There are many people I respect on here, so it seems very odd to me when they go so off base with critiques on their own writings.
I hope this Found is right, even though it seems likely he's wrong.
Lol...just wait, now with that one Found of Greenpeace coming out again to say man doesn't have much if anything to do with global warming..the nuts are bound to grab hold of that. Even though the guy hasn't really done any recent research on the topic that I am aware of.
Then we have Allen Ross talking about climate change. He has this very weird idea that since we only consist of 6% of the world's population (is that even right?) that means what? We only produce 6% of the world's energy and pollution? Complete stupidity.
At least we can all agree with him about wanting a clean and secure environment.
wow, the odd balls were out this Sunday.
We had Dent trying to justify his belief that giving soldiers the chance to wear uniform approved clothing for religious reasons is bad. He decided to go down the slippery slope fallacy with his whole Devil Worship angle.
Then we had Martin showing a immense lack of knowledge in where freedom or religion comes from. It wasn't from the Bible. No where does it say you have a choice, you believe in God or burn. Like Dent, he makes the error in worrying about how other nations act. We don't dictate our actions by what other ppl do...we chose our own way.
In Brant's "Being destroyed from within" letter, he went off the rails. He wrote, "Freedom of Religion in our U.S. Constitution was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values."
Bullcrap. There is no such thing as freedom of religion on Christianity. Not unless you mean worship God or go to the lake of fire.
Brant also said, "Otherwise, we may end up with another Fort Hood shooter,"
Yeah..what we need are good boys like McViegh and Lee Harvey Oswald.
fred...thank you for the clarification.
Another letter today (Jan 24th) that shows a immense amount of ignorance when it revolves around the 2nd Amendment and our laws in general.
"However, the greatest threat to our Second Amendment rights ever, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (A.T.T.) was, totally, ignored by all the news media, except for Fox."
The greatest threat is ignorance. The UN is NOT going to have any control over any citizen's right to own a gun.
I have family that wants to see that Creation "museum". I'm hoping they just forget about it and choose to go to the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh instead.
If discussed in an improper way, I've noticed people try to add a bit of faith/destiny with evolution even. It's when they make the error in assuming that their is an ultimate purpose in evolution. If there is anything evolution teaches us about this thing we call reality is that big brains and intelligence is not the best way to go for a species survival. From what we know, how many species have their ever been that are closely similar to us in regards to intelligence? Now think how many species are closer to that of a dung beetle or amoeba?
There comes a point where you have moved from ignorant to a flat out liar when you willfully deny facts. In his Jan 19th LTE, Brian R. Dent made that crossing.
1)"When it has been proven that Barack Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya"
A blatant lie.
2)"How do we have a president who bypasses Congress and the Senate, signs a United Nations Small Arms Treaty,"
fred, are you referring to adaptations and genetic changes within a species when you reference evolution? do you define an evolution of a species based on whether it inter-breeds after an appreciable change in characteristics? i think most biblical noah flood believers understand that adaptations and changes occur. the sticking point is the unsubstanciated claim somehow that the leap was made from one distinct species to another. thsi has not been supported by any credible or undeniable proof. currently, it seems the only way scientists have been able to do what evolutionists theorize is by performing complete DNA replacement. which is not allowing time and chance to perform the necessary process. to me it is like hammering the square peg in the round hole to say..."see.....this is how it happened".
Na just was incorrect
Could be "tact". The previous " tact" was ineffective. So, 'tacking' in a new/different direction is a change in/of "tact"
Yes Fred no matter what happens you will try to find a way to shoe horn it into you theory, because that is all you have are theories.
Due to the fact that you have as of late been butchering the english language in your posts I have to seek a bit of a clarification from you.
Are you actually calling me maroon?
There seems to a bit of confusion about your person lately.
Oh how are little mathematically challenged buddy is cheeky is he not>?
But Myth, you are still a moron.
It is indeed TACK and NOT TACT, I stand corrected.
Good for you Myth, I am glad you are above minimum wage.
Tiredofit, you wrote, “By the way its TACT not TACK, moron”
Uh, you might want to check that again, Tiredofit.
Myth used the right word, and you called him a moron for it, but you used the word wrong.
“Tact is sensitivity in social situations. A tack is a course or an approach (the word has nautical origins). When switching courses or taking a different approach, one changes tack, not tact.”
htt p://grammarist.co m/usage/tack-tack/
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891