PDA

View Full Version : Oh ok


Southpaw2012
07-16-2015, 06:41 PM
Crazy, white racist attacks an all black church and suddenly there's a culture war against whites, flags, guns, etc etc. Today, another Islamic extremist savage attacks and kills multiple marines on behalf of ISIS, because of course liberals don't want marines to conceal and carry guns, and there is zero backlash, other than against guns, as usual. Our president and his liberal regime can't admit we're in a religious war against a violent sect of Islam, but ISIS sure can and they will continue to kill unless we have a serious debate. Instead of debating how stupid a Confederate flag is (which it is and belongs in a museum), how about we have a good ole discussion with the Muslim community and discuss how perhaps instead of the Islam-American Council supporting terrorist groups like Hamas, they can speak up against this violent sect of Islam that will conquer the world until idiots wake up.

Nazbaque
07-16-2015, 08:06 PM
coward

Southpaw2012
07-16-2015, 09:24 PM
He wasn't just a coward, but a savage. These barbarians want a fight, so why not take it to them? Our military could wipe them out in 3 months if we wanted to, but we won't because our "leader" doesn't want to hurt his reputation or offend anyone. Screw that. I would be cheering loud and clear if he'd be a leader of the free world and lead our nation against these Islamic savages. Contrary to what Obama says, we aren't winning the war. His generals say we aren't, common sense says we're not, the world says we're not. Still waiting for Obama to call them Islamic monsters

Nazbaque
07-16-2015, 10:09 PM
He wasn't just a coward, but a savage. These barbarians want a fight, so why not take it to them? Our military could wipe them out in 3 months if we wanted to, but we won't because our "leader" doesn't want to hurt his reputation or offend anyone. Screw that. I would be cheering loud and clear if he'd be a leader of the free world and lead our nation against these Islamic savages. Contrary to what Obama says, we aren't winning the war. His generals say we aren't, common sense says we're not, the world says we're not. Still waiting for Obama to call them Islamic monsters

Actually I meant you. You are a coward Southpaw. You are afraid and you let that fear dictate your actions. Such as constantly complaining to us for example. You are so focused on US and world politics, but all you do is hide from the fact you are afraid. But that fear is in your mind and you can't run away from it. So face it. Fight it. Stay calm and focused and choose your actions based on what you yourself are and what you want to be. Every human being starts out as a baby. Anyone can grow to be a monster or a saint. There are no shortcuts to this no race is automatically good or bad, no nationality and no religion. Everyone on this planet can make their choices and it is those choices that define us. Right now your choices make you a coward. Is that what you want to be?

Terez
07-16-2015, 10:41 PM
All these liberal victories are really getting to him. It's kind of amusing to watch. (No point in engaging, though.)

The Unreasoner
07-17-2015, 01:22 AM
Southpaw: Start a fucking blog.

Seriously, what did I tell you about taking out multiple toys at a time? If you actually participated in the threads you create, we might care enough to listen and seriously engage. But you just post the latest talking point from the far right and wander off.

Perhaps at least keep your bullshit one-off posts contained in a single thread?

GonzoTheGreat
07-17-2015, 04:36 AM
These barbarians want a fight, so why not take it to them?Do you really want to send US soldiers into Saudi Arabia to conquer and occupy Mecca and Medina?

I hope you are knowledgeable enough at least to be aware that the ISIS sect is of Saudi origin, and that the only way of "taking the fight to them" is to do so on Saudi soil.

GonzoTheGreat
07-17-2015, 06:05 AM
And now for something entirely different (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33541502).

Ozymandias
07-17-2015, 10:26 AM
Crazy, white racist attacks an all black church and suddenly there's a culture war against whites, flags, guns, etc etc. Today, another Islamic extremist savage attacks and kills multiple marines on behalf of ISIS, because of course liberals don't want marines to conceal and carry guns, and there is zero backlash, other than against guns, as usual. Our president and his liberal regime can't admit we're in a religious war against a violent sect of Islam, but ISIS sure can and they will continue to kill unless we have a serious debate. Instead of debating how stupid a Confederate flag is (which it is and belongs in a museum), how about we have a good ole discussion with the Muslim community and discuss how perhaps instead of the Islam-American Council supporting terrorist groups like Hamas, they can speak up against this violent sect of Islam that will conquer the world until idiots wake up.

The difference is that the racial issues in the US are of our own making, are institutionalized in our society, and are at least conceivably curable at our own initiative.

There is not much we can do about fanatical Islamic fascists. It is a war that will never end, and we merely need to accept that and commit to fighting it whenever it pops up.

Ivhon
07-17-2015, 11:02 AM
And because you only get your information from Fox News, you don't know that the ISIS tweet was a hoax (not to say that it wont come out that he was radicalized, but he's homegrown with no prior record other than the stops that come from having a muslim name).

Just like the Planned Parenthood video
Just like the ACORN video

You might want to turn off Pravda and actually open your eyes.

Oh, hey. Guess what? Did you know that people on the terrorism watchlist are 90% effective in obtaining guns legally? What self-respecting, muslim-hating, god fearing anti-terrorist Republican let THAT happen? Oh, yeah...the ones that suck off the NRA...

Davian93
07-17-2015, 01:18 PM
coward

Well said.

Nazbaque
07-17-2015, 02:00 PM
Well said.

What? No rep?

A deeply philosophical and dramatic, even poetic condemnation and no rep?

Mort
07-17-2015, 02:41 PM
How about a slight update to the ignore list function? I can still see people's threads when I have them on my ignore list.

And I can't understand how you people still reply to this crap.

Nazbaque
07-17-2015, 05:33 PM
How about a slight update to the ignore list function? I can still see people's threads when I have them on my ignore list.

And I can't understand how you people still reply to this crap.

In my case it's boredom. I want to see if I can hijack these things and discuss something a bit more meaningful. Like how it's pretty obvious that egg came before chicken if you think about it logically.

GonzoTheGreat
07-18-2015, 04:05 AM
In my case it's boredom. I want to see if I can hijack these things and discuss something a bit more meaningful. Like how it's pretty obvious that egg came before chicken if you think about it logically.Then again, chickens aren't known for being very logical beings, so it is doubtful they would be bothered by a lack of logic. Thus, the chicken could have easily been first.

The Unreasoner
07-18-2015, 04:45 AM
In my case it's boredom. I want to see if I can hijack these things and discuss something a bit more meaningful. Like how it's pretty obvious that egg came before chicken if you think about it logically.
Logically, you need a chicken to produce a chicken egg. The first chicken probably hatched from an egg, not the egg. The mutated/evolved offspring of the chicken's immediate ancestor(s), hatched from an egg of the same species as the mother.

Just consider mules. Or, an even better analogy would be some non-sterile hybrid.

GonzoTheGreat
07-18-2015, 05:19 AM
Logically, you need a chicken to produce a chicken egg.But, as I pointed out, chickens don't know logic well enough to be aware of this.

Just consider mules. Or, an even better analogy would be some non-sterile hybrid.Exactly. The first chicken might have been the product of a non-sterile mule hybrid. Wouldn't be logical, of course, but I've dealt with that issue already.

Nazbaque
07-18-2015, 07:40 AM
Logically, you need a chicken to produce a chicken egg. The first chicken probably hatched from an egg, not the egg. The mutated/evolved offspring of the chicken's immediate ancestor(s), hatched from an egg of the same species as the mother.

Just consider mules. Or, an even better analogy would be some non-sterile hybrid.

You don't actually have to go to the evolution theory for this. You just have to look at the definitions. All chickens hatch from eggs, yet not all eggs are laid by chickens. Thus no matter how much it may look like one, if it didn't hatch from an egg it's not a real chicken. Of course this quickly leads to evolution theory, but it works as its basis rather than the other way around.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-20-2015, 03:04 AM
This (http://time.com/3961931/science-dinosaur-velociraptor-feather/) seems relevant:



Velociraptor Was a ‘Fluffy, Feathered Poodle From Hell’


Stephen Brusatte / The Conversation @US_conversation
July 17, 2015

Steve Brusatte—University of Edinburgh via AP


A new dinosaur discovery gives us new insight into an incredible moment in evolution

Tens of millions of people have flocked to theaters this summer to see Jurassic World, an action flick “starring” a team of trained Velociraptors that hunt genetically modified dinosaurs on command of their human master.

It’s a preposterous storyline of course, but very entertaining. I study dinosaurs for a living and it didn’t bother me to see Velociraptors being used as hunting dogs for the sake of good cinema. What I didn’t like, however, was that the Velociraptors were depicted as big, drab-coloured, scaly brutes.

That’s because the real Velociraptor was a lapdog-sized predator covered in feathers. Palaeontologists have known this for a while. If you look at the arm bones of Velociraptor you can see a row of bumps, identical in size and shape to the quill knobs of living birds: the anchor points for big wing feathers. But because Velociraptor hasn’t been found in the perfect geological settings that fossilise soft tissues, we don’t know exactly what its feathers would have looked like.

But we have a better idea now, thanks to the discovery of a spectacular new dinosaur from northeastern China that I studied with my colleague, Junchang Lü of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences.

Our new dinosaur, Zhenyuanlong, is one of the closest cousins of Velociraptor. Its gorgeous chocolate-coloured skeleton was found by a farmer in 125-million-year-old rocks that were laid down in a quiet lake buried by volcanic ash. It’s just the right environment for preserving the soft bits that usually decay before a fossil is formed.

Zhenyuanlong is covered in feathers. Simple hairy filaments coat much of the body, larger veined feathers stick out from the tail, and big quill-pen-feathers line the arms, layered over each other to form a wing. This is a dinosaur that looks just like a bird. If you could see it alive you would probably make no distinction between it and, say, a turkey or a vulture.

Look at Zhenyuanlong and you see what the real Velociraptor would have been like. Far from being a scaly-skinned reptilian monster, Velociraptor would have been a fluffy, feathered poodle from hell.

Dinosaurs such as Zhenyuanlong and Velociraptor are some of my favourite fossils to study. They fascinate me because they capture evolution in action. These small, fast-running, brainy predators are some of the closest relatives of birds. They are chapters in one of the greatest stories in the history of life: the evolutionary transition between fearsome carnivorous dinosaurs and their 10,000 feathered descendants that live on today, all over the world.

And this is why the discovery of Zhenyuanlong is really important. It gives us new insight into this incredible moment in evolution. Zhenyuanlong is fairly large for a close relative of birds, two metres long from snout to tail. It also has much shorter arms than Velociraptor or birds. A big, short-armed animal probably wasn’t flying, so what was it doing with its wings? We don’t know for sure.

This opens up a whole new mystery for us to solve: why did wings evolve? Did they evolve for flight, or did they first develop for something else, and were later co-opted to be used as an airfoil? We don’t know the answer yet, but since new fossils of bird-like dinosaurs are being found at an incredible rate, maybe we’ll have it solved by the time the next Jurassic Park comes out.