Evolution

New York, NY

#13016 May 23, 2013
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." (Romans 1:20-23)

These inspired words of God should be posted over the door to every science and biology lab in every state university in America. Every person born into the world is born with enough conscience to tell him that God created the Heaven and the Earth. If you do not believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth, then it is because you've allowed someone to educate you out of your faith in God's word. You have been tricked into forsaking the Bible by placing your faith in a man-made religion called "Evolution."

Someone says, "Evolution is not a religion." Evolution IS a religion, because it lacks scientific evidence, thus requiring it's adherents to follow Darwin's theory by FAITH. Evolution is a RELIGIOUS CREED based upon blind faith. There is not in existence one single piece of scientific evidence which proves that man has evolved upward from animals. It is impossible to prove any theory of origins "scientifically," because the very essence of the scientific method is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, and no scientist has ever observed or experimented with the origin of the universe.

All scientists know this, including L. Harrison Matthews. In his forward to Darwin's 1971 edition of "Origin of the Species", Matthews says, ""...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." In other words, the theory of evolution is a theory based on FAITH, rather than scientific fact.

ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH

Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than "evidence" to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored. A fine example of this behavior can be found in the work of Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:

"When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)

So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, NOT because it can be proven, but rather because it is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. The evolutionist has gotten himself into a trap where he must spend the rest of his life running from God.
Evolution

New York, NY

#13017 May 23, 2013
NOT ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

The average evolutionist would have us believe that all TRUE scientists accept Darwin's theory as fact. Sir John Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, wrote the following in 1959:

"The point to make about Darwin's theory of evolution is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun." (Tax, Sol, Ed. "Evolution After Darwin," Issues in Evolution, Chicago University Press, 1960, Vol. 3, p. 41.)

See how the system works? A scientist cannot be recognized as a SERIOUS scientist unless he REJECTS THE BIBLE and RECEIVES EVOLUTION. Well, there have been, and still are, MANY serious scientists who do not believe in evolution. For example, Dr. Albert Fleischman, Professor of Zoology at the University of Erlangen in Germany, says, "The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination."

Professor L.T. More, of the University of Chicago, says, "Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, everyone of his arguments is contradicted by fact."

Professor A.C. Steward, from the Cambridge University, says, "A student who takes an impartial retrospect soon discovers that the fossil record raises more problems than it solves."

Dr. Austin Clark, F.R.G.S., of the American Geophysical Union, opposes evolution by saying, "The great groups of animal life do not merge into one another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning."

So the Bible believer must understand that he is not alone in his stand against Darwin's foolish theory. There have always been a few scientists around who were honest and open-minded enough to consider all the facts and take an unpopular stand for the TRUTH, rather than IGNORE the facts and take a POPULAR stand for evolution. We should thank God for them.
Evolution

New York, NY

#13018 May 23, 2013
WHAT ABOUT THEISTIC EVOLUTION?

Some have begun to compromise by professing to believe in the Biblical account of creation AND in Darwin's theory. These people call themselves "Theistic Evolutionists." They belong in the same category as "sober alcoholics" and "liberal conservatives." In the Bible, God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1). In evolution, natural chance can account for the existence of all things. In the Bible, all life forms are created in six literal days (Gen. 1). In evolution, life forms evolve over millions of years. In the Bible, creation has been completed (Gen. 2:3). In evolution, a natural creative process continues. In the Bible, oceans appear before land (Gen. 1:9). In evolution, land appears first. In the Bible, life begins on land (Gen. 1:11). In evolution, life began in water. In the Bible, the earth is made before the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 1:14-19). In evolution, the earth comes later. In the Bible, all stars are made on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16). In evolution, the stars evolve at various times. In the Bible, birds and fishes are created on the fifth day (Gen. 1:20, 21). In evolution, fishes evolve hundreds of millions of years before birds. In the Bible, man appears before rain (Gen. 2:5). In evolution, rain appears before man. In the Bible, man is created before woman (Gen. 2:21-22). In evolution, woman genetically appears before man. In the Bible, light appears before the sun (Gen. 1:3-19; Psa. 74:16). In evolution, the sun appears before any light. In the Bible, plants appear before the sun (Gen. 1:11-19). In evolution, the sun appears first. In the Bible, the human body comes from dirt (Gen. 2:7). In evolution, the human body evolves from monkeys. In the Bible, man exercises dominion over all organisms (Gen. 1:28). In evolution, most organisms become extinct before man evolves. In the Bible, man is originally a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29). In evolution, man is originally a meat eater. In the Bible, life comes in fixed and distinct "kinds" (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; I Cor. 15:38-39). In evolution, life forms are in a continual state of flux. In the Bible, man's sin is the cause of death (Rom. 5:12). In evolution, struggle and death exist long before man evolves.

Evolution is the intellectual basis for two of the biggest devils of the 20th century: Hitler's Naziism and Mark's communism. Secular humanism, atheism, and liberalism are all the evil fruits of Darwin's hellish theory. The Lord Jesus said, "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20), and the fruit of evolution clearly assures us that Darwin's theory is as far away from Biblical truth as Hell is from Heaven. "Theistic evolution" is too funny for words.
Evolution

New York, NY

#13019 May 23, 2013
HAS EVOLUTION BEEN PROVEN?

Over the years, being hard-pressed for real evidence, the evolutionists have managed to conjure up a number of "proofs" that Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. This so-called "evidence" is worshipped by all evolutionists, while all contrary evidence is ignored. Let's consider some of their evidence.

VESTIGIAL ORGANS are believed by evolutionists to be parts of the human body that are no longer needed. Therefore these useless body parts must be "left-overs" from our ancestors, the monkeys. These "useless" body parts include the appendix, the coccyx (tail bone), the pineal gland, the plica semilunaris, the tonsils, and the ear lobes.

Naturally, the facts are ignored. Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't "vestigial organs" in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather.

Another "proof" for evolution is found in the field of BIOCHEMISTRY. This is where scientists mix genes and chromosomes in their effort to prove relation between man and animal.

Is there any conclusive evidence? No there isn't. Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904. Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys! There isn't one ounce of real evidence anywhere in the entire field of biochemistry which proves that men and animals are kin--just theories and wishful thinking.

EMBRYOLOGY is another field of study. This is where unborn embryos are studied in order to detect the preformed shape of humans and animals. This is the field where we find Haeckel talking about "ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY" This is the belief that every individual passes through the many evolutionary stages while still in the mother's womb. That is, you body took on the shape of an amoeba, then a paramecium, then a jelly fish, then a fish, then a bunch of other creatures during the nine months prior to your birth. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that respiratory systems develop LATE in the human embryo. So how did early mammal life exist without breathing? They've also ignored the fact that the head of an unborn baby is larger than the body, which is NOT the case with fish.

Since: May 13

Ellijay, GA

#13020 May 23, 2013
I expect we've seen the death of the Boy Scouts today.
I am hearing many have pulled out and are joining the National Royal Rangers.

Very sad.
Evolution

New York, NY

#13021 May 23, 2013
Professor Waldo Sumway, of Stephens Institute of Technology, says that "There is never a time in the development of a mammal when it could have been mistaken for a fish or reptile."

Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution. This is where evolutionists develop a "disneyland" mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. Then they proceed to divide this chart up into various time frames containing hundreds of millions of years each. As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart.

This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART! It's nothing more than blind guesswork. No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The chart is NOT scientific. In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old! Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings. You've heard of people "buying time?" Well, evolutionists just DREAM IT UP.

Another "proof" for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must have evolved from the same original ancestors. Of course, this is more

nonsense. Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED! In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!

The sixth argument used to support evolution is the so-called FOSSIL EVIDENCE. The evolutionist believes that the fossil record proves a progressive evolution of the species over millions of years, beginning with non-living matter. This non-living matter supposedly evolves into protozoans, and the protozoans evolve into metazoan invertebrates, which evolve into vertebrate fishes. The fishes evolve into amphibians, which evolve into reptiles, which evolve into birds. The birds then evolve into fur-bearing quadrupeds (animals with 4 legs), and these quadrupeds evolve into apes, and the apes evolve into man.

Now for those who actually believe such a fable, we have a question: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? If all of those life forms survived by changing into higher life forms, then would someone please show us one living example of this today? Where can we observe a reptile who is slowly changing into a bird? How about a bird who is turning into a four-legged animal? This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution: NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Even Darwin realized this in his "Origin of the Species" when he said that "this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it." (Vol. 2, 6th Ed. p. 49)

Yes, it certainly is. The more the fossil record builds, the weaker the theory of evolution becomes, because the needed transitional forms are NOT BEING FOUND to link the species! They never will be found, because the species are NOT LINKED (I Cor. 15:38-39).
Evolution

New York, NY

#13022 May 23, 2013
The evolutionist also runs into another problem when he considers WHERE and HOW many fossils are found. The devout evolutionist subscribes to the belief that things are pretty much the same as always. He believes that there have been no major world catastrophes to wipe out animal life, but that various species have become extinct as a result of failing to adapt to their environment. The problem with this is the stubborn fact that there are many burial sites around the world which are literally paved with fossils! Often times such fossils are found in a totally different climate from that in which they once lived. Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it. It is explained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8--the Flood.

Before moving on to our next section, a few words should be said about the various "ape men" that have been found and placed neatly on the fictional cartoon chart in standard text books. A few simple cases will be more than enough to show the reader that Anthropology is not without it's humor.

In 1922, a bunch of bones were found in Nebraska by a man named Harold Cook. After studying the upper and lower jaws and the teeth of some thirty animals, a complete ape known as Ramapithecus was constructed on the basis of ONE TOOTH! Years later, the entire skeleton from which the tooth came was found. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig.

Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered the famous Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1891. This "great discovery" consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth. But, instead of being found all together, these remains were found in an area of about seventy feet, and they were found over about a year's time. They were also found in an old river bed with other assorted extinct animal bones. This, of course, presents a number of problems for Java Man. How can the "experts" be so sure that these remains all came from the same being? Better yet, how do such bones survive for 750,000 years without decaying? Where's the EVIDENCE to PROVE these theories? We know what the scientists want to believe about these findings, but WHERE'S THE PROOF?

Piltdown man was discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson claimed to have found some bones, some teeth, and even some primitive implements in a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to a British museum where anthropologists claimed that they were 500,000 years old. Textbooks throughout the world then proclaimed Piltdown Man as the greatest find to date. Then in October of 1956, Reader's Digest EXPOSED this finding as "The Great Piltdown Hoax." The bones where found to be fraudulent. The jaw bone was proven to have belonged to an ape which had died only FIFTY YEARS before (not 500,000). The teeth had been filed down, and both, teeth and bones, had been discovered with bichromate of potash to cover up their true identity! So much for Piltdown Man.
Evolution

New York, NY

#13023 May 23, 2013
The so-called Neanderthal Man was discovered around 1900 in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Naturally, he was hailed as another great "missing link." Since that time, it has been proven that Neanderthal wasn't an ape-man at all. He turned out to be a fully erect human being with a cranial capacity of over 13% more than that of normal man. Today, he is classified as "Homo Sapiens" (completely human). The "missing link" is still missing.

Finally, we come to Lucy, a 40% skeleton found in Ethiopia by D.C. Johanson in the 70's. Johanson claimed that "Lucy" had walked on two legs, because of the "angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at it's knee joint" (National Geographic, December, 1976). However, the knee joint was badly crushed; so Johanson's conclusion is mere speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard said the "Lucy" did NOT walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. The chimpanzee DOES spend some time walking upright, so this was probably just another ape.

Now this is the kind of "evidence" which supports evolution. This is what a child is taught in the public school system and in the state universities as "scientific fact." This is what the Bible labels as "science falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20).
Evolution

New York, NY

#13024 May 23, 2013
HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?

Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.

This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.

The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:

The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.

Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.

Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.

The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?

You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13025 May 23, 2013
bored monitor wrote:
<quoted text>
U missed the point where BillofDville said he wasn't posting the name bcuz the author would be targeted not what he said. Does it change what Mr. Conrad wrote? What is the name of the book or article?
You have to realize that the liberaces will respond to different questions or avoid answering questions/comments when they are nailed to the wall.

Bam, liberace down...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13026 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that THE POSTER was too embarrassed to even name his source.
It's even more interesting that this poster missed my point of not using the author's name. Why? Does the points made by the author change anything based on where he used to work (or perhaps still does)?

I imagine the poster, or his/her circle jerk buddies, still can't debate the points made by the author. So, go to plan B and complain about the author...

Too easy.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13027 May 23, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
POT-KETTLE-BLACK
We get a lot of that around here. The hypocrisy and irony is amazing...
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#13028 May 23, 2013
columbus native wrote:
<quoted text>Informed Opinion, you did the best you could explaining the truth to this very disturbed confused angry woman but unfortunately there is no hope trying to reason with these kind of republicans. The positive side is that her and many like her are now in the minority of the voting population!
Thank God, there average chronological age is 117, even if there mental age and maturity level is about 9.

How ironic it is that they are alive because of the very programs they hate.

Kind of like that Right Wing Wacko battle cry: "Let's meet at the Social Security office to protest socialism."
Indeed

Dahlonega, GA

#13029 May 23, 2013
Death Panel wrote:
I expect we've seen the death of the Boy Scouts today.
I am hearing many have pulled out and are joining the National Royal Rangers.
Very sad.
It is very sad. But we know God is in control so worry not.
The WB

Dahlonega, GA

#13031 May 23, 2013
Evolution wrote:
HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?
Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.
This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.
The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:
The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.
Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.
Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.
Thank you for speaking truth.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13032 May 23, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmm, even without knowing who the author is my first impression was why is only the cost of union labor the source of this problem, why are management salaries and compensation not part of the equation. Then we learned who the author is and it all became very clear.
What do you think has more impact on the cost of something, management salaries/compensation or "worker" salaries/compensation?

Does it really matter who the author is? Can you refute/debate the points? No, I didn't think so...

Have you EVER been in a position where you could analyze both of the items in the first paragraph? Perhaps you're the typical "non-management" person complaining about "management" because you can't "get there"...
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#13033 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Now let's think about this --

Would Bain Capitol be pro or anti union?

Union contracts might interfere with firing people for no reason before you send their jobs off to Indonesia.

On the other hand, Union Contracts might make it harder to fire people, loot the company, and claim bankruptcy and cash in the pension accounts.

So.. Bain union or anti-union?

Gee that's a head-scratcher.
Bain Capital -

Buy company with borrowed money;
Loot same;
File Bankruptcy;
Screw creditors;
Void union contracts;
Screw employees;
Dump pension liabilities on taxpayers;
Give bonuses to management;
Bankruptcy Trustee sells off remnants.

Buy company;
Repeat above.

Buy company;
Repeat above.

Looted

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13034 May 23, 2013
Former Bain wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you care what Bain's stance is re unions? They would find it more interesting when there is someone named Chicknbut trashing them online. So, they fired people for no reason and shipped their jobs to Indonesia? Really? Bain raids pension funds? Really?
When Bain acquired a company where the employees were unionized, it was much easier for Bain to negotiate with a union rep than several hundred employees. However, corruption always seemed to come to the surface when the union rep demanded extra incentives for himself so as to get the membership to "go along". Bain would not participate in a shakedown of that nature.
+1

There's so many posters that have never been involved in anything like the above, yet they know so much, it's laughable.

Yet, still, they can't refute the points...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13035 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how within about an hour of mentioning Bain Capitol in a dinky little forum like this we SUDDENLY have some new poster we've never heard from, within the hour, show up to defend Bain.
One would almost think that a registered poster logged out and is trying to defend himself under an assumed name.
One would almost think that.
/waves at Bill
Interesting "concept", I'm sure the poster has done it before, but how would I get a Dawsonville ISP? Hmmm...

BTW, I don't need another person posting to support my comments, quite contrary to you and your circle jerk friends...

Interesting that this poster still hasn't addressed the points made previously. Perhaps "Chicken" is the correct name...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13036 May 23, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Bill not state that you wouldn't accept the book?
That doesn't make what he posted not true. You just don't agree with it. That's all. As a capitalist, I think it's totally true.
Typical response of the poster you're referencing, isn't it?

The little dogs should stay on the porch until he/she can play with the adults...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hinesville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Looking for male CKC German Shepherd to breed w... Dec 10 redheadredneck1990 1
Zaxyby's Dec 9 Curious 1
STC Names Semi-Finalists in Student Competition Dec 3 Bob Jenkins 1
Best internet provider Nov '14 JessicAb 1
Missing dog Nov '14 Josh Roberson 2
About 200 Fort Stewart soldiers heading to Afgh... Oct '14 Gro 1
The Billy Crowder Case (Mar '12) Oct '14 joey88 91
Hinesville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hinesville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hinesville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hinesville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:46 am PST

NFL 9:46AM
Injury roundup: Julio Jones questionable vs. Panthers
NBC Sports10:02 AM
Julio Jones, Steven Jackson questionable for Sunday
NBC Sports10:26 AM
Panthers RB Williams probable vs. Falcons - NBC Sports
ESPN10:41 AM
Panthers RB Stewart gets nod vs. Falcons
NBC Sports11:09 AM
Falcons boosted by Julio Jones' return to practice - NBC Sports