Another in the never ending stream of Republican vote frauds.

https://videosift.com/video/Republican-Election-Official-Arrested-For-Vote-Fraud-Again

Funny how many 100% pro life no-exception Republicans have erased their abortion position from their websites and campaigns and now claim to be totally pro choice despite decades of anti abortion legislation and positions. ROEVEMBER is going to be a hoot. Thanks Graham for publicly tipping your hand before the election and putting forth a national federal abortion ban bill so no one could honestly say Republicans don’t plan to ban abortion nationally, can’t sit on the “states rights” lie they’ve used for decades to fight against and erode a federal right….not that anyone was fooled for a second, but now the lie that they won’t outlaw abortion nationally, and won’t ban contraception nationally, and won’t outlaw gay marriage nationally, and won’t outlaw interracial marriage nationally are all dead by their own hands.

BTW- Kemp was caught on tape saying if the legislature is willing (if there’s enough Republicans elected) he’s on board with banning chemical contraception and will try. He’s not the only Republican governor saying it. I wonder….who’s going to pay for these hundreds of thousands of unwanted children? Do red states have a surplus to spend opening state orphanages? You people like to bemoan single parent households and parentless children, saying it’s creating criminals, and then you legislate away rights and self autonomy to create hundreds of thousands more unwanted children every single year. Just asinine.

It pains me deeply to admit it because this is Ross fucking Kemp, who is not a journalist or even for many definitions a sentient creature, but this is the only piece of war reporting I've seen where you actually have some basic idea of what's going on.

The Matt Kemp video is great; can you change the header? The fan isn't disabled; he's terminally ill and has been given 90 days to live...

Could someone please alter the tags? The kid's not disabled, he's been given 90 days to live.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-0508-plaschke-20130508,0,573673.column

Kemp is really cool.

Your video, L.A. Dodgers' Matt Kemp gives a young disabled fan ..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 18 Badge!

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

Personally, I'm fed up with having the same f'ing argument with creationists over and over again, blowing their pathetic arguments out of the water, and having them still desperately scramble to make any and every lame excuse as to why they shouldn't stop believing in their fairy tales. F@#k creationists. I'm done trying to have reasonable conversations with the unreasonable.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

I guess everybody needs somebody to love you can't
leave love lonely cause being naive to it you can just
lose it like that See kisses for bruises don't make it
heal back it be'z the sex appeal that's from the next
and not necessarily the sex and one might appeal to
the intellect having a greater affect on how they feelin'
stimulation breakin down their shields for the real and
as it stands mysteriously curiosity it kills the cat and
offsets them mentally so they're trapped in behind
these fantasies with no action searchin for a remedy
now she loves her man but there is just a different type
of chemistry that flairs when her desires on fire quick
is the fuse anotha loves for hire

I was high like the vocal tone of my nigga Bootie Brown
decided to take a ride to see what's really goin' down up on
the northside of town Of course I bought a quarter pound
of bomb hemp feelin' a-ight like Johnny Kemp on a Friday
night Lookin' right cuz' my shit is tight blazin' blunts to city
lights on Sunset and Crescent Heights Bounce to the House
of Blues then I slid in free wit tennis shoes, sweatshirt, jeans
and no ID. Soon as I step inside the plizace I recognize the
fizace of an epp wit an izass more amazin' than grace So
I waste no time to kick my little I say "How ya doin'" she say
"I'm doin' fine" so I commence to mackin to baby to see
what's crackin So maybe I get her back at the cabin and
start attackin Threw back a shot of yack and started jabber
and jibben Fibbin and adibin just to get her to my crib then
We was chilling on the bed bumpin some Isley thought I was
about to spread the thighs but she surprised me when she
said "oh like that? You know I don't get down" I know my
homies gonna clown cause I let her stick around when...

Now Daddy's home but she's been waitin all night so we
could be all alone This is an everyday thing so we hang out
by the phone tryin to build something real Working tips to
the bone so much loves gone astray that it won't be comin
home no time soon So I dance with the silhouette beneath
the moon and she said if satisfactions guaranteed nothin
else could come between the flight of a new love babe Yeah
maybe we could be cool instead of sharin' this here ship
with the fools... you know ? (that) ... Right now... right now...
right now... right now... baby... Right now... right now...
right now... baby... and she said
I'll give you the world if you want
it I'll give you the world if you need it baby

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ross, kemp, extras, ricky, gervais' to 'ross, kemp, extras, ricky, gervais, vinnie, jones' - edited by EndAll

This series is absolutely amazing. You wouldn't believe now that Ross Kemp became famous for his role in a soap opera here called Eastenders playing a thuggish hard man. Also this is *british

Tags for this video have been changed from 'red command, comando vermelho, rio de janeiro, brazil, gangs' to 'red command, comando vermelho, rio de janeiro, brazil, ross kemp on gangs' - edited by alien_concept

Oh man, thank you so much for that!

In reply to this comment by marinara:
*promote this like a slap in the face

I'm only 6 foot and can palm a ball with normal hands for someone my size. Anyone over 6'6 can palm a ball easily, at 6'10 I'm sure Kemp had a better grip on the ball with one hand then a lot of us do with 2. When you throw down dunks as hard as Kemp is in these you need to be able to palm the ball or use both hands otherwise you'll lose your grip.

Incredible. Pretty sure this is the very definition of awesomesauce. I remember a rumor that his hands were so small that he couldn't even palm a basketball. I'm pretty sure it was true, even though I couldn't confirm it with some digging; all of these dunks are either cradled (tomahawk) or two-handed. Also, Kemp was clearly Kevin Garnett's primary influence--he virtually emulates Kemp's style.