SuperJerk

You might as well have just posted a 54 page report detailing how Santa Claus is real, because that would have been just as valid. Seriously, my revelation that poverty rates have gone down overall since the advent of the Great Society totally trumps anything else you could ever say on the subject. Translation: I lost but I'm too much of a cry-baby to admit it. Edited for accuracy.

Interesting how the thing you love about it is the thing I hate about it. I take no issue with Jesus and his message of love, I take issue with the supernatural elements that Christianity requires you to accept. Then again, let me also point out that its entirely possible that God exists, but Christianity and the Bible are entirely untrue.

Your altering of the wording, while technically accurate, does nothing to convince me that intelligence design is somehow a more rational argument. However, I must admit that I admire the way you aknowledge the argument in scientific terms (even if your grasp of science is questionable), versus the idiotic "everything had to start from somewhere so God must have created the universe because while the universe can't exist without a creator, God can" self-contradictory bullshit I get from most theistic simpletons. Having said that, let me point out that your insistance that atheism "presupposes an ultimate knowledge" is incorrect. Its not that atheists claim that they can prove there is no God, but that they BELIEVE there is no God based on the evidence.

You had just as many people in poverty in 1994 as you did when the whole deal started. You've still got a funny idea of what constitutes making something dramaticly worse. I disproved your point, Mike. Admit it. You know who doesn't have a leg to stand on? YOU, when YOU said: That chart clearly shows that welfare did not increase poverty. It shows that the poverty rate went from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003, which is NOT an increase, dramatic or otherwise. I disproved your point, Mike. Sarcasm isn't the same thing as solid evidence, and post hoc reasoning isn't the same thing as proof. I'll give you an example of what evidence is. Remember when you said: and then I disproved you with evidence? When you post evidence, you actually have to post evidence that has something to do with the point you were trying to make. Posting a bunch of illegitimacy statistics as proof that welfare helped destroy the American family doesn't do you any good unless you can create a solid link between welfare and illegitimacy (which you didn't do). Of course, you CAN NOT prove that welfare is partially responsible for destroying the family, because families haven't been destroyed. Your entire premise is flawed. _____________________________________ edit: For those of you who missed it earlier... Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase? Damn, that felt good.

Funny how we're talking about uselss morons without mentioning the useless moron this thread is actually about.

Except you can't find a conservative who actually has a single nice thing to say about David Koresh. Which negates his point in no way whatsoever.

^He is correct.^ According to the estimates of our calendar, Jesus died around 33 AD, although the date was probably 27 AD. (I believe in Jesus, I just don't beleive he had supernatural powers or was the son of God.) Yes, because believing that an invisible man who lives in the sky having absolute control over everything in the universe is just so fucking rational. You hit the part about either God or the universe having to always exist right on the head, but your criticism of atheism leaves something to be desired...such as coherence.

Rosie O'Donnell in "Beautiful Girls".

His level of talent may be debatable, but his ability to draw fans is not in question at all. EVERYONE should agree he sucks at that. Everytime WWE comes to town, my first question, like most other people's, is "who is going to be there?" I just don't think people get excitied about getting the chance to see Triple H at a show, or even to watch him on TV.

They have to put Triple H on posters because he's the best in the business and such a huge draw. Duh.

I'll never forget the way Triple H buried the WCW title during that promo he cut on Booker shortly before Wrestlemania XIX. This is the same guy who puts Flair over for being a 16 time World Champion, even though 6 of those time were the same WCW title he made fun of Booker for winning.

It wouldn't have been so bad, except that the news reporters were closer to the action than the Fire & Rescue squads. If the FBI/ATF thought anything foul was going to go on, they should have had F&R standing by right there, and not a few miles away like they were. Yes, let's put the Fire Department and paramedics in a position where's they're in danger of being shot by those loonies. If those dumb fuckers would have just surrendered and came out LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, they wouldn't have burned to death. Edited for accuracy. Thank you!

Feel free to reference the "anti-intellectualism". And then justify African-American studies. And Women's Studies. And the idiotic Middle Eastern Studies Departments. Wow, way to attack academia and totally prove my point for me, Mike! Good job. If you have any real proof of this, please share. I've been hearing conservatives claim this for decades without any solid evidence of an actual cause-effect relationship. I'd say proving welfare helped bring about the destruction of the family it is a pretty uphill battle anyways, considered the family hasn't actually been destroyed. In other words, good luck.

Your friend sounds very observant.

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase?

So Vince didn't want to sign the current (at the time) WCW champion? He's a thinker. No, I was saying that WWF went out of their way to make sure they signed Booker T. They didn't pick up his contract as part of the sale, so they had to negotiate individually with him.

Makes sense since it was around this time 4 years ago he first signed with WWF (he was one of the few who chose to work for WWF, rather than sit on his ass and collect guarenteed Time Warner money...Linda McMahon stated around the time his was not one of the contracts that they picked up directly from the sale). I'm wondering if they promised him a push when he resigned. Or maybe he's just not making as much as he'd like from "Jam Zone" (or whatever his clothing store is called). Still, I'm glad to see him still around.

I don't agree. I blame the Branch Davidians for the death of their children. They could have left the compound after the fire started.

Vyce's assessment of his historical standing is probably quite accurate. Before he became Vice President, though, Nixon made his reputation on the kind of "accuse everyone you don't like of being a commie" finger-pointing Coulter has based her entire writing career on. He was famously resentful of the East Coast-based liberal intelligencia of the time.

Has Bill figured out a way to entwine the Shiavo case with a new FACTOR-LED BOYCOTT? I was sure that would be the next step in this thing. Maybe instead of a boycott, he could do a cross-promotion with Pizza Hut. Don't they have a Vegetable Lover's pizza?

Man, those Zell-inspired picture thread from last summer were awesome. Are they still around on the board somewhere hiding, or have they been deleted?

"Let's not arrest this guy stockpiling illegal weapons, let's just wait for him to go out then arrest him...ignoring the need to also arrest his accomplices and collecting additional evidence that we could have used against him in court." Ann Coulter wouldn't last 5 minutes as a law enforcement officer.

Most people who call themselves "conservatives" are not conservative at all, but reactionary. They don't want things to stay the same, but to go back to the way they were.

That is, easily, the most idiotic justification for institituional bias against a particular point of view I've read. Libs have embraced anti-intellectualism since the 1960's. -=Mike You refuted one idiotic justification with another just as idiotic. Liberals are not the ones who openly embrace anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism has been forcefully embraced by elements of the American right for decades. I'll refer you to the speeches of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Spiro Agnew (not liberals). Now THAT'S how you refute a statement. He's exactly right. There is a conservative intelligencia which is typified by the study of Smith and various others who theorized and intellectually justified ideas embraced by the right. Neither side has a lock on intellectualism. Off topic, but I couldn't let this statement go unchallenged. Poverty existed to greater degrees before the advent of liberal welfare than it does now. Welfare was a response to epidemic poverty, not the creator of it.

Americans are not monolithic, you know. We don't all think the same things, and sometimes different groups within American have differing opinions. What offends Fred Phelps isn't going to offend Larry Flynt. When two groups within our country disagree it doesn't make us contradictory, but diverse.