Did you vote today?

[The Cabbit]

This copy paste thing had to stop. If you need an example of a good rant look at reality check blog. He/she made a very strong case. I don't fully agree, but it made my gears turn.

[BARNEYII]

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>Allegedly hell. Who said there is no autopsy? You libs just keep pulling it out of your ass!

Read it again.

There is No autopsy evidence showing the agents death being caused by those weapons allegedly found at the crime scene.

If you can provide prove otherwise,

SHOW ME.

[guest]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Read it again.
There is No autopsy evidence showing the agents death being caused by those weapons allegedly found at the crime scene.
If you can provide prove otherwise,
SHOW ME.

What's the difference if Warrior shows you or not, you will just deny it if he did. I see you're hypocrisy continues to grow at an alarming rate...

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
What Republican said what I just said? Did I say "all of the increases" or did you add that yourself? For someone who prides themselves on citing sources, you sure don't mind inserting things you need to change the meanings to fit your "counterpoints". The question is, do you believe the "new and improved" post after you have edited it? I think you do.

.

It did not change anything, it added to the proof that debunked your statement.


Being the spineless individual you are and incapable of admitting you are wrong, one could only expect such a juvenile rebuttal.

[guest]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>.
It did not change anything, it added to the proof that debunked your statement.
Being the spineless individual you are and incapable of admitting you are wrong, one could only expect such a juvenile rebuttal.

A truly, truly alarming rate...

[BARNEYII]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>What's the difference if Warrior shows you or not, you will just deny it if he did. I see you're hypocrisy continues to grow at an alarming rate...

Tell you what big boy, you find it, then lets just see what I say.

Let us see how well you predict the future.

What YA say,

or you going to just keep on barking from under the porch like a mutt?

[BARNEYII]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>What's the difference if Warrior shows you or not, you will just deny it if he did. I see you're hypocrisy continues to grow at an alarming rate...

I see your ignorance continues to grow at an alarming rate.

[guest]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell you what big boy, you find it, then lets just see what I say.
Let us see how well you predict the future.
What YA say,
or you going to just keep on barking from under the porch like a mutt?

It's not that hard to predict what you will post in the future. Just start with a lie and go from there.

If you were so sure that what you were posting was the truth, you'd let your words stand alone instead of hypocritically demanding others to what you'd never do yourself. It's called confidence, something that your nazi-like responses show you have none of. However, you can't because your entire arguments are, at best, based on false premises. Even the lies you plagiarize from your left-wing hate sites.

[Reality Check]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>.
It did not change anything, it added to the proof that debunked your statement.
Being the spineless individual you are and incapable of admitting you are wrong, one could only expect such a juvenile rebuttal.

You got backed in a corner by your own deception and lies so don't go blaming me. Kinda like Obama still blames Bush. I shouldn't be suprised but somehow since it's you I am suprised. I guess I figured you somehow didn't engage in every liberal gutter tactic but I see I was wrong.

[BARNEYII]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>It's not that hard to predict what you will post in the future. Just start with a lie and go from there.
If you were so sure that what you were posting was the truth, you'd let your words stand alone instead of hypocritically demanding others to what you'd never do yourself. It's called confidence, something that your nazi-like responses show you have none of. However, you can't because your entire arguments are, at best, based on false premises. Even the lies you plagiarize from your left-wing hate sites.

If I did not have the "confidence" it was true, I sure would not have issued the challenge to prove me wrong.

What I am "demanding others" to do, YOU Inarticulately, is to prove your opinion,

being my "entire arguments are, at best, based on FALSE premises'

that would be extremely easy to accomplish.

But yet, your still under the porch barking like a scared
Ad hominem attack, Mutt.

[BARNEYII]

- I meant in particular, but both would apply to your post.

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
You got backed in a corner by your own deception and lies so don't go blaming me. Kinda like Obama still blames Bush. I shouldn't be suprised but somehow since it's you I am suprised. I guess I figured you somehow didn't engage in every liberal gutter tactic but I see I was wrong.

Sure I did, show me the facts you base your obvious flawed opinion up on.

Post #'s please.

[The Cabbit]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, the people in oil I know tell a different story. They are telling me that we have more oil under our feet than we know what to do with. Oil is what they do. They are not some numbers cruncher sitting in an office in some building somewhere giving politicians the answers they need to push their agenda. They are the people in the field drilling the wells. But do with it what you will, you haven't listened to anything sensible that anyone has said so I don't know why you would start now. Your "scientists", know that greenhouse gasses are solely responsible how? Everything in science is a hypothesis even after it's been "proven". Scientist set out to prove the big bang theory decades ago. When they finally scientifically got to the point of the actual explosion, the laws of physics simply fell apart. They wouldn't even hold up under the magnitude of such an explosion it would have taken to create life. So with their whole world gone they went back to the drawing board and started creating "what if" scenarios by changing certain aspects of their formulas. The result was what is now considered by many to be the explination of life and that's parallell universes.
"Regarding parallel universes, string theory might eventually prove their existence in other dimensions, he said. As to the concept of the “multiverse,” our universe could be considered like a bubble, and there could be other bubbles existing in a kind of bubble bath, he explained, and sometimes these bubbles bump into each other resulting in something like the Big Bang. What existed before the Big Bang?“We should find evidence of an ‘umbilical cord’…perhaps connecting our universe to a parallel universe,” he posited. NASA is considering launching LISA, a laser space antenna that could reveal data of our cosmological origins." This is an article about Michio Kaku a theoretical physicist and the science world's "new view" on how we came to existence. I wouldn't trust the science community's views on anything that can't be physically touched or accurately traced back to it's origin through historical data. You obviously buy everything the science community says whole heartedly.

Ahh yes. I have done my research. I believe you where referring to
the question. " What gives particles mass?" That can be explained by the Higgs field. It is the field that pushes particles to form mass. Which was proven by the discovery of not 1 but 2 different types of Higgs boson. So the math is sound.

SOURCES: Higgs field. http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-pos...
Higgs boson 2. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observati...

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
You got backed in a corner by your own deception and lies so don't go blaming me. Kinda like Obama still blames Bush. I shouldn't be suprised but somehow since it's you I am suprised. I guess I figured you somehow didn't engage in every liberal gutter tactic but I see I was wrong.

Someone as clueless, and spineless as you join you in a little two opinions against one, is hardly being " backed in a corner".


- You are wrong about a lot of things,

but it is good to see you saying you are wrong.

[BARNEYII]

The Cabbit wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahh yes. I have done my research. I believe you where referring to
the question. " What gives particles mass?" That can be explained by the Higgs field. It is the field that pushes particles to form mass. Which was proven by the discovery of not 1 but 2 different types of Higgs boson. So the math is sound.
SOURCES: Higgs field. http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-pos...
Higgs boson 2. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observati...

You could be new to this thread, so let me warn you, if you have not noticed already, that using research and links could lead to you being accused of,

"engage in every liberal gutter tactic",

or worse yet be branded with this ID

"plagiarize from your left-wing hate sites"..


The Horror.

[The Cabbit]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
You could be new to this thread, so let me warn you, if you have not noticed already, that using research and links could lead to you being accused of,
"engage in every liberal gutter tactic",
or worse yet be branded with this ID
"plagiarize from your left-wing hate sites"..
The Horror.

I'm am not bias in any way. I am a devote Christian. Who love discovering God. Through science and faith.

Also it's only plagiarized. If some one. Copies and paste without posting the source. I hate that.

[BARNEYII]

The Cabbit wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm am not bias in any way. I am a devote Christian. Who love discovering God. Through science and faith.
Also it's only plagiarized. If some one. Copies and paste without posting the source. I hate that.

I have to disagree with you, a copy & paste is not plagiarizing if you do not claim or purposely lead someone to believe you were the author of the words of the cut & paste.

"Copies and paste without posting the source. I hate that."

I agree it is very inconvenient to put some lines of the post into goggle, or whatever search engine you choose, to find out where that came from.

[BARNEYII]

The Cabbit wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm am not bias in any way. I am a devote Christian. Who love discovering God. Through science and faith.
Also it's only plagiarized. If some one. Copies and paste without posting the source. I hate that.

I'm am not bias in any way. I am a devote Christian"

So are you saying your not bias toward Christianity though you choose to identify yourself as a "Christian" ?

[The Cabbit]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm am not bias in any way. I am a devote Christian"
So are you saying your not bias toward Christianity though you choose to identify yourself as a "Christian" ?

Yes. I wasn't always a Christian. Growing up as a child. In a Christian household. I was taught the earth was only 5000 years old. I of course believed it. I went to a Christian school. So they only taught creationism, but then they taught erosion. The force that tore down mountain and dug river canyons. I immediately thought of the grand canyon. The time it took for that canyon was well over 5000 years. It took me many years to come to the conclusion that God and nature are one and the same. So why should he/she/it work outside the natural. So for me to understand nature is to understand God.

I choose not to push my faith on others and just less by example. Listen to there side, and try to love them or at least tolerate them.

So no I have not have a but bias that I wish to push on people. I could be wrong though. I would like to hear back from anybody. That had an opinion on this matter.

[dont know nothin]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, the people in oil I know tell a different story. They are telling me that we have more oil under our feet than we know what to do with. Oil is what they do. They are not some numbers cruncher sitting in an office in some building somewhere giving politicians the answers they need to push their agenda. They are the people in the field drilling the wells. But do with it what you will, you haven't listened to anything sensible that anyone has said so I don't know why you would start now. Your "scientists", know that greenhouse gasses are solely responsible how? Everything in science is a hypothesis even after it's been "proven". Scientist set out to prove the big bang theory decades ago. When they finally scientifically got to the point of the actual explosion, the laws of physics simply fell apart. They wouldn't even hold up under the magnitude of such an explosion it would have taken to create life. So with their whole world gone they went back to the drawing board and started creating "what if" scenarios by changing certain aspects of their formulas. The result was what is now considered by many to be the explination of life and that's parallell universes.
"Regarding parallel universes, string theory might eventually prove their existence in other dimensions, he said. As to the concept of the “multiverse,” our universe could be considered like a bubble, and there could be other bubbles existing in a kind of bubble bath, he explained, and sometimes these bubbles bump into each other resulting in something like the Big Bang. What existed before the Big Bang?“We should find evidence of an ‘umbilical cord’…perhaps connecting our universe to a parallel universe,” he posited. NASA is considering launching LISA, a laser space antenna that could reveal data of our cosmological origins." This is an article about Michio Kaku a theoretical physicist and the science world's "new view" on how we came to existence. I wouldn't trust the science community's views on anything that can't be physically touched or accurately traced back to it's origin through historical data. You obviously buy everything the science community says whole heartedly.

Your so called people that you know that deal directly with the oil such as drilling and pipelines know nothing further than what their job requires them to do. They know how to drill and where to drill for oil. They DO NOT know how much oil sits underneath the united states and off it's shores. They are being paid to do a job that they may or may not do well. They are not paid to figure out how much oil is able to be drilled, they are there to drill and thats what they do. The company that they work for may or may not know the figures behind what lies beneath the U.S. or off its shores. The researchers and scientist;however, do KNOW what lies beneath and off shores because that is THEIR JOB. Your scenario implies that the drillers know more than the scientist is the same as asking an employee at Mcdonalds drive thru what the stock outlook for 10 years is projected for the company, they do not and would not know. Don't believe me ask the next one you come too. My suggestion to you is if you DO NOT believe in science then why are you using it and involved in it everyday? Everything around you even your body was discovered, learned about, and developed through what? Science! I do not support the theory of the big bang and would like further research done to prove those scientific theories, but i do believe in the research behind them. Physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences are taught everyday in school and are accepted by our culture as being accurate in far more fields than they are inaccurate. If you do not believe in science then you should NOT go to a doctor, because everything they do and have been taught revolves around such. There are many ways to disprove your thinking and simple minded thesis.