Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Life in Otisburg

Imagine if you will an exciting scene from the 1978 film Superman...

A very exciting scene...

Underground resident Lex Luthor is discussing the "New West Coast" with Superman, and he has his hapless henchman Otis lay down a placard on a map of North America, replacing old west coast with "New".

"Costa Del Lex, Luthorville, Marina Del Lex, Otisburg..."
"Otisburg?" asks Lex Luthor incredulously, looking down at the poorly-spelled word written in grimey-black crayon.
"Miss Teschmacher, she's got her own place," Otis says.
"Otisburg?"
"It's a little bitty place!"
"OTISBURG?"
And Otis is stuck removing the word, and his brief little dream, with a dirty dish towel.

Isn't that an exciting scene?  Or is it dull...D - U - L - L...dull?

Now, just what would Otisburg be like if it exists?  Would it be populated by the elite of the country, run by the best minds our educational system could provide?  Or would it be populated by those whose brains "...can barely generate enough power to keep those legs moving"?  And would it be run by those who think they are smarter than a fifth grader, yet filled with a lot of hot air? 

So, in looking for such a place, one has to look on the internet.  Remember, these guys are too lame to put hammer to nail; they need something requiring no more than a few hours a day sitting around in their underwear in their stale little messy bedrooms while Dad is downstairs shouting obscenities at the television again.  The antenna on the roof needs adjusting, and Dad doesn't have a ladder. 

So, let's call our man in the underwear Otis.  All of the citizens populating Otisburg are named Otis; they gotta match Ned Beatty's character from the a fore-mentioned movie.  Meaning that they have to be nincompoops.  Idiots are welcomed with pomp and ceremony involving a lot of four-letter words; nitwits, dimwits, halfwits, malcontents, the brain-damaged, the brain-dead, and those persons who tend to see a lot of revolving colors due to casual use of pharmaceuticals legal or otherwise are also welcomed in like-manner.  Those that hate God are worshipped.  Go figure that one out, because it sound's like a place a liberal would live in.  Pass the weed!

And Otisburg has to be dull.  D - U - L - L.  The collection of nincompoops calling themselves Otis has to have a site so dull that flies drop from sheer boredom.  There's a lot of dead flies on the smelly carpet in Otis' bedroom; it's been, what, twelve years since he graduated from high school?  But, Otis is there, in his underwear, plugging away on his keyboard, making Otisburg attractive in his mind only.  Lots of four-letter words in every paragraph.  Four-letter words are standard in Otisburg, in keeping with the intelligence requirements of the site.

And what does the site offer?  Over-kill usage of the word "rational."  Apparently, rational people these days sit around in their underwear banging on keyboards in smelly bedrooms with a lot of dead flies on the floor.  So, Otis is there, writing in his lofty, majestic style which reminds one of another, lofty, majestic work under the collective title Dick and Jane...

"The Book of Ruth is short. Really, really short."

Otis can provide the location of a great many things...

"Dr. Dennett's beard, seen here attached to the person named Daniel Dennett."

Otis can describe Kentucky...

"Kentucky is the world's leading producer of jelly because its horses are fingerlickin' good."

Otis tries his hand at giving advice while making an article look "authoritative"...

"On occasion, you can think better of someone by assuming that, rather than malicious, they are merely stupid."

Otis can describe objects...

"Radio is like television without the amusing graphics. Or an internet that does not require the ability to read and with significantly fewer cat pictures."

Otis can predict the future...

"All the whites are gonna die really soon!"

Otis is an expert in language...

"Dude doesn't know his Latin."

Otis claims to be an expert in history...

"Note also that during the Cold War, ramming or getting rammed by a Commie submarine could have far-reaching political consequences, so both parties tended to whistle innocently and pretend that nothing had happened."

Otis has seen Bigfoot...

"In the Appalachian region, we simply call them "Grandpa gone bad." In spite of their primitive appearance, they are usually fine hands with a homemade still."

And Otis is good at hiding the guilty...

"The Mary Celeste was a merchant ship that disappeared in November 1872 only to turn up intact on December 4th 1872, but with the crew forced to abandon ship after being boarded by Daleks missing."

Yesserie, quite a rational man, Otis is.  You would expect that such a wonderful site as Otisburg would be extremely stellar in the ratings, but, well, this is Otisburg.  No reading ability required.

Yes, the site is real, but it's not worth linking to.  Kinda like the men's room at the local convenience store; the stench and filth on the inside just keeps one from entering it.  And Otisburg is what you get when you have a bunch of nincompoops pretending to have something more in their heads than a half-dozen marbles.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Let's starve a giraffe for science


Let's see...the silly little amateurs who think they know something about science are going to accuse me of not understanding science, of being afraid of science, of not being able to chew my bubblegum properly while walking down the street humming a Ricky Martin song, ad nauseum.  It's always that way with the liberal crowd.  Are they still upset they have to pay a buck more than a conservative for a smoothie?

And now they're going to say that I want to starve a giraffe.  That means denying our favorite long-necked critter his daily sustenance.  They're going to call PETA - the animal "rights" clowns who once condemned dolphins dying in tuna nets while not saying a word about the tuna - and they're going to whine and complain and yip-yap (little whiny complaining yorkies also yip-yap a lot) about how I want to starve our favorite long-necked critters, and they can't have that.  But it's a science project, and it should be OK.  Libs love science.  They worship science.  After all, the last of the great auks were killed off in the name of science, so maybe putting a long-necked critter under glass in a museum must be OK.

So here's the thing.  You'll probably have to get your hands on a school or college textbook, in my case it's titled Essentials of Physical Anthropology, by Jurmain, Kilgore, and Trevathan.  It's supposed to cover the history of early man, from modern times all the way back to those thrilling days of yesteryear when men were a tad too-hairy, only said one single word ("Ooongawa!") and had a penchant for bananas.  We was such a swinging bunch back then.  The scientists said so.  It's true.  Why, they did more than just dig up some old, dry bones; they invented the flux capacitor, which makes time travel possible after installation in a used 1984 DeLorean sport coupe, and they took that trip down memory lane in style to video-tape all of those hairy proto-men swingers way back in the Miocene, some 20 or so million years ago.

So, if you believe time travel is not possible within a DeLorean, then all the scientists have are fossils...and their own interpretations to go with them.  Because they cannot test their theories that an ape-like critter evolved into man over the course of millions of years, they have to say it happened.  Saying is one thing; proving is quite another.  Hearsay is just not admissible as evidence.

So, page 33 of Essentials of Physical Anthropology.  The authors just have to bring up the history of evolution, using Jean Baptist Lamarck, Charlie Darwin, and others, and part of that history happens to be how species originated, and they use the many-times repeated example of...you guessed it...our favorite long-necked critter, the giraffe.  On page 33 we are shown two theories.  The first is Lamarck's theory, which states that the leaves on the tree was out of reach, so the giraffe just kept stretching that neck over generations, until it was the right length to reach the tree leaves.  Charlie Darwin theorized that there was a variety of giraffes, in that there was a mixture of animals with different-sized necks, with the ones having the longest necks being able to reach the leaves.  This in turn would be passed down to future generations via natural selection.  The long-necked ones survived, the short-necked ones did not.  Charlie's theory was better than Jean's, so guess who won?

Remember, we are told - yes, told - that Charlie's theory is true; it is a fact; evolutionists said so; no one should be allowed to refute it under penalty of massive amounts of hate mail.  But this can be experimented on right now, as per step three of the Scientific Method, which is something no evolutionist had ever bothered to do with a giraffe, let alone any other animal in a similar situation.  So, let's go through the Scientific Method right now...

Step one: observation.  Look at the neck, come up with questions as to how it got so dadd-blanged long!

Step two: hypothesis.  Your guess...er, hypothesis...must be in keeping with both Lamarck's and Chuckie Darwin's theories.  Either they did some stretching, or they altered their DNA.

Step three: experiment.  And here's what you do...

Grab hold of a giraffe, place it in an enclosure with nothing but a tree in it.  Make sure the lowest branches of the tree are a foot out of reach of the giraffe's mouth.  Monitor on a daily basis the giraffe's height and weight; take blood samples and check for any changes to the DNA.

Now, keep in mind that Lamarck, Darwin, and every other evolutionist on the planet have all said that changes in species, such as the increased length of a giraffe's neck, take a lot of time...generations, to be exact.  So, what do you think will happen with the giraffe in our experiment?

Will that neck grow a little more?  Will there be a change in DNA, to be passed along to future generations?

There is just one little catch with this scenario.  There has to be a visible change with 30-45 days.  Period.  This is the actual, observed-IAW-step-one-of-the-scientific-method status with the giraffe, and any other animal out there, including man.  A giraffe is not going to wait generations to grow a neck to reach the food it needs to survive; it is going to need the food right now.  Not a week from Tuesday; not next year; and certainly not in a few generations.  Right now.

Because if it cannot reach the leaves in the tree, if it cannot find another food source, if those circumstances ensure it has nothing to eat within 30-45 days, that giraffe is going to starve to death.

So much for the evolutionary hypothesis...er, guess!

Update

The silly little amateurs from Otisburg have responded, in the way befitting their own educational level.  First and foremost is this one:

"Holy (foul language removed), that guy is one stupid (foul language removed) moron. "Evolution is false, and I can prove it by showing that an alternative, creation-based theory is false." As someone mentioned earlier; if there was sudddenly a disease that killed people under 6' tall, our species height would increase, because only tall people would be left to breed. And this is not because we were all able to stretch and get taller. You idiot."

Or this one:

"The really sad thing is that even Kj is really smart enough to figure the real "theory" out himself: that short necked and long necked giraffes coexisted just fine so long as there was plenty of food. But when the environment changed and food was scarce, only the long-neckers could compete. Evolution is about existing modifications suddenly being important due to external change. He can look around him and see people from 4' to 7' tall and realize how it might have gone down. It's not rocket science to reason that out for oneself, but they all have this Sarah Palin ignorant mocking of stupidities, which they assert are scientific theory and absolutely refuse to let the brain consider the topic. Pretty weird way to operate a cerebrum."

One even went ballistic.  He calls himself Jeeves, which is usually a name for a robotic butler, but I'll still call him Otis, like the other educationally-challenged on their site.

"Let's see...the silly little amateurs who think they know something about science are going to accuse me of not understanding science..." Yes, yes we are. And not because of smoothies or whatever other (foul language removed) you're ranting incoherently about, because YOU DON'T (FOUL LANGUAGE REMOVED) UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION."

Apparently, the silly little amateurs collectively-named Otis are under the impression that I, and everyone else on the planet, must accept their version of science, specifically in the creation of life.  There are some problems within these quotations, as well as in the minds of those who originally wrote them, so here are my answers...

First, this blog was about the short-comings of evolution, specifically macroevolution.  One version of Otis wrote down "...exposed bacteria to citrate rich but otherwise energy poor growth substrate for thousands of generations until they evolved the ability to utilise citrate", as if that was part and parcel to the giraffe's neck, but what he was talking about was microevolution - which is observed - rather than macroevolution, which has never been observed.  The giraffe's neck involves macroevolution.  Big difference.

Second, and you can see it above, another Otis wrote "short necked and long necked giraffes coexisted just fine."  Then where are these short-necked giraffes at?  Where are their remains?  And if their remains have been found, where is the empirical proof that these animals were the ancestors of modern giraffes?  Are we to look at them in a line and assume a change took place because Otis said so?  I know exactly what they will say:

"Uhh, you have to look at the remains...see the change in neck length...you must accept it...these aren't the droids we're looking for...move along!"

Third, they gotta do the "look-at-the-other-species-argument" to bolster their case.  It's the "look-at-the-tall-humans" argument to bolster their case of the giraffe's neck.  Let's see...I had a previous clown try to tell me that since scientists tried to do a domestic dog program by breeding foxes (a failure, by the way), I must accept that by looking at the foxes the same thing happened with cavemen doing the same thing with wolves.  Different animal, but it must be true...Dr. Slagrock's notes about it were found in Fred Flintstone's cave some years ago...or don't they have any real evidence at all? 

And one other Otis has to chime in, pretty-much in agreement with what I just said...

"He's incredibly (foul language removed) stupid AND incredibly (foul language removed) smug--a deadly combination. His smugness prevents him from ever accepting evolution, as that means he would have to accept that he was wrong about something. His stupidity will make him believe any (foul language removed) creation idea. It doesn't matter how many times you explain the most basic ideas of evolution to him, he simply will always refuse to accept and comprehend them. One of the most proud, ignorant (foul language removed) (foul language removed) I've ever seen."

And they call me close-minded?  They call me so smug about my own beliefs that I will never accept evolution?  They sound like I violated some major law or something.  Perhaps they want me punished with death or life imprisonment or worse - like, spend a week in an Occupy Wall Street tent.

The sad part is the fact that they are the one who are smug; they are the ones who are ignorant as to what evolution actually is.  Unfortunately, these people never bothered to educate themselves to the fullest extent; they made "assumption" into dogma; they made "conjecture" into fact.  They said the giraffe's neck grew as a result of environmental change, and they say it's a fact, despite no evidence in the fossil record of giraffe ancestors with necks increasing in length over time; they say this event happened,  that it's a fact.  And if they had fossils, they would point to them and demand we must assume a change took place.  Assume.   Get the picture?

And as to proving a lack of education on Otis' part...well, you did see all of the foul language I had to remove!

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Critical thinking: so who's really close-minded?

In the 1978 film Superman, we are introduced to Lex Luthor, whose first spoken words are delivered without seeing his face.  He's sitting in front of a monitor screen, watching his henchman Otis make his way to the secret lair from the subway, and he has this to say about the hapless Otis:

"It's amazing that brain can generate enough power to keep those legs moving!"

Here I sit wondering the same thing about liberals in general, and certain ones from another parasitical website.  For instance, in response to the last posting I made, a self-described "well-informed" critic said this about the owl butterfly: "The Owl Butterfly doesn't scare of predators because it looks like an owl. It scares them off because of its high contrast. That fact that it "looks" like an owl is a human invention (or your god made it like that as a goof)."  High contrast, yeah right.  He's spot-on there.  And he and his pals accuse me of being close-minded?  Suffice it to say, I won't mention the source of that quote, but I will say that they are so attached to Conservapedia and this blog like parasites that they've become too dimwitted to realize that with every click they make, I'm getting a little richer!

One of them said I am afraid of science.  I'll call him Otis.  Not his real name, of course, but after reading his "rants" on that other site, it fits.  Apparently, Otis also knows my favorite colors, what I drive, current hair length, what brand of telescope is in my back yard.  I bet he got his information from Madame Zazzu, his local fortune teller.  You know Madame Zazzu: ugly fake-Gypsy lady, sits near a crystal ball with a babushka bandana around her head, big hoop earrings, and an outstretched hand looking to get that fast twenty bucks from our "very-knowledgeable" friend Otis, who looks to have the winning lottery numbers in addition to getting as much accurate info about me as he can get.  Otis is also too stupid to realize that ugly fake-Gypsy ladies with babushka bandanas and crystal balls are going to make their money the easy way, because if they did have the winning lottery numbers, you think they would give that info to a dimwit like Otis?  Which negates the accurate info about me as well.

Yesserie, Otis...click that mouse...play parasite...be stupid...increase my earnings.

So, Madame Zazzu's crystal ball is my guess where Otis got his info that I am afraid of science, because it is from the lairs of stupid people that other stupid people get their ideas.  I can comfortably say that his allegation is completely and totally false.  What he and his like-minded buddies are actually worried about is our criticisms of science, specifically those parts of science which are proven false in many ways to sundown.  They don't like that.  They don't like false science being exposed for what it actually is, and that is the bottom line with my previous blog posting, which led to one of Otis' pals to act like he's an authority on butterflies and make an incredibly-stupid guess that a butterfly just created a high contrast sheen on its wings, when the design and its own behavior state that it's an imitation of the face of an owl. That's observed behavior.  You know...the first step of the Scientific Method.  Otis and his pals do know how to carry out those steps within that method, or is doing something like that beyond their intelligence?

Did I also mention that the "well-informed" critic above also assumed God made a goof?  He admitted God exists.  I wonder if he's got God's number in his cell...no, wait, atheists don't believe in God; they would rather act like parasites and idiots than admit God exists.

Unfortunately for these idiots - and they are idiots - that is what critical thinking is all about.  It's the ability to use your head for something other than a hat rack.  But I don't think they will ever progress beyond that stage, because it takes a lot more than a crow bar to get a dunce cap off of a close-minded idiot.

The non-God excuses from Scienceland

Let's be clear on something first.  God has been thrown out of public schools, in part because of science, which had made the declaration that God doesn't exist.  He's a fantasy, evolution is fact; God never created anything; everything evolved, because science said so.

Disney has Fantasyland.

Evolutionists have Scienceland.  Get the analogy?  It's where there's confusion between science and magic, where the lab tech expects a rabbit to come out of a primordial soup bowl.  He waves his magic beaker and waa-laa.

Part of the Human Origins program at many universities is video instruction.  One of the videos is a clip taken from David Attenborough's science program The Life of Mammals, shown below.


The orangutan in this clip watched humans row boats, use tools, use soap, wash clothes, and so forth.  She imitated,  She copied.  Granted, she doesn't use a saw too well, and she can row her boat up the creek without a paddle, but her intelligence is good enough to leave the average viewer amazed.

But she is still an orangutan.  Same species for millions of years, according to evolution.  Great apes have been around for how long?  20 million years?  30 million years?  Meanwhile, these same evolutionists have been saying that man evolved from ape-like ancestors - and learned to make fire, tools, the wheel, and Ford Pintos along the way - in under 4 million years.  That's one of the fastest evolving periods on record, and pretty-much amazing, considering the fire, tools, the wheel, and Ford Pintos that went along with it.

Meanwhile, sharks have stayed the same for about 270 million years, while dinosaurs have walked about for 140 million years before managing to get wiped out by an asteroid that killed off just the dinosaurs and nothing else...but that's evolution for you.  Let's see...triceratops killed; the rat standing next to it untouched.  The non-God excuses from Scienceland.

So, back to the orangutan.  She hung out with humans  - only a clip from this film was shown, so I'm assuming she may have been in captivity once - and she copied.  Monkey-see, monkey-do.  She copied.  The Human Origins class has also been shown videos of chimps in the wild, as well as other species of primates, and in each one these animals are shown doing things, while others watch.  A chimp uses a log to crack open a nut placed on a rock; a younger chimp watches intently, and stumbles about while doing the same thing later.  Watching, learning, doing.  It's their intelligence at work, that's how they get by in the wild, and evolutionists use those observations of modern primates to state that the early hominids did the same things - copying, watching, learning, doing - before launching into that quick 4-million-year period in which we have fire, tools, the wheel, and Ford Pintos still on the road.

Remember, evolution says there is no God.  The orangutan evolved intelligence and the ability to use it, hence the copying.

This is what?  Looks like a butterfly that has the face of an owl.  Why the owl?  According to evolution, this butterfly evolved the owl's face to protect itself from predators.  After all, owls scare away birds and other critters, don't they?  Owls kill and eat those birds and other critters, don't they?  So, here we have a non-intelligent animal - a butterfly - doing a pro-active act of copying the face of another predatory animal so the butterfly would not be killed and eaten.  Having an owl's face evolve by itself on a butterfly without a demonstrated need for it - a need involving intelligence - just doesn't make much sense.  But we will get the non-God excuses from Scienceland all the time, won't we?

Either the butterfly had to have the intelligence needed to realize that owls kill butterfly predators, or something with intelligence created the butterfly.  And if science says there is no such thing as an intelligent designer, i.e. God, then how did fire, tools, the wheel, and Ford Pintos come to be?  Isn't that intelligent design on a more limited scale?

Maybe not...Ford Pintos have been known to explode.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Making Thugs Safe from "Stand-Your-Ground" Laws

Just what is the "stand your ground" law?

It means that if you feel threatened by a thug, if you cannot get away from a thug, it means you don't have to surrender to a thug.  You can pull out your Smith & Wesson and send that thug to either the hospital or the morgue.  It's the thug's choice.

But unfortunately, the looney-tunes liberal left has it backwards.  If you're a victim of a thug, it's your duty - that's the word they love to use here: DUTY - to retreat, to run away.  They even went so far as to tell women who are about to be raped that it's OK to pee in your pants; maybe that act alone will scare off the bad guys.  You are just not allowed to defend yourself.

“People who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely,” Eric Holder, our idiotic attorney general, said. “By allowing — and perhaps encouraging — violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.”  He's on record as wanting kids "brainwashed" about gun control, in his favor:




And what happens to the victim who's not allowed to retreat?  The thug with the gun draws a bead on his retreating victim and shoots him in the back.  Simple, huh?  All that's left to do is gather up the wallet and party with the buddies.  But hey, on a positive note, the victim was allowed to pee his pants first.

So, in the wake of Trayvon Martin's death and George Zimmerman's acquittal, the Senate naturally wants hearings into the laws which allowed Zimmerman to defend himself from Martin's attack which left Zimmerman with head injuries and Martin in the cemetery.  Naturally, it's a liberal senator who's calling for it: Dick Durbin.  Naturally, he's from the liberal state of Illinois, where Chicago has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country, where hundreds of people are shot and killed every year by armed thugs in one form or another.  Law-abiding citizens in Chicago are not allowed to defend themselves with a gun.  Hence, the high murder rate.

So, Durbin and his pals want to see about reducing or eliminating stand-your-ground laws everywhere, so the "legally-challenged" (liberal-speak for criminals) can express themselves in a public setting.  Why, we can't deny a thug his state-given rights as a criminal, can we?  Bob the Butcher has a right to express himself!

So, should we as law-abiding citizens back down and retreat from the face of a thug?  That's exactly what Durbin wants; that's exactly what the so-called "reverends" Jackson and Sharpton want; that's what most of the liberal establishment in and out of politics want.  They want the rest of us to be weak, prostrate victims, while the criminal element gets away with it.

What this writer is saying is that if a thug decides to try to harm you and yours, you pull out your Glock, your Smith & Wesson, or your Ruger - whichever you prefer - and make that thug pee in his pants!  You have a right to defend yourself at any time, anywhere, by any and all means possible.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Sam Adams was no deist

Last week a made-for-television advertisement had a little bit of controversy.  Sam Adams - the beer company - had this little ditty:


For all those concerned, Sam Adams - the beer company - left out three little words from the quote they had taken from the Declaration of Independence:

"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The words omitted were "by their Creator".  In a little defense of Sam Adams - the beer company - they were bound by current beer advertizing regulations which prohibit references to God or religion in what they advertize.  This unfortunately has led to many calling for boycotts of Sam Adams - the beer company - in part because of the fact that Sam Adams - the beer company - altered a part of the most important historical document in American history to sell some beer which was, rather ironically, signed by Sam Adams - the patriot.

But that's not the point I am making here.  With the collection of vehemence coming from the right in calling for boycotts of Sam's brew, there was a collection of vehemence from the left, proudly-saying that they would go out and by a six-pack of the stuff.  And in that collection of leftist vehemence, there came the nuts falling from the tree of ignorance.  Sam Adams - the patriot - was a deist.  

Samuel Adams - the patriot

Apparently, the subject of deism is being taught to our kids in school, specifically that nearly all of America's Founding Fathers were deists.  Well, you may wonder, just what is a deist?  Someone who declares God exists, but has no influence in anyone's lives past or present.  In short, they say, "Yeah, but so what?  Who cares.  Big deal.  Get your cats outta my kitchen."  Unfortunately, the liberal left claims deism for the Founding Fathers in a massive effort to downplay their own Christianity while adding more and more bricks to the so-called "wall of separation" of church and state they claim is in the Constitution (it's not).  And the results of their efforts?  Current persecutions of Christians in public, in private, in the military.  Talk about a censoring of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, Sam Adams - the patriot - is a deist, they say.  Let's see what Sam - the patriot - has to say about that...

"I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."  (Last will and testament)

"The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better."  (From his "Letters of Delegates to Congress: August 16, 1776-December 31, 1776", Vol. 5)

"I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace." (Fast Day Proclamation issued by Governor Samuel Adams, Massachusetts, March 20, 1797) 

"...the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind."  (A Proclamation For a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer) 

"...we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory."  (Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 10, 1793) 

"...with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior."  (Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 15, 1796)
 
A deist, they say?  Sam Adams - the patriot - is standing there proudly proclaiming Jesus Christ.  Telling others to follow Jesus Christ.  He's stating Jesus Christ is his Savior and redeemer.  Is that something a deist would do?  I don't think so.  So, is Sam Adams - the patriot - to be believed here, or is it some leftist nutjob who fell out of the tree of ignorance after downing too much of Sam Adams, the beer?





 










Sunday, July 14, 2013

Those Big Babies!

StuartMcT is a pseudonym.  It's from the language of central-Whinerslavia.  It means "where's my ninny at?"
StuartMcT or ColinT or FergieM, in debate-mode

When you got a clown with a need for a ninny, you have a clown who whines a lot when he cannot get his way.  We get a lot of those people in Conservapedia.  People who demanded we change to suit them; people who whined when their silly little beliefs weren't posted; people who just have to harp on the concept of "debating" us, as if that's going to make everything all better.

We don't debate over facts and truth; we publish them.

So, in comes StuartMcT - he's been here before under one name or another for a couple of years now - and he decides he's going to make a threat.

"(bleep) I warned you what I was going to do if you didn't stop your childish cr4p about telling people to debate Viva while running away from debates yourself. You chose to ignore me. Unlike you, however, when I say I'm going to do something I carry it through. So, as promised, here is the real identity of the mysterious User:(bleep)..."

And what follows is the name and address of User:(bleep), and a threat to publish the phone number as well.  Which caused me to walk outside to where there's this barn, and I looked inside and noticed some straw was missing, undoubtedly clutched in desperation in the grubby little paws of Mr. McT.

So, just what is StuartMcT so desperate over?  Why, it's the subject of evolution!  You know that theory, the one where we supposedly came from an amoeba, which turned into a fish, which crawled onto land and became a dinosaur, which turned into oil and enabled a bunch of Haliburton guys to drive around in Bentleys.  That theory.  Never-mind that the subject is based on nothing more than someone's say-so, there are some libs who believe in it so much that not only have they declared it to be a fact, but they will force it on the public as fact anywhere they see fit, including Conservapedia.

And when they don't get their way, why it's pounding fists on the computer desk; it's hair yanked out in frustration; it's heads banging against a wall.  And the demanded debates?  I can see the scenario now, at Mr. McT's home somewhere in Whinerslavia:

"Mommy, that mean'ol man won't do a debate with me!"

I should emphasize the "mommy" part...after all, Mr. McT is a screaming kid at heart.

"MOMMY!!!!  Why won't he debate me?"

Maybe his mommy has had enough; maybe she has some common sense.

"Stuart, it's been nearly thirty years since you last had your diapers changed.  I think it's about time you change them now!"

So, maybe we should find Stuart's address, and send him a care package of fresh diapers (Pampers or Huggies, nothing cheap; he doesn't need "pull-up" trainers yet), and a nice, fresh, tasty ninny for all the time-outs he needs to have?  I think so!

An update

This stuff gets better, or worse, depending on which side of the diapers you're on.  Mr. McT comes back, this time under the name "ColinT" - I guess the "Colin"-part is a Whinerslavackian word for "colon"; who knows, right? - and he's rather foaming at the mouth.

Why?  He lost his ninny again!  But he writes to our user from his little Sit-and-Spell:

"Actually to hell with this. Let's put an end to your nonsense once and for all, (bleep). If you have the ma-cheese-mo to debate me - which I don't believe you do - let's do it ''right now''. You and me, debating the 15 questions you ''think'' I can't answer. We can either do it in writing at RW or, if you can scare up any of Shock's freaks at short notice, verbally on his chatroom. Either debate me or STFU, you gutless blowhard."

So, he's still whining about a debate toy he's thrown from his crib.  Meanwhile, the Huggies are on the way.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Talk about your love of coat hangers!

Liberals are a backwards lot.

Killing innocent children before birth is fine.  Executing death row inmates is not.  This is explained quite clearly in the attitude of one Sarah Slamen, speaking at the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services just a few days ago:


For the record, she is opposed to House Bill 2, which changes some rules regarding an abortion, namely that it will "prohibit abortions in the 20th week of pregnancy, require clinics to meet extensive requirements to certify as surgical centers, further regulate the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs and require doctors to gain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic."

Ms. Slamen thinks her rights are being violated, so she's going to move to lib-friendly New York, where they execute unborn kids and don't have a death row for convicted murderers.  Basically put, she's proudly announcing that instead of saying NO all the free sex she wants, she's going to end whatever pregnancies that may happen, and she's bound and determined to end them in a clinic that is less sanitary than the men's john at the local convenience store.

The ironic part about HB2 is that it doesn't end abortions.  Come on, you're a lib woman reading this; you just had a one-nighter with the boys of the band - with mary-janes included - and you want to kill off, er, remove the resulting mistake before the parents find out, right?

Than what's wrong with finding out that what you're removing is a baby, and not a pile of cells?
Than what is wrong with ensuring you have a bona-fide doctor doing it, and not a quack?
Than what is wrong with having the same standards in an abortion clinic that currently exist in a hospital's emergency room?
Than what is wrong with having a drug tested so thoroughly it could not possibly harm the one taking it?

Seems to me that HB2 is meant for the health and well-being of the woman seeking an abortion, but some people are so dense in their own beliefs that they cannot see the forest for the trees, even if the run head-first into one.  They talk about going back to the back alley, coat hanger days, where the conditions were as unpleasant and unsanitary as...

Well, that's what Ms. Slamen and her ilk are demanding right now.  We should leave the filthy, quack-infested abortion clinics alone.  We should abandon HB2.

Maybe the abortion clinics have former death row inmates on parole, cleaning them every other night.

Update

It seems my little blog entry about this subject is rather spot-on, and this one is coming from Delaware.  Liberals do prefer filthy, hazardous conditions in abortion clinics; in fact, I'd be willing to bet that they would rather drop dead themselves over having a clean, sanitary facility forced on them by some mean-ol pro-life Republican!