Oh, fun(die). Via FARK

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...001.blake.html

[Platapus]

wow. Just plain wow.

Everything is bigger in Texas... even the nutters.

[Buddahaid]

I think that ten-gallon hat has fallen over his eyes or bruised his brain some. I'll attempt to read it all if I can stand it.

[CaptainHaplo]

#1 - lets pull out George Washington and Thomas Jefferson - but concentrate on Martin Luther King Jr. Some people fought that - and ya'll have an issue with it?

#2 - Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed with more Republican support (79%) than Democrat (63%). In fact - the primary OPPONENTS of the CRA in 64 were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. This is simply FACT, but it seems that letting that historical fact be KNOWN makes someone a "nutter"?

#3 - Science - teach kids to consider the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theory. Hmmm - isn't that what scientists themselves are supposed to do? Its good enough for the scientists of today, but we shouldn't teach the scientists of tommorow to do the same? That makes no sense, unless you want the scientists of tommorow to all be "yes" men and women to whatever "scientific cause" is up next. Supposedly this is a way to introduce intelligent design. Ok, let me play devil's advocate for a second..... If intelligent design is so much bunk, then using that same criteria of "strengths and weaknesses" - the kids that look at all the data would figure that out wouldn't that? Oh wait, no - because you don't want them ever questioning what they find in a textbook...... even though the language never specifically mentioned any intelligent design, but did mention evolution. So we can have one theory that they just have to accept because we say so - even though that whole concept flies in the face of what Science IS based on. And you all are ridiculing people that notice this double standard and are trying to correct it.....

#4 - If the Barbary wars was not a religious war at its foundation - what was it? The historical reality is that the Barbary pirates were Muslims that targeted "Christian" naval trade and coastal settlements. Most historians agree that in the 300 years of piracy, anywhere from 800k to 1.25 Million "Christian" Europeans were captured and sold into slavery. Oruc Ries, one of the more famous pirates, took control of Algiers, which began 400 years of Ottoman Empire presence in North Africa. The Ottoman Empire had been primarily Islamic since circa 800. To call that the "first war on terror" when Muslim raiders were raiding Europe for slaves, is no stretch. Unless you want to claim all the slaves were thrilled to enter servitude.

I could go on and on - but once again, you want to make fun of people, call them names, when the facts and common sense show they are not "nutters". Just because they don't follow your ideology does not make them less intelligent, but you calling them names without refuting their stances only belittles yourself.

@CaptainHaplo

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

I could go on and on - but once again, you want to make fun of people, call them names, when the facts and common sense show they are not "nutters". Just because they don't follow your ideology does not make them less intelligent, but you calling them names without refuting their stances only belittles yourself.

How goes the battle in defending young earth creationism?

Did you lose it the first time facts and common sense were mentioned?
Did it turn into a rout when scripture and theology was used?

#3 - Science - teach kids to consider the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theory.

Well said , but unfortunately nutters don't want to teach the strengths and weakness of scientific theory, they want to teach religiousish mythology as science.