All religions are unfounded kooky cults based on nothing but superstition.

There most definitely is a difference between a religion, like mormonism, and an unfounded kooky cult like scientology.

I took that comment way too seriously at first...I blame the mormon girlfriend..

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Wha? A big win is not a big win if it resembles pre-election polling trends?
That would be some kooky spin, even if it were true. But...
Obama beat expectations by nearly double, beating the spread by 6.7 points.
Hillary's expectations were cut in half, coming up 3.6 points short.


Ok, so I said the election margins where pretty much what was expected from pre-election polling. And I'm saying that beating expectations is a stupid concept and the media is playing games. Sure a big win is a big win. But beating some CNN forecast or not meeting it is not a big anything.

Then you go on to tlak about double and half... half of what?? My blog predicted Hillary would get 100% of the vote in IN, instead she only got 1/50th of the expected spread.

(see it means absolutely nothing)

^Wha? A big win is not a big win if it resembles pre-election polling trends?

That would be some kooky spin, even if it were true. But...

Obama beat expectations by nearly double, beating the spread by 6.7 points. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_primary-275.html.

Hillary's expectations were cut in half, coming up 3.6 points short. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_primary-275.html.

Hillary cannot forestall her bitter tears forever.

I'm off to bed, as I have another 12 hour day comin', but I look foward to seein' all the crazy and kooky comments y'all will come up with!

Wait, I work 12 hour days every week, and in fact, that's all I ever work...
Does that mean I get to say whatever I want, whenever I want?

Seems to me (a white dude) that Obama being president would be a positive for both black and white alike. Not talking about Jesus all the time and protecting a womans civil rights are good things in my book. As for being a white man's candidate? Well sure, every candidate is vetted by rich white people. Duh. On the bright side, Obama has abandoned the Republican-in-Democrat's clothing organization DLC (Clintons, Lieberman, etc.) and seems to be moving in a positive direction in general. Upvote for kookiness I guess.

Bleedingsnowman,

At what point did I claim that those videos were fair and balanced? This sift is so one-sided itself that it begged some balance. I'm sorry I wasn't able to get better links for balance - it's hard trying to find a balanced report, they seem to be on either extreme trying to convince you their side is right. I freely admit that I don't know about buildings. The one point that stuck out in my mind was that the building first started collapse where it was supported by a beam that wasn't damaged. Has that question been answered? (I'm honestly asking here.) It was because of that question that I ended up posting those links.

I don't know why you brought up the public official that thought 9/11 was purposeful. There are many former officials and covert agents that believe it was purposeful who don’t have a history of mental illness. That's more of a distracting fact than a relevant one.

You are making an assumption of what I believe when it comes to "conspiracy theories" (or perhaps addressing them in general.) Either way, let me clear the air so that you know where I stand on this. I think the theories that deal with the planes are extremely unlikely and don't stand up to the light of day. The theories about the buildings are unlikely also. The only reason that they continue is the government's behavior of seizing all evidence and hiding/destroying it. I understand your point about not releasing the material, but after studying history of the US and seeing the amount of governments that the US has covertly overthrown in the last 50+ years; I don't really trust the government’s intentions very much anymore. I personally believe that some people found out about this planned attack and then made sure it happened. Otherwise it is hard to explain such things such as multiple CIA investigations being purposefully blocked against people on the terrorists watch list, etc. As I said before, "Crossing the Rubicon" does a good job of pulling together the motives (and some actions) for some people in our government to make sure that 9/11 succeeded. I would recommend it to anyone. And no, it isn’t one of those kooky conspiracy books with large assumptions, half-truths, etc.

Lastly, I really hope you don't take this as an attack because that is not my intention. It's very hard to have a discussion about an issue like this because it evokes a lot of emotion. You did mention that you knew about buildings. Can you answer the one question from the first paragraph? (It refers to the first link.) With that answered, I feel that I can personally move the theories about the buildings from ‘unlikely’ to ‘extremely unlikely’. Oh, I’ll edit those links out too.

"donought" ...when a dosomething is to "kooky", grab a donought.

I give a shit.

look at what the current administration has done using their religion and beliefs as justification for their actions.

I don't know what Alaskan Inuits believe in and thankfully since none of the presidential candidates are Inuits I don't have to go researching this kooky shit.

I didn't know mormons were clogging up our prisions !


In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Who gives a shit?

What if he were Alaskan Inuit and believed in ... whatever it is they believe in?

Validation of the Mormon religion... god-forbid! Those damn Mormons are already clogging up our prisons!

what a kooky get-up....up-vote for stems and mini-skirt!

Thanks for the story-so I was right about the labia connection! I'll have to find another video about the entrapment idea..

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Seph, it isn't quite so Freudian as all that, but still a rather interesting story. From Sarracenia.com:
"The true reason that Venus is part of this plant's name due to the dirty minds of the kooky naturalists and nuserymen (such as John & William Bartram, Peter Collinson, William Darlington, Arthur Dobbs, John Ellis, and Daniel Solander). When they looked at the plant, they saw in its amazing behavior and attractive form (two red, glistening lobes, surrounded by hairs, sensitive to the touch), something that reminded them of female genitalia of their own species. Indeed!

Amongst themselves, this cabal of learned perverts referred to the plant as a "tipitiwitchet" (or "Tippity Twitchet"). It was subsequently assumed by historians that this was a Native American term, but linguistic experts have eliminated that as a possibility.

Tipitiwitchet, it appears, was a naughty euphemism of their own devising. I like to imagine a few of them coining the term one night as they were slamming down beers in a pub or in a sumptuous study. I'm guessing that the originator of the term was probably John Bartram. For while you might expect a scientist to express wonder or astonishment upon seeing the plant, Bartram wrote to Collinson on 29 August 1762 that "my little tipitiwitchet sensitive stimulates laughter in all ye beholders"."

Seph, it isn't quite so Freudian as all that, but still a rather interesting story. From Sarracenia.com:
"The true reason that Venus is part of this plant's name due to the dirty minds of the kooky naturalists and nuserymen (such as John & William Bartram, Peter Collinson, William Darlington, Arthur Dobbs, John Ellis, and Daniel Solander). When they looked at the plant, they saw in its amazing behavior and attractive form (two red, glistening lobes, surrounded by hairs, sensitive to the touch), something that reminded them of female genitalia of their own species. Indeed!

Amongst themselves, this cabal of learned perverts referred to the plant as a "tipitiwitchet" (or "Tippity Twitchet"). It was subsequently assumed by historians that this was a Native American term, but linguistic experts have eliminated that as a possibility.

Tipitiwitchet, it appears, was a naughty euphemism of their own devising. I like to imagine a few of them coining the term one night as they were slamming down beers in a pub or in a sumptuous study. I'm guessing that the originator of the term was probably John Bartram. For while you might expect a scientist to express wonder or astonishment upon seeing the plant, Bartram wrote to Collinson on 29 August 1762 that "my little tipitiwitchet sensitive stimulates laughter in all ye beholders"."

Very well put. I'm actually semi-impressed that Kent didn't bring the discussion of "belief" or "faith" into the argument which usually happens in such a one-sided argument against a Christian's views.

Hahaha...just read that Kent Hovind did (or is still doing) a 10 year term for tax offenses AND he has a theme park called "Dinosaur Land". What a kooky man!!!

I actually saw this in my sophomore high school English class. I don't remember why, exactly, but I remember it being really kooky and redneck-y.

> is it any less kooky than n-dimensional quantum physics or string theory

No, it's far more kooky than either and so different as to be incomparable.