories in Genesis are not allegorical.