Future news; - that you can use now. . .

BWhite · 2004-11-09 19:49:58

In future news. . .

Stanford, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins Universities announced they will not accept students from the new USA unless they take a year of remedial biology to unlearn creationism.

Earthfirst · 2004-11-09 20:21:14

Whats the new USA?
Most freshmen have to take some science in college, bio 101 would be a good choice because it opens their mind to the scientific methods. I din't waste time in basic bio I went streight to advance. In bio 181 I got a A, 182 to B because I dont like animals and we had to indentify the scientfic names of the animals from bacteria, invertabrates, up to mammals.
I am a plant person, so when I transfered to ASU. I found out they had PLB 200 counts the same as college bio but its plants only. Ohh well, but at least I know the most about animals in my PLB "plant sciences" classes.
If you realy want to learn try extent-extant plant phlogency crouse, I never thought the world was so complex.
Their are a alot of mormons at my school, dont brong up evolution if you dont want to be bettin up good! But having ten wives tires them so I am safe. :laugh:

dickbill · 2004-11-09 21:07:31

Whats the new USA?
Most freshmen have to take some science in college, bio 101 would be a good choice because it opens their mind to the scientific methods. I din't waste time in basic bio I went streight to advance. In bio 181 I got a A, 182 to B because I dont like animals and we had to indentify the scientfic names of the animals from bacteria, invertabrates, up to mammals.
I am a plant person, so when I transfered to ASU. I found out they had PLB 200 counts the same as college bio but its plants only. Ohh well, but at least I know the most about animals in my PLB "plant sciences" classes.
If you realy want to learn try extent-extant plant phlogency crouse, I never thought the world was so complex.
Their are a alot of mormons at my school, dont brong up evolution if you dont want to be bettin up good! But having ten wives tires them so I am safe. :laugh:

10 wives for one guy...hmmmm. It seems to me many unlucky Mormons must not be so happy with that.
Can gay Mormons mary each other ?
I bet the mormonic prophet was one of the lucky one....

Mormons, listen to Dickbill : thy shall read Doonesbury in the Dallas Morning news to go to Heaven and have tyr 72 "Houry" that are waiting for you, otherwise thy shall go to Evil-Land read William Safire articles...and no "Houry" there.

Earthfirst · 2004-11-09 21:57:03

Mormons can only have one wife, one male to one female. Mormons stop multiple wifes when ferderal government forced them too. Now only separte sects pratice multiply marriges, they live in Colorado city Arizona, mexico, and other places.
It is a big joke in Arizona because people make fun of mormons and Utah for having multiply wifes. But most of the mormons that have mult. wifes live in Arizona. Arizona Governor a democrate liberal woman has done nothing to stop it, she for woman rights but just not right now. :laugh:
There are no Gay Mormons, any Mormon found to be a homosexual is sent to a reeducation camp in Mexico, were they are cured. Or stoned, hang, wiped, to death, this is a well kown fate of many homosexual mormons, usualy they they go by their own free will. Because it is seen as a mental disorder, sin before God, that if not cured they will never get to go to heaven with their family. If not cured excommuncation with the family and all other members of the church. Gay to mormons is not takin lightly, so dont make fun.
There are many mormons that wont go to hevean because the devil has made them mentally insane with gay. Just ask any Mormon and you will get the same answer.
As a Luthern I don't think your sexualty sould define you, to me no one is gay, homosexualy, bi sexual, or bestlover. All that is nonsense, you are a human. If you are male you inpregnate female humans, female are inprenated and have childern. Humping or loving things that wont make kids is evolutionary dead end. All that matters is that you pass on your genes, any way you can do that is evolutionary right. Their is no right or wrong when it comes to life any goes to life and pass on DNA. Getting away from that is mental insane, because it is counter productive. Drawn rules my vaules, look at the animal kingdom. Do lower life froms waste in deceding their sexualty, no!
Moral degenerates liberals in my view are insane, in their mind the prevert everthing so far that it losses it meaning, function, and Holyness.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-11-09 22:32:54

In future news. . .
Stanford, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins Universities announced they will not accept students from the new USA unless they take a year of remedial biology to unlearn creationism.

Yeah, keep the ultra-right-wing conservatives in power and this is what you get. In the next four years we're going to be smothered in "moral values" including but not limited to: discriminating marriage on the basis of sexual orientation; the support of the teaching of creationism along with evolution as they're both valid theories ( :bars2: ); degredation of the seperation of church and state; indirect encouragement of pseudoscience through these actions; and, of course, banning life saving stem cell research. Joy.

The only thing left to do is to think, hope, pray if that floats your boat, that this is just a temporary setback and not a permanent trend. As long as government gets a more powerful democrat presensce or the next republican president is a moderate one like John McCain we can probably recover. The re-election of George Bush is a huge threat to this nation's well-being, if this is the start of a trend, we might all be screwed.

Just a reminder in case meteors weren't enough of a bother.

BWhite · 2004-11-09 22:44:51

As a Luthern

Missouri Synod or ELCA a/k/a the "Evil Lutheran Church of America" or even Wisconsin Synod?

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-10 06:51:39

Oh, I just can't resist...

In the next four years we're going to be smothered in "moral values" including but not limited to: discriminating marriage on the basis of sexual orientation;

It's not discrimination, it's what marriage is.

the support of the teaching of creationism along with evolution as they're both valid theories

Teaching creationism in a few isolated cases. It's not going to happen nationally. For one thing, the teachers union is extremely liberal and won't go for it.

degredation of the seperation of church and state

Itself one of the most misunderstood concepts in modern America. Freedom of religion is quite different from freedom from religion.

indirect encouragement of pseudoscience through these actions

Like man-made "global warming". :;):

and, of course, banning life saving stem cell research. Joy.

Potentially life saving stem cell research. Set aside the hype and the reality is clear, we don't know.

As long as government gets a more powerful democrat presensce or the next republican president is a moderate one like John McCain we can probably recover.

Who can recover? America, or the political Left? Do not presume to speak for the entire nation, for that path is folly.

clark · 2004-11-10 07:26:28

It's not discrimination, it's what marriage is.

Marriage is a social and religious instution with a certain defintion. It can change. Marriage is a union between one man and several women in many countries- for thousands of years.

What's the secular argument against marriage between the same gender? It's entirely a religious argument based on interpretation of dogma.

Teaching creationism in a few isolated cases. It's not going to happen nationally. For one thing, the teachers union is extremely liberal and won't go for it.

Well, we can all see what will happen with school vouchers. That ought to defang the Teachers union. And the politcs of teacher unions dosen't determine curriculim policy.

School is about facts and the material world. Creationism is the teaching of belief. It has no place in school. Go to sunday school if you want to learn about an invisible god and intelligent design.

Itself one of the most misunderstood concepts in modern America. Freedom of religion is quite different from freedom from religion.

So you have a right to pray, just as long as you pray? Sweet.

Like man-made "global warming".

Right, like it's an imanginary line of deduction to reason that man has an affect on his own environment...

Potentially life saving stem cell research. Set aside the hype and the reality is clear, we don't know.

That we need more opportunity to explore this science that looks to provide a lot of benefits to a great deal of humanity.

Who can recover? America, or the political Left? Do not presume to speak for the entire nation, for that path is folly.

About two more presidental elections before the pendulam swings back...

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-10 07:49:55

What's the secular argument against marriage between the same gender? It's entirely a religious argument based on interpretation of dogma.

yes, so you keep insisting. Yet I've argued it from secular angles in the past. You'll "redefine" it out of existence, better to just dump it now without all this ridiculous pretense.

School is about facts and the material world. Creationism is the teaching of belief. It has no place in school. Go to sunday school if you want to learn about an invisible god and intelligent design.

You're accepting the premise that a religious President can dictate that creationism be taught in America's schools as fact. It's a bit paranoid and ignores the basic structure of the American education system. Much ado about nothing.

So you have a right to pray, just as long as you pray? Sweet.

No, you can pray, or not, depending on your own choice. But if someone else wants to pray, even right out in public on government property, deal with it.

Right, like it's an imanginary line of deduction to reason that man has an affect on his own environment...

Doesn't it strike you as the least bit human-centric and arrogant to assume that we are the direct and sole cause of everything that happens around us? Earth's climate varies naturally, it has for the entire history of the planet, yet when it happens when we're on hand to see it we must therefore be the prime or sole cause? Talk about baseless faith.

That we need more opportunity to explore this science that looks to provide a lot of benefits to a great deal of humanity.

I agree, we should do the research to see if there's any use for these stem cells. We in fact are doing the research, with funds authorized by the Bush Administration, just not to the extent some would like. Were it my call we'd do all sorts of cool research deep in a hidden mountain lair where the public need never get ruffled over it until we cure cancer, make the crippled walk and turn water into wine. But when you do things in the public eye that involve harvesting human embryos, you get some opposition and have to move slower.

Don't like it, vote Cobra in '08.
Compassionate Fascism, working for America.

BWhite · 2004-11-10 08:03:53

Why are the Red Staters still angry?

clark · 2004-11-10 08:21:07

What do you expect from a culture of hate?

dickbill · 2004-11-10 08:26:24

Mormons can only have one wife, one male to one female. Mormons stop multiple wifes when ferderal government forced them too. Now only separte sects pratice multiply marriges,

allright allright, forgive my ignorance. But what about the 72 "houry" (female virgins in heaven). Are they not supposed to meet with them when they go to paradise ?

About the Darwinesque Evolution theory, frankly it' not the "master" science anyway. It can easily be learn at any moment later, in its principles anyway. What matter is math, physic, chemistry. But when you touch chemistry, then you touch biochemistry, molecular biology, biology, physiology .... At this point the seeds of the evolutionary theory are embedded. So they should as well skip both evolutionary theories : biblical and darwinesque. The curious educated man, mormon or not, can still figure out by himself which is closer to reality later.

Palomar · 2004-11-10 08:34:08

Why are the Red Staters still angry?

*I thought you didn't believe in the "us vs them" mindset? ???

It seems you are now encouraging "us vs them" by buying into the "Red States vs Blue States" thing - ?

What about the Democratic voters in the "Red States"? What about the Republican voters in the "Blue States"?

What's up with this, Bill? If you're opposed to "us vs them" doesn't that include your own nation as well?

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-11-10 08:47:29

Why are the Red Staters still angry?
*I thought you didn't believe in the "us vs them" mindset? ???
It seems you are now encouraging "us vs them" by buying into the "Red States vs Blue States" thing - ?
What about the Democratic voters in the "Red States"? What about the Republican voters in the "Blue States"?
What's up with this, Bill? If you're opposed to "us vs them" doesn't that include your own nation as well?
--Cindy

Tom Delay started it.

BWhite · 2004-11-10 08:50:11

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/9/143431/467]Cool link

Chill, guys. You won.

But the First Amendment means we get to heckle.

Language of Barry Goldwater, 1964 Republican presidential nominee that also rings true:
Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea.

Okay, deal.

clark · 2004-11-10 09:07:54

There should be a place where racist, xenophobic, bigoted, crazies can congregate and create a 13th century utopia, where such things as Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to live one's life absent government interference need not apply.

I think they call it Idaho.

Ian Flint · 2004-11-10 10:39:14

Mormons can only have one wife, one male to one female. Mormons stop multiple wifes when ferderal government forced them too. Now only separte sects pratice multiply marriges, they live in Colorado city Arizona, mexico, and other places.
It is a big joke in Arizona because people make fun of mormons and Utah for having multiply wifes. But most of the mormons that have mult. wifes live in Arizona. Arizona Governor a democrate liberal woman has done nothing to stop it, she for woman rights but just not right now.
There are no Gay Mormons, any Mormon found to be a homosexual is sent to a reeducation camp in Mexico, were they are cured. Or stoned, hang, wiped, to death, this is a well kown fate of many homosexual mormons, usualy they they go by their own free will. Because it is seen as a mental disorder, sin before God, that if not cured they will never get to go to heaven with their family. If not cured excommuncation with the family and all other members of the church. Gay to mormons is not takin lightly, so dont make fun.
There are many mormons that wont go to hevean because the devil has made them mentally insane with gay. Just ask any Mormon and you will get the same answer.

Ok, until recently I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Earthfirst, that's the Mormons. :;): )

It's true that the LDS church considers homosexuality a sin, but where did you hear about the stonings in Mexico? I thought we had covered that up completely. You will soon be visited by two young men dressed in suits. Don't resist. Just get in the water...

Let's see, the last time I checked there were plenty of gay Mormons in the church. They weren't being hanged, stoned, or "wiped, to death" :hm:
The church does consider it a sin, but a gay person isn't excommunicated unless he/she teaches that it(homosexuality) is not a sin or performs ordinances or other official acts while still practicing homosexuality.

Here's just a tidbit of information for you. It is true that Mormons don't marry more than one living wife these days, but if a wife dies an LDS man can marry another for "all eternity". I bet that's a shocker for the first wife when they all get to heaven! :laugh:

Oh, Earthfirst, can you please work on your spelling and grammer. It took me about ten minutes to decifer your posts.

Earthfirst · 2004-11-10 13:39:26

I made that up about Mormons, but on a sixty minutes special report a gay morman did under go reeducation. Not church supported too, Yes mormons or kicked out of the church all the time. Mostly young men, by older ones that want to keep young girls to them selfs. That the sect in Colorado city Arizona, which had many timetimes articals about the abuse, teenage boys forced out town by the local police.
You most be one of those jack Mormons that are very lack, I rember a lot of them lived in St. John AZ near Tombstone. Basical anything went like animals fornicating in a barn.
As for the blue states leaving, thats just not possible any more thanks to the civil war. After that the laws were changed so that no state could ever leave the union agian.
Thank the Repbicans for stoping the Demscrats back then and now from breaking the USA apart. Republicans savedthe day!
Liberals Dems are just mad that they lost, no big deal theres ways another election. It gives them time to rethink their ideas, Republicans did the same thing after the two losses against Clinton in the 1990's. Republicans learned from their defeat, and won with good ideas.
I think if the Dems just throw Hilary Clinton up for presidental run in 2008, they will loss. They most forget the past and move on.org, and come up with new ideas. Instead of the tired old social liberalism from the 1960s.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-10 14:50:19

Republicans learned from their defeat, and won with good ideas.
I think if the Dems just throw Hilary Clinton up for presidental run in 2008, they will loss. They most forget the past and move on.org, and come up with new ideas. Instead of the tired old social liberalism from the 1960s.

Earthfirst, you've kinda nailed it. All the post-election talk from the Left has tried to focus on simple reasons for their loss, things that can be easily fixed. Blame it on gay marriage (implying that Bush voters are all homophobes) or "we didn't get our message out" or some other nonsense. James Carville almost figured it out, but he seems to think the answer is to find another "Clinton democrat", a liberal they can portray as a centrist as though it's just a problem of image. They never once stop and consider that maybe the problem is them, maybe they lost because they did get their message out and people don't like it. Just maybe it's their core ideology that's the problem.

clark · 2004-11-10 14:58:01

Tolerance, equality, social mobility, investing in our society, progressive... yeah, core ideology is a problem.

Perhaps the Democrats should go with fear, hate, and regression of social policy to suit religious fundamentalism. That seems to work.

Earthfirst · 2004-11-10 15:10:55

Fear hate, lies are the Democrats core vaules. You hit it right on the mark, I quess Democrats are their own toughest jugde!

clark · 2004-11-10 15:15:22

Well, Repukicans have a monopoly on bigotry so that's all that was left.

Ian Flint · 2004-11-10 16:09:48

No really, clark, you hit the nail on the head. Fear, hate, and religious fundamentalism get a lot of votes. DON'T YOU KNOW WE'RE AT WAR!!!

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-11 06:13:34

Tolerance, equality, social mobility, investing in our society, progressive... yeah, core ideology is a problem.

They're all too often intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them, constantly inciting class warfare hinders social mobility, "investing in our society" is a meaningless buzz-phrase and the only thing progressive about the Left is their preferred tax structure.

Perhaps the Democrats should go with fear, hate, and regression of social policy to suit religious fundamentalism. That seems to work.

The entire 2004 campaign was built on fear and hate of George Bush, Leftist social policy is itself regressive as they continue to stand by these "Great Society" programs that have been demonstrable failures, and religious fundamentalism? Have the Muslims, Jews and pagans been shipped off to camps? Has the state adopted a religion, do bands of state-sanctioned WASP goons rove the streets converting unwary travellers? We have a President that actually believes in the religion he professes instead of using it as a cynical marketing ploy, so what? Relax, no one's making you bow to the Almighty and no one really cares what Jesus would do.

Algol · 2004-11-11 10:01:28

The problem for the Republicans is who could they possibley come up with to replace Bush? The only real candidates that i can think of are McCain, Giuliani or Schwarzenegar (if he can get the law changed), none of whom are overly religious (and so wont especially attract the religious right) and all three of whom are moderate in their views (they have different stances to Bush on gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research - all of which are still likely to be hot topics in 2008). So Bush wont be able to really campaign in suport of any of them (or shouldnt if he really believes half the cr*p he comes out with) and the religious right arent going to get nearly as worked up about them.

He's managed to change what it is to be a republican and in 2008 i think the real republicans are going to want their party back - which should be a very interesing and messy fight to watch. Basically, Bush may turn out to be one of the worst things to have happened to the Republicans, not the best. Isnt their a saying abouth the price of success?

Of course there could always be.....

CHENEY-WOLFOWITZ 2004! :laugh: :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-09 19:49:58

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#2 2004-11-09 20:21:14

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#3 2004-11-09 21:07:31

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#4 2004-11-09 21:57:03

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#5 2004-11-09 22:32:54

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#6 2004-11-09 22:44:51

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#7 2004-11-10 06:51:39

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#8 2004-11-10 07:26:28

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#9 2004-11-10 07:49:55

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#10 2004-11-10 08:03:53

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#11 2004-11-10 08:21:07

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#12 2004-11-10 08:26:24

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#13 2004-11-10 08:34:08

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#14 2004-11-10 08:47:29

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#15 2004-11-10 08:50:11

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#16 2004-11-10 09:07:54

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#17 2004-11-10 10:39:14

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#18 2004-11-10 13:39:26

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#19 2004-11-10 14:50:19

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#20 2004-11-10 14:58:01

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#21 2004-11-10 15:10:55

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#22 2004-11-10 15:15:22

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#23 2004-11-10 16:09:48

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#24 2004-11-11 06:13:34

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

#25 2004-11-11 10:01:28

Re: Future news; - that you can use now. . .

Board footer