Dr.Worthless

Zetirix, if you couldn't sense the sarcasm in that paragraph you're a joke, just like the other 85% of the folks that -*BAD WORD*- this board. Worthless - Who's considering going the way of Recombo. This forum will die anyway in 5 weeks once Bush wins the US election again.

Ok folks, this is all great, but again all of you are guilty of losing scope. 1.) You have to have the mindset of the intelligence BEFORE all this !@#$%^&* happened. Inspectors in the country or not.. multiple intelligence agencies still said that they had stockpiles of weapons, even AFTER the inspectors. Besides, The inspectors never got 100% free reign to do their jobs. "No weapons " was at best a guess. 2.)You can do all the conspiracy theories you want about higher ups tampering with CIA/FBI intelligence. But what about the Intelligence we got from Britain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, etc, etc, etc. WE didn't go off of just our intelligence, multiple sources all told us the same thing. Dr.Worthless-- Who know he posts in vain.

So, explain to me how something goes from a fiery bolten ball of lava to sitting on his !@#$%^&* typing on a computer about to go to class?

I dont understand how following intelligence is dishonest. Inspectors had been in the country for years, and yet the intelligence still said what it said. Its not as if the inspectors in Iraq at the time of our invasion was something new and revolutionary. How many times should we have allowed Saddam to kick inspectors out then let them back in before we considered changing our approach to him? What evidence suggests he was manipulative and dishonest. Point to any information that would have been known at the time the decision was made that should have altered the decision. There had been a process in place to deal with Iraq for over a decade, and time after time Saddam told the world to !@#$%^&* off. How many years of failed inspections and resolutions was needed to justify a different approach? Lets not even talk about actually enforcing all of the resolutions already in place...

No, I think thats you're mistake in this situation. If you have a problem with the word "God".. replae it with "X".. every religion has a pinacle to reach.. a example of perfection.. I'd like to read it. No ones ever been able to explain to me where life started, and how it got there. If you believe in the big bang theory.. then this earth started as a god aweful firey ball of molten mass How did organisms start on that? I never said the human eye was perfect, I said it was to complex to have been created by chance.. Heh, actually you just used my analogy correctly. The correct !@#$%^&*umption about an item as complex as a watch is that some being with knowledge of how to build that object must have made it, since its obviously to complex to have been created at random (by nature.) Very true. Its the Catch-22. But the basis of the arguement is that "God" is the best answer at this moment for the answer to complex questions, and to assume that it isn't the right answer just because you don't believe in it, well.. under that ideology science is equally as wrong.. The classic "If a tree falls in the forest...." You missed the core of the arguement, but regardless I should have clarified my position on Creationism. I do believe in "evolution" in the sense that creatures will adapt to their surroundings. So yes.. the animals we have now are different from the past.

Really, you're delving into philosophy here. Science is the study of what is already around us. We don't actually "Learn" science, we discover it. Science is not a creation of man, it was already existant. So what created it? Science sure didn't... nothing can be the means of its own existance, and if it is, it is by definition "God" You all are guilty of confusing "Religion" with "Organized Religion". I realize that practically everyone that has grown up in a society that is religious based (Practically Everyone) that you've had bad experiences with organized religion that has probably caused you to turn away from it. Organized Religion is man created. Religion is "God" created. HuH? You're losing me here. "Unproven until proven.." Ever hear the saying "Proof is in the pudding" ? Here's a philisophical question for you. Lets pretend that you have never seen a watch before, and have no clue what it is. You are wandering through a field one day and discover an object (we know it as a watch). Its got nicely crafted leather straps with holes in them. The timepiece itself has a lens shaped gl!@#$%^&* covering, which covers little sticks that move. You break the object open and see all these tiny gears, and a tiny battery running the gears. You marvel at the intracacies of this new found object, and wonder where on earth it came from. A logical person would deduce that it was made by an intelligent being. The object is simply to complex to be made by nature. There's to many parts comprising it, and to much precision involved with the instruments. Now, Apply that to say, the Human eye. The lens in the eye is bent in such a precise way that it allows us clear vision. Movements smaller than Millimeters will change the focus. There's tons of other complex intracacies of the eye, rods and cones, color comprehension, expanding pupils to allow more light in when its dim/less when its bright. Then there's the whole optic nerve thing that I really dunno HOW it sends light reflections to the brain, then the brain having the ability to enterpret these things into seeable objects.. There's to much complexity for these things to just have happened at random. "Proof is in the Pudding".. It is a matter of "proven until unproven" because there simply is NOT a better answer. Its not a matter of accepting an answer because a book told us to, "God" is the best answer to these complex questions, and until other theories are presented that are more sound than an intellectual being creating these complex systems, thats what I'm believing in.

Seriously Monte.. How many times am I going to have to spell it out to you for you to grasp this concept. Put yourself in these shoes. You're the CEO of a large company, lets say Wal-Mart. You're marketing department presents to you a presentation on how marketing your product alongside White horses would provide HUGE publicity. See, these White Horses are a coming cultural hit and all the market studies, both domestic and foreign, show that they are a coming fad. Furthermore, Marketing departments in your foreign departments concur. You decide to jump on the bandwagon and market your new product with these horses, of course you would do this because your acclaimed marketing department has collected all the data that points toward them becoming a hit. You're new commercial comes out with and is a TOTAL FLOP. Contrary to what your marketing department presented to you, White Horses are NOT a fad, infact, popular culture makes white horses out to be a sign of virginity, and !@#$%^&*it virginity just isn't cool. So.. You, being the CEO of this company, are you a liar for saying that the white horse commercial was going to be a big success? Nope, you're a victim of Faulty Intelligence. NOW, Apply the above theory to the situation the President was faced with Intelligence on WMD's. Then raise the stakes 10000x. Yes.. AFTER the fact some investigations have shown that the intelligence was somewhat faulty, and on "stockpiles of wmds" it was flat out WRONG. But how can you accuse the President of the United States of being a liar when he was following said intelligence? Mind you, not just US intelligence either, MULTIPLE COUNTRIES all provided intelligence pointing toward Saddam having WMD's. Simple, You can't. Now, after the fact, no WMD's being found, the intelligence was very faulty, but how could the President, or ANYONE for that matter, have known that was going to happen? Simple, He couldn't. Eager to hear your reply. Worthless

First. You have to believe that a democracy in the middle east would help stabilize the region. If you don't believe that then obviously you dont agree with this whole war. I of course believe it. -*BAD WORD*-, Its for sure better than what WAS going on in the middle east, which we all know basically breed terrorism. Secondly. WOW Omen, way to show off your intelligence with that GEM of an example. Obviously the only reason we went into Iraq was because we didn't like how the country was ran. Good luck actually making an arguement that the United States and the World would be a better place with Saddam in power, you're going to have to do a -*BAD WORD*- of alot better job than correlating it with a Salsa loving family down the street. Discuss Saddam connections with terrorism (valid discussion). Discuss Saddam connection with Al-Qaeda (Notice the difference... valid discussion) Discuss if a democracy in the middle east will work better than oppression based governments (valid discussion) Discuss if the world and the United States is better off with a dictator in power in the middle east that owned a large portion of the words oil, that had the knowledge to build chemical weapons, that had the knowledge to build nuclear weapons, that was hostile towards it neighbors, that commited acts of genocide, that commited crimes against humanity, and you'll lose because thats rediculous and !@#$%^&*anine.

Simply put I suppose, believing in "God" is just as valid as believing in "Science". Creationism has just as many holes (if not fewer) than evolution.

Yeah.. and he's completely justified in wanting to do that, because its obviously your fault Aileron that you were born in America... Give me a break. America cant win in your eyes bacchus, plain and simple. Its sad.

Yeah, sorry, my reply was alittle harsh. Warranted though. Bacchus is a heavy United States basher and I grow tired of him quickly. I also thought it was rediculous that he speaks for Quebec and says "Religion is on the decline and the only time we hear "God" is in a curse phrase" Well guess what bacchus, religion is something you have to actively participate in. If you choose not to, of course you aren't going to hear anything about it. So to me that implies that since (there in quebec) religion is on the decline and no one says "God's Name" without it being a swear, we can survive without religion. Well, come here Bacchus, homosexuality is low here in arkansas and the only time I hear "Gay" is in a negative fashion... (Sorry.. I just couldn't resist...) I just hope next time I can be the bigger guy and not bash back...

LoL, easy there killer, it was in jest. You spoke for a wonderful "we" en-*BAD WORD*-y that you hadn't refered to earlier in the post. Excuse me for not knowing that you can speak for all of Quebec! Here's my french "Go !@#$%^&* yourself"

Apparently Economic globalization is a bad thing to many people, reasoning being that the US and other superpowers are vicariously pushing their society onto other cultures and gaining at their expense. Personally, I'm with you, in theory its a good idea. Then again, lots of things are good ideas in theory.

Who's we, got a turd in your pocket?

My life overflows with fun. Up until 3:00 finishing this paper, now up at 8:00 to go turn it in, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Nah, more than just you share the opinion. I find a sense of security in the fact that Bush would openly mention "God".

True.. all to true.

ROFL, now there's a classic Carlin..

I'm a fan of carlin, alot of what he says is just so common sense that its hilarious, I love how he's just so in your face. Anyway, I was just pointing out the catch-22. While carlin has the right to view republican as "baby farmers" that defend unborn US citizens rights just so they can grow up to fight in wars. At the same time, If you attribute "war" with "republicans", than it is the "republicans" that sent the "babies" to war to protect carlins freedom TO criticise the very organization (The babies) that spilled blood to insure he could. I'll quote senator Zell Miller on his speech at the RNC "It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag. " His speech was dogmatic at times, but MAN is that a powerful quote. And yes.. sometimes Carlin's just to liberal for my tastes, funny guy though.

ROFLMFAO Remember the whole "seperation of church and state" thing you ramble on about? Yeah.. this is the real situation it was made for.. remember the whole "religious freedom" idealism that this country was founded on? People think "seperation of church and state" was created so the church couldn't impede on the state, when in reality its the other way around. *EDIT* Here is where I'm at a real moral dilemma within myself. On one hand I do believe this, there's no reason for me to treat someone different because they are.. "different". But what if in my core beliefs I feel that the issue that they are "different" about is wrong? I am a Christian, and my moral values are rooted in biblical teachings. Oh the internal conflictions, what ever shall I do..

All this is spawned from an arguement over if the pentagon was hit by a missle, which was already proven to be false, so why is this discussion still happening?

In theory atleast..

.. and those are the same dead "babies" that died to give Mr. Carlin the freedom to stand on the stage and make millions being an -*BAD WORD*-... Oh, wonderful america. I don't think anyone but the extreme religious right want absolute abortion restriction. Most moderates want abortion in rape/health situations but no "it doesn't fit my lifestyle" abortions..

This is where this question of morality is so paradoxal. You claim that everyone is en!@#$%^&*led to your opinion, and you are yours, yet you are basing fact/fiction on your opinions. The core question really is does the government have any right to dictate morality? If the government does, who does? Popular opinion?

Sorry that we're not donating up to your expectations Bacchus. This being the 2004 budget. Sorry that 160 million isnt enough. Some other aid on the US 2004 foreign aid budget? Source Sorry that our 16 Billion dollars in foreign aid just doesn't cut it bacchus. From American Taxpayer thats struggling to afford his 6k a year college tuition bill, My deepest applogies.