Liberal Forum

Ricky Tavy » 18 Aug 2017 9:53 pm » wrote: You suck Jesus with that mouth?

I'm not a *** like you and your dad.

Ricky Tavy » 18 Aug 2017 11:20 pm » wrote: I'm not the one wallowing in homo-erotica with a hating Jesus on my tongue, sicko theocrat.

I don't even know what homo-erotica is but I'll have to defer to your expertise on the subject.

Ricky Tavy » 18 Aug 2017 11:31 pm » wrote: I'm sure this isn't the first time you've been told to do this, but twist the knob, Priscilla. Your closet door not only isn't locked, it ain't even closed. You drool a hating Jesus out of one side of your mouth and nothing but homosexuality out of the other.

I drool hating Jesus? Jesus even loves you even though your mom regretted her decision her entire life not to abort you.

And no, I'm not gay so quit flirting.

Ricky Tavy » 18 Aug 2017 11:50 pm » wrote: Oh, I know Jesus loves me, or would if he exists. It's your ugly, hate-filled soul that would have him reminding us again of his warning about phony assholes who wear religion on their sleeves. Now, if you want love, you might contact the Taliban about opening an American franchise.

Awe, you poor thing. I'm not religious, ****.

If I EVER switch sides, I'll be looking up CP so QUIT **** flirting already.

Ricky Tavy » 19 Aug 2017 1:19 am » wrote: I never thought you were religious beyond a Private Maggot view of sexuality, sicko.

Oh, if "ever" was part of your sexual horizon, you would not have had CP so immediate in your fantasy, princess.

You're both dumbasses but at least CP is funny.

Ricky Tavy » 19 Aug 2017 3:55 am » wrote:
None of you are funny, and sucking up to CP as a result of him posing butch is just pathetic.

Looks like Misty's hate-squad isn't doing too well here.

roadkill » 19 Aug 2017 7:34 am » wrote:Looks like Misty's hate-squad isn't doing too well here.

It's not even worth reading their endless idiocy.

Where are all the brilliant, logical, ejucated liberals?

How can they not vanquish knuckle-draggers like us?

Str8tEdge » 19 Aug 2017 1:14 am » wrote:
Awe, you poor thing. I'm not religious, ****.

If I EVER switch sides, I'll be looking up CP so QUIT **** flirting already.

We knew all along you were a phony Christian! You BLASPHEMER!

As well as a phony Libertarian!

RichClem » 11 Mar 2011 2:48 pm » wrote:The insanity from the right is coming too fast and too furious to start a thread every time one of these Republicans says or does something crazy. So I decided to put it all in this one thread.Wow, a Republican somewhere in the country made a bad joke?Shocking, yawn.Meanwhile The Chosen One and Democrats are running a $1.6 trillion deficit and refusing to cut spending.That imperils the entire country, but little Miss Marxist is worried about a joke.Stupid clueless moonbat.

Dumb Clem?

In which year did we run a 1.6 trillion dollars deficit?

During the fiscal year of which administration?

Dumb Clem,

I dare you to post the growth rate of federal spending under each administration since Carter....

Termin8tor » 19 Aug 2017 7:59 am » wrote:
It's not even worth reading their endless idiocy.

Where are all the brilliant, logical, ejucated liberals?

How can they not vanquish knuckle-draggers like us?

I don't know about them, but you've been my bitch since I got here.

roadkill » 19 Aug 2017 7:34 am » wrote:
Looks like Misty's hate-squad isn't doing too well here.

Have you found the courage to admit being a Boston Herald reader?

Blackvegetable » 19 Aug 2017 9:32 am » wrote: I don't know about them, but you've been my bitch since I got here.

That's just freaking stupid. I almost never even read your posts, let alone respond.

Only a Dim would claim he won a debate when the other person never participated.

Blackvegetable » 19 Aug 2017 9:30 am » wrote:
Dumb Clem?

In which year did we run a 1.6 trillion dollars deficit?

During the fiscal year of which administration?

My bad. It was roughly $1.3 trillion, but the more important point is, the last Bush deficit was supposed to be a one-time event for TARP, after which the deficit would plummet. Obama and Dems strongly supported that, so they bear more responsibility than most Repubs, who opposed it.


Obama and Democrats bumped up spending well over historical levels as a % of GDP and kept it very high until Repubs took the House and forced Obama to reduce spending.


So your point is, what?

.

.

Termin8tor » 19 Aug 2017 9:51 am » wrote:
That's just freaking stupid. I almost never even read your posts, let alone respond.

Only a Dim would claim he won a debate when the other person never participated.

What a difference a couple of weeks make, eh?

Termin8tor » 04 Aug 2017 9:11 am » wrote:
Nice to have a little fresh meat for conservatives to turn into liberal hamburger.

Did the other two moonbats flee in embarrassment already?

Termin8tor » 19 Aug 2017 9:56 am » wrote:
My bad. It was roughly $1.3 trillion, but the more important point is, the last Bush deficit was supposed to be a one-time event for TARP, after which the deficit would plummet. Obama and Dems strongly supported that, so they bear more responsibility than most Repubs, who opposed it.

Obama and Democrats bumped up spending well over historical levels as a % of GDP and kept it very high until Repubs took the House and forced Obama to reduce spending.

So your point is, what?

.

.

My bad. It was roughly $1.3 trillion, but the more important point is, the last Bush deficit was supposed to be a one-time event for TARP, after which the deficit would plummet. Obama and Dems strongly supported that, so they bear more responsibility than most Repubs, who opposed it.


This s complete ****....

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Blackvegetable » 19 Aug 2017 10:05 am » wrote: What a difference a couple of weeks make, eh?

What does that have to do with my point, Dim?

Nothing.

Ricky Tavy » 18 Aug 2017 9:25 pm » wrote: I've been here long enough to know that Misty keeps your tiny testicles in a jar on a shelf. She's probably forgotten exactly where.

It is getting very clear to all on the board you are ignorant about a wide variety of issues. Especially on concerning the big bang vs God issue. To prove your ignorance I challenge you to refute the following science based argument. Every atheist has run from this challenge. The cognitive dissonance created in the atheists brain is too painful to even try.

Five Atheist Miracles

http://creation.com/five-atheist-miracles

1. Matter can't be created or destroyed by ordinary means.
The big bang attempts to explain the beginning of the universe. However, what did it begin from and what caused it to begin? Ultimately, it could not have come from a matter/energy source, the same sort of stuff as our universe, because that matter/energy should also be subject to the same physical laws, and therefore decay, and it would have had a beginning too, just further back in time.

So, it had to come from? Nothing! Nothing became everything with no cause whatsoever. Magic!

2. Origin of stars

According to the big bang, the ‘only game in town’ to explain the origin of stars, there had to have been two phases of star formation. Phase 1 involved the formation of hydrogen/helium stars (which are called Population III stars7). Here is the first problem: how do you get gases formed in a rapidly expanding primordial universe to coalesce together to form a critical mass so that there is sufficient gravitational attraction to attract more gas to grow a star? Gases don’t tend to come together; they disperse, especially where there is a huge amount of energy (heat).8 Hey ! Cosmologists invented ‘dark matter’, which is invisible undetectable ‘stuff’ that just happens to generate a lot of gravitational attraction just where it is needed. More magic!

Jeans Instability (Jeans mass limit formula) is a formula about the force required to cause a gas cloud to collapse.

The Jeans mass limit is named after the British physicist Sir James Jeans, who considered the process of gravitational collapse within a gaseous cloud. He was able to show that, under appropriate conditions, a cloud, or part of one, would become unstable and begin to collapse when it lacked sufficient gaseous pressure support to balance the force of gravity. The cloud is stable for sufficiently small mass (at a given temperature and radius), but once this critical mass is exceeded, it will begin a process of runaway contraction until some other force can impede the collapse. He derived a formula for calculating this critical mass as a function of its density and temperature. The greater the mass of the cloud, the smaller its size, and the colder its temperature, the less stable it will be against gravitational collapse. Keep in mind that Jupiter has an atmosphere.

The details and formulas are on this site

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability

3. Origin of life

Astrobiologist Professor Paul Davies said,

“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”
Not only must the DNA code be explained (how can a coded information storage system come about without intelligent design?), but the incredible machinery that reads the information and creates the components of life from that information has to be explained as well.

Former hard-nosed English Atheist philosopher Antony Flew abandoned Atheism/materialism because of the growing evidence for such design in living things. He said,
“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

This research, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved”.

That is, only an incredibly intelligent designer could account for the information systems in living things.

4. Origin of the diversity of life (Design? What design?)

The origin of life is only the beginning of the problem for the materialist. Along with other atheistic biologists, Richard Dawkins has spent his life trying to deny that living things exhibit supernatural design. In the book that ‘put him on the map’, he wrote,

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”15
… how do you get gases formed in a rapidly expanding primordial universe to coalesce together?
The diversity of life is a huge problem. How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth, ranging from earwigs to elephants, from mites to mango trees? For almost a hundred years, mutations and natural selection, the mechanisms of ‘neo-Darwinism’, or ‘the modern synthesis’, have been said to explain this diversity of life. However, with our modern knowledge of living things, this has proved useless as an explanation.

In July 2008, 16 high profile evolutionists met, by invitation, in Altenburg, Austria. They had come because they realized that mutations and natural selection did not explain the diversity of life, and they had come together to discuss this crisis in evolutionary biology. The only consensus was that there is a major problem, a crisis.16

Thomas Nagel (continuing from the earlier quote) put it this way:

“The second question is about the sources of variation in the evolutionary process that was set in motion once life began: In the available geological time since the first life forms appeared on earth, what is the likelihood that, as a result of physical accident, a sequence of viable genetic mutations should have occurred that was sufficient to permit natural selection to produce the organisms that actually exist?”17
Think of the supposed origin of humans from a chimp-like ape in six million evolutionary years. Modern comparison of the genomes shows such large differences (of at least 20%) that this is just not feasible, even with highly unrealistic assumptions in favour of evolution.18 Actually, it was not even feasible when the difference was incorrectly trumpeted to be about 1%.19

Materialists have no sufficient explanation (cause) for the diversity of life. There is a mind-boggling plethora of miracles here, not just one. Every basic type of life form is a miracle.

5. Origin of mind and morality

The origin of mind and morality from energy and atoms has long been a problem for the materialist. It is a major theme of philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos, already referred to.

A fig tree produces figs, not apples. That seems obvious. Likewise, physics and chemistry produce physical and chemical outcomes. However, mind and morality are not just matters of physics and chemistry. Sure, creatures that are physical and chemical have mind and morality, but how did such non-material things arise from the material? This is a serious problem for materialism, and the Atheist Nagel candidly admits it, to the extreme annoyance of his atheistic colleagues.

The famous (and reluctant) convert from Atheism to Christianity, C.S. Lewis, put it well when he wrote,

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

The origin of life is only the beginning of the problem for the materialist.
The Atheist has no sufficient cause to explain the existence of mind and morality. Magic happens!

Why do apparently intelligent people resort to believing in magic—uncaused events—at so many points? By not believing in God they have put themselves into an irrational philosophical corner. Romans 1:21 in the Bible says that when people deny that the Creator-God exists, they end up with ‘futile thinking’. We have seen plenty of that in this article. Richard Lewontin admitted that (leaving God out of the picture), “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … ” (he confuses ‘science’ with materialism).

NOW RUN AND HIDE FROM THE SCIENCE REFUTING BIG BANG EVOLUTION.

YOUR RELIGION DOWN IN FLAMES!!!

Termin8tor » 19 Aug 2017 10:08 am » wrote:
What does that have to do with my point, Dim?

Nothing.

When we first showed up, you were all full of piss&vinegar.......you were gonna chase us all off....


After a few weeks of having your head tenderized you're all, like,

Nyah, nyah I can't hear you!


I told you, geezer...... I'm where every one of your **** narratives comes to die.

Blackvegetable » 19 Aug 2017 10:13 am » wrote: When we first showed up, you were all full of piss&vinegar.......you were gonna chase us all off....

After a few weeks of having your head tenderized you're all, like,

Nyah, nyah I can't hear you!

I told you, geezer...... I'm where every one of your **** narratives comes to die.

Here are two hints, Dim. I so decisively destroyed little Miss Marxist, that she gave up her biggest thread in despair.

2nd, you're back to your usual brainless babbling, that I'll likely soon ignore you for the Dim you are.

I haven't seen that you're worth the time to debate.

Blackvegetable » 19 Aug 2017 10:13 am » wrote:I told you, geezer...... I'm where every one of your **** narratives comes to die.

Rotsa ruck with that, moonbat.