The wordings of the questions on this test are skewed to drive most people to the libertarian answers. Pretty much everyone that takes this test ends up libertarian. (It's run by Libertarians).

Edit: But for what it's worth: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-5.75&soc=-5.95

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.

How about you start by debunking the thousands of studies supporting anthropogenic climate change? More importantly, what makes you think those 450+ studies are more reliable than the pro-climate change studies? Usually, when I see a debate with a vast majority of scientists on one side and a tiny minority on the other, I believe the majority. This isn't a perfect heuristic, but it's a pretty good one. Do you have any good reason to believe the heuristic fails in this instance? What is it that has convinced you the majority is wrong?

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!".

What? This is the stupidest analogy ever. Saying "Look at all this peer reviewed scientific research" is somehow equivalent to "God told me so"?

And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

This is only true if atheists in church are usually dismissed using careful peer-reviewed scientific research, along the lines of this or this.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

And of course there's no money at all to be made in debunking climate change. Dude, the oil industry pumps millions of dollars into research that criticizes the consensus. After the last IPCC report came out, the American Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon) offered $10,000 to anyone who published an article criticizing the report. If you think money is skewing incentives on the pro-AGW side, why don't you apply the same standards to the denialist side?

Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC).

Care to point out where ChaosEngine made an old and already debunked argument? And just because science is falsifiable doesn't mean that science can never be settled on an issue. The debate about the chemical composition of the sun is over. That doesn't mean that those claims are not falsifiable.

I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

I know. Very sad. Let me play you the world's saddest song on the world's tiniest violin. Especially after you called ChaosEngine ignorant and stupid and then complained about how sad rhetoric like "Christy Crocks" is.

That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue... Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then.

Climate science is not a science that is known well be humankind, but it is apparently known well by coolhund-kind. Please tell us how you came up with this forecast, and why you think it is more reliable than the forecasts of, you know, actual experts.

The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW.

True, but irrelevant, since there is AGW.

You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life.

OK, so the thousands of climate scientists who claim to believe in AGW are lying to keep their jobs. Confusingly, a number of global warming skeptics are able to keep their jobs without pretending to believe in AGW. Someone needs to figure out how they managed to beat the corrupt system. Maybe they have compromising pictures of Al Gore?

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

What a pointless digression. America is not the only country in the world where scientists believe in AGW. The national science academy in Germany, your paragon for a skeptical country, has also endorsed the IPCC report. So whether or not Americans are easy to fool is completely irrelevant here. Incidentally, 59% of German people believe that global warming is due to human activity. Only 49% of Americans believe this. So maybe you're right -- Americans are easy to fool. You're just wrong about who's fooling them.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^bcglorf:
Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.
I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.

Sorry for being a dick in my last comment. I took out a bad night on you. My apologies.
Yeah, I find it hard to justify a technical based on a "stare down" without anything said. The only thing I can think of is the factor combination that the description said that player had already been warned about this and the referee might have felt they were losing control of the game. I've seen referee's make some questionable calls way skewed to being too strict because we were playing a team that we had bad blood with and the emotions were running high.


No worries, I was being bullheaded while stupidly failing to re-watch the video and confirm what I remembered was really what happened. You should have found my comments baffling and crazed.

I agree with refs having discretion in calling a game loose or tight. I even agree with refs recognizing when they've made a bad call and being tougher on the team that benefited from that for another call later just to keep the calls more even. Reffing is terrifically tough, requiring you to do a job were you will make all manner of mistakes or misses and just need to make the right balance of it all to keep things fair and controlled.

My issue is more with the nature of the rule itself. A rule that makes eye contact with your opponent immediately after dunking on them a potentially game ejecting foul seems way out of proportion.

>> ^bcglorf:

Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.
I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.


Sorry for being a dick in my last comment. I took out a bad night on you. My apologies.

Yeah, I find it hard to justify a technical based on a "stare down" without anything said. The only thing I can think of is the factor combination that the description said that player had already been warned about this and the referee might have felt they were losing control of the game. I've seen referee's make some questionable calls way skewed to being too strict because we were playing a team that we had bad blood with and the emotions were running high.

I don't take recitation of those statistics as being racist in itself. Again, I'm using context. I know people who actually work in poor and ethnic communities that use such stats as a benchmark or as a reason to call folks to positive action.

If he has good at heart, when has Newt actually worked for positive change in this community that he so soundly criticizes? Obama was a community organizer in poor areas of Chicago. As a legislator he sponsored bills that directly helped people in poor areas and people in the black community. So, when he uses such stats--and he actually does have a history of telling all types of crowds to stick to a work ethic--Obama doesn't come off as a ne'er-do-well.

I know people who work at youth outreach centers and soup kitchens in DC. Noone has ever seen ol' Newt drop in to help. I've never heard of him sponsoring a bill to help the poor of DC, though he can rattle off all the problems those people have. As a longtime legislator and one-time speaker of the house and someone who lived in the DC area at least part time, he's had plenty of opportunity to lend a hand, but hasn't chosen to do so.

The guy's a professional speaker, but I've never heard of him browbeating poor whites. Hell, he's in South Carolina; he has plenty of chances to tell white people to get off welfare and food stamps. He could have used the stage in the video to do so. But, no, he has to pick on blacks to play to a white crowd.

Newt has such a well known public, political and legislative history that you don't have to troll youtube to see where he's coming from. The people who gave him a standing ovation certainly know.

>> ^Diogenes:

@longde
you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies
forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself
i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself
perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line
now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race
so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected
here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."
taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive
i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s
but again, i could be wrong...

@longde

you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies

forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself

i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself

perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line

now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race

so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected

here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."

taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive

i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s

but again, i could be wrong...

seems to me that there only need to be a few extraordinary and exceptional cases for this average percentage rate of return to skew as tremendously high as this.

Anyone want to dig up the data to check if my hunch is correct and that this isn't as straight a regression curve as the TYT is making it seem?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop.>> ^rottenseed:

I play an asshole to enhance when I'm being a sweetheart. I'm just skewing the playing field a little bit. That might seem like I'm cheating, but balancing that asshole-to-charming ratio is a constant struggle.

I play an asshole to enhance when I'm being a sweetheart. I'm just skewing the playing field a little bit. That might seem like I'm cheating, but balancing that asshole-to-charming ratio is a constant struggle.

@longde

Cool. Societies need more immigrants that raise the average, and less immigrants that lower the average.


I don't see a link to those stats, but the following stats seem more accurate:

The US Bureau of the Census, 2009, finds that East Asian immigrants score the highest in bachelor's degree attainment: 66%. The numbers skew even more in the 2nd generation (the first generation born here): 72%. Additionally, the numbers likely skew even more for advanced degrees, rather than just bachelor's degrees.


Regarding general populations, we can make confident predictions about the future trajectory of nations based on the high average educational performance of poor areas in East Asia relative to the lower average educational performance of wealthier areas in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Europe. Anyway, it's good to see the stories of the young scholars in that video.

>> ^aaronfr:

Perhaps more informative would have been to show published science articles per capita or per GDP. Or at least have the first map as a representation of population or GDP so that we could see where we really expect there to be pockets of science research. Per capita would make Japan, Germany, and France that much more impressive. Per GDP would explain Africa and South America (except Brazil). Either way, the point would be enhanced not detracted from.


I think it'd harm japan if done per capita. It'd help britain and france a lot. It'd murder china.

Per GDP is tough. I think it favours small and stable landmasses again. Britain is slipping in GDP but scientifically fairly strong. Places like saudi arabia aren't necessarily known for their science but they're definitely known for wealth. A good few places might have skewed GDP because of corrupt bonus culture balancing people living in poverty.

I agree with most of what you say but I also believe that most Sifters realize what RT News really is. That being said, FOX screwed up; in this case, RT seems to be reporting the truth (although perhaps with some skew ).

Obviously you can't take anything (especially news sources) at face value, there is always some degree of interpretation involved. I don't think anyone is getting tricked by RTN.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Seeing RT posted constantly on VideoSift worries me as it is a state-run network and clearly a mouthpiece for Kremlin propaganda.

It's especially funny seeing an interviewed 'expert' on RT here talking about the western media taking cues from the government when this is clearly what RT is engaged in, damage control after the Russian elections.

The general narrative taken for this story is generally pretty hilarious as it desperately tries to make a loose link from (1) 'Fox fuck-up' to (2) 'western media is out to get Russia' to (3) 'western governments which control the media are out to topple foreign governments and were instrumental in the Ukraine/Georgia movements'.

Notice also how the presenter uses the term 'rally' not 'protest'.

Wow, AC is so bitter. It seems that he's oblivious to the scale of inequity and its exponential growth in recent years. If he would really examine the balance of equality in the "good old days," he would realize that it was much more equitable.

Goods used to be American made and today's globalization has seen manufacturing almost disappear and replaced by outsourcing and child labour. From a purely business standpoint, this makes sense. There is no law against foreign investment, so it's not economical to be patriotic.

And here we are today, with the balance so skewed that it makes sense to pay a few hundred million to buy a senator, republican or a judge. A few years down the road, you'll be paid back by sidestepping that environmental restriction or class-action lawsuit or anything else that might hurt your business.

And if you're an investment banker or bis securities trader, you provide very little to society other than a higher tax rate that you can comfortably afford. But even then, you can weasel your way out of most of that with creative deductions and perfectly legal loopholes. Remember what Warren Buffet said about his cleaning lady? Do you think he was talking out of his ass?

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.




>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.
No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.
Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.
Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?
As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,
Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.

your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.
And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223
Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?
How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?
So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?
I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.
Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.
Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.

>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.

No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.

Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.

Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?

As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,

Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.



your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.

And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.

Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.


>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive