By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - What Occupy movement understood and most don't.

EdHieron on 12 December 2012
gergroy said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

The only problem was my post wasn't completely nonsense.  It was a perfect mirror of The Republican social agenda.

The real problem is that you believe this shit.  MIT ROMLEY GONNA TAEK MAH BIG BERDZ AND REPLAEC IT WITH MORMINZ OH NOEZ.


Question:  Was Mitt Romney a member of The Mormon Cult in good standing with all the Cult's higher ups?  Answer:  Yes, he was.

What is with the hate man?  Romney being a member of the Mormon church (yes, it is a church, not a cult) has nothing to do with what you are saying.  You seem to be pulling consipiracy theories out of nothing.  There is plenty of things you can condemn Romney on policy wise, you don't need to start making up conspiracy theories now.  


No.  It's a cult since it's founded on irrational beliefs that have no reality behind them.

 Pick up Cult Researcher Richard Abane's book "One Nation Under Gods:  A History of the Mormon Church"  He goes into how the Mormon Church meets the criteria of a cult on several dimensions  ( http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-Gods-History/dp/1568582838/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355347482&sr=8-1&keywords=one+nation+under+gods )  .

Even the authors of "Mormon America: The Power and The Promise"  (http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-America-Revised-Updated-Promise/dp/0061432954/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355347521&sr=1-1&keywords=mormon+america )  which is basically a book that leans over backwards to be kind to Mormons points out that when faced with any form of intellectual dissent like reserarch that was being conducted at BYU in the 1990s that flew in the face of what the leaders of the Mormon Church call "Faithful History" (ie. history that whitewashes the fact that there is no evidence at all to substantiate the claims of Joseph Smith, the fact thast polygamy continued in the cult with the full consent of its President long after its leaders avowed that it had been removed, that Joseph Smith and Bring'em young were murderous pedophiles, or the Mormon Church's vigorous attempts to hide the value of its financial assets) that led to the firing of many of the professors at the university that the leaders of the Mormon Church act in a "cult like fashion" in such instances.



Around the Network
EdHieron on 12 December 2012
gergroy said:
EdHieron said:
dsgrue3 said:
OWS are a bunch of leftist plebeians with not a modicum of intellect or drive who value humanitarianism over hard work. They complain of the disparity of wealth.in the country, yet do nothing to further their own situation (aside from incessantly bitching and walking to the mailbox to collect their welfare check). The affluent in this nation have always held a disproportionate amount of wealth, why are you suddenly complaining?

Human induced Global Warming is a complete fabrication propped up by the IPCC, which is a government body, not a scientific one which has been investigated on multiple occasions for manipulating data and using studies of manipulated data to promote its agenda to spread panic. Contrary to what you've heard, there is NO consensus as to the cause of climate change. CO2 is the most touted item, and yet CO2 levels have been 20x higher in the past NATURALLY. Utter nonsense.

EdHieron has been spreading pure nonsense this entire time. Why are you still indulging him in his trolling effort?


My statements on the intents and purposes of social conservatives ie. the brainwashed bible thumpers that make up the gop's biggest voting block are spot on.  Sheesh, they almost put in a Mormon Cult member just because the other fellow was black.  What further proof do you need?

Dude, I am mormon and I'm telling you that I find your repeated reference to my religion as a cult rather insulting.  Please stop, thank you.  


Kind of funny that the only people that don't admit that Mormonism is a cult are Mormons.  Sorry dude but one has to call a spade a spade.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan



Kasz216 on 12 December 2012
EdHieron said:
Kasz216 said:
EdHieron said:
Kasz216 said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

 

 

Lets assume you are right here.

70% of American Christians believe this.

78.4% of Americans are Christians.

ttp://religions.pewforum.org/reports

70% of 78.4% is 54.88%.

54.88% of the country believes these things.

You can't define something as an extreme viewpoint if over half of all American believe it.  (So... you, by your own reasoning and logic, are completely wrong.)


Just because over half of a country's population holds an erroneous and extreme belief, that doesn't make it not an erroneous and extreme belief.  You don't think Germany during the Third Reich was just a typical group of folks simply because most of them endorsed Hitler do you?


FIrst off.  Awful comparison.  Second off... if you think throwing in the opinion of the world is going to make those views suddenly in the minority.  I'm guessing you aren't familiar with about 4 four the 6 inhabited continents. (depending on if you count Oceania a continent anyway.)

It's definitely not an awful comparison.  It's spot on.  Burning 6 Million Jews to death is probably a far more egregious crime than denying gays the right to get married.  But the hearts of America's Right is in the same place, and, luckily, they didn't put in their Mormon Cult Member President to show how destructive they can really be.

Probably?  I feel like the use of probably there makes my point even greater.



EdHieron on 12 December 2012
Kasz216 said:
EdHieron said:
Kasz216 said:
EdHieron said:
Kasz216 said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

 

 

Lets assume you are right here.

70% of American Christians believe this.

78.4% of Americans are Christians.

ttp://religions.pewforum.org/reports

70% of 78.4% is 54.88%.

54.88% of the country believes these things.

You can't define something as an extreme viewpoint if over half of all American believe it.  (So... you, by your own reasoning and logic, are completely wrong.)


Just because over half of a country's population holds an erroneous and extreme belief, that doesn't make it not an erroneous and extreme belief.  You don't think Germany during the Third Reich was just a typical group of folks simply because most of them endorsed Hitler do you?


FIrst off.  Awful comparison.  Second off... if you think throwing in the opinion of the world is going to make those views suddenly in the minority.  I'm guessing you aren't familiar with about 4 four the 6 inhabited continents. (depending on if you count Oceania a continent anyway.)

It's definitely not an awful comparison.  It's spot on.  Burning 6 Million Jews to death is probably a far more egregious crime than denying gays the right to get married.  But the hearts of America's Right is in the same place, and, luckily, they didn't put in their Mormon Cult Member President to show how destructive they can really be.

Probably?  I feel like the use of probably there makes my point even greater.


Do you really know how much pain it inflicts on gays that they can't get married?



dsgrue3 on 12 December 2012
Mazty said:

I used those memes because I can't take this debate seriously. I don't think you grasp the level of education I've had on this subject. Then, for someone who has had none to try and argue what I've heard first hand from professors and read for myself is frankly laughable. 
Your following comment proves just what I mean:

"Our contribution is about 0.3% to the greenhouse effect in regard to CO2. In other words, negligible."

You know this to be a negliable amount how?  You don't. You have literally come to a completely arbitrary conclusion. You also clearly didn't read the paper. C13 means we can, and have, measured human impact on the atmospheric compostition. That was originally a point up for debate, but due to said evidence, it no longer is. We have changed the atmosphere. Fact. 
This is what I mean...You make references to a time when oxygen was incredibly low as if it has some relevance. Having to drag you through a high school and colledge education is not my job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen
You hadn't heard of some of the most important ice cores in the global warming debate, and yet feel you are adequately equipped to discuss this topic?

Please, just stop talking. You literally do not know what you are talking about. Where exactly have you been educated on global warming? And why on earth do you think you are educated in the matter enough that you can just dismiss what peer reviewed acclaimed scientists discover?

You seem rather flustered. Showcases your lack of formal debate skills.

Again, you fail to provide a single credible source for you statements and continue to use ad hominem and straw man arguments instead. Bravo.

Haven't addressed a single point of mine, either. Very impressive.

Also, learn to spell college. It contains no "d". Strikingly obvious you have no argument or source, merely another shill for climate change mindlessly providing nothing of substance and instead attacking me instead of addressing evidence.

Again, the ice cores pertain to climate change, not anthropogenic climate change. Thus, irrelevant.

So again I ask,  for the last time. Do you have evidence of anthropogenic climate change or no?



Around the Network
badgenome on 12 December 2012
EdHieron said:

Do you really know how much pain it inflicts on gays that they can't get married?

Less pain than being burned alive, I'm quite sure. Especially since they can get married whether or not the state recognizes the union.

Do you really not see how this is a fucking ignorant argument to make?



comawhite94 on 12 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
OWS are a bunch of leftist plebeians with not a modicum of intellect or drive who value humanitarianism over hard work. They complain of the disparity of wealth.in the country, yet do nothing to further their own situation (aside from incessantly bitching and walking to the mailbox to collect their welfare check). The affluent in this nation have always held a disproportionate amount of wealth, why are you suddenly complaining?

Human induced Global Warming is a complete fabrication propped up by the IPCC, which is a government body, not a scientific one which has been investigated on multiple occasions for manipulating data and using studies of manipulated data to promote its agenda to spread panic. Contrary to what you've heard, there is NO consensus as to the cause of climate change. CO2 is the most touted item, and yet CO2 levels have been 20x higher in the past NATURALLY. Utter nonsense.

EdHieron has been spreading pure nonsense this entire time. Why are you still indulging him in his trolling effort?

1) Most the people at Occupy were either employed full or part time. Only 13% were unemployed. 
2) They aren't saying that everyone should have the exact same amount of wealth, but that Wall Street has corrupted our government to pass deregulation laws that would give them more wealth. So in that sense, they want Wall Street to fail if they do something stupid. See Capitalism 101. And the amount of wealth in the hands of the rich is higher than it has been in decades, so it's not like everything is completely normal. 

http://www.fastcompany.com/1789018/demographics-occupy-wall-street#disqus_thread

3) Yes, CO2 levels were much higher millions of years ago, mostly because plants weren't as abundant, and photosynthesis wasn't taking place to the extent that it is today. If you look roughly 65 Million years ago when the dinosaurs became extinct, there was a rise in CO2, presumably becuase of a catastrophic event (a meteor perhaps) that crashed to earth and blocked out the sun, thus killing plants. And yes, scientists do indeed agree that global warming is real. I have yet to take a science class in my life where it has been shown otherwise, and I have yet to see a reputable scientist in any field deny its existence. (exxon mobil and BP's scientists don't count either.) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change



Babble babble bitch bitch rebel rebel party party sex sex sex and don't forget the violence. Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad and lonely stick your stupid slogan in. Everybody sing along. 

comawhite94 on 12 December 2012

So because we aren't being murdered gays should just be content? And part of the point of marriage is that it is federally recognized. If most churches won't allow it, and the government won't allow it, then how exactly are they supposed to get married in the first place? 



Babble babble bitch bitch rebel rebel party party sex sex sex and don't forget the violence. Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad and lonely stick your stupid slogan in. Everybody sing along. 

EdHieron on 12 December 2012
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

Do you really know how much pain it inflicts on gays that they can't get married?

Less pain than being burned alive, I'm quite sure. Especially since they can get married whether or not the state recognizes the union.

Do you really not see how this is a fucking ignorant argument to make?


It's not an ignorant argument to make.  If the Tea Partiers, The Religious Right, and the Mormon Cultists had gotten their way, who is to say they wouldn't have created concentration camps and put all the people they detest ( gays, atheists, unbelievers, Muslems sexually liberated women) in them?  More than likely once Romney took office he would have sanctioned Israel's plans of attacking Iran simply because they want to make a nuclear power plant and brought Russia into the mix thus resulting in a confrontation that would have snuffed out far more than 6 million lives.



badgenome on 12 December 2012
EdHieron said:

It's not an ignorant argument to make.  If the Tea Partiers, The Religious Right, and the Mormon Cultisys had gotten their way, who is to say they wouldn't have created concentration camps and put all the people they detest ( gays, atheists, unbelievers, Muslems sexually liberated women) in them?  More than likely once Romney took office he would have sanctioned Israel's plans of attacking Iran simply because they want to make a nuclear power plant and brought Russia into the mix thus resulting in a confrontation that would have snuffed out far more than 6 million lives.

Who is to say that you don't want to put everyone who disagrees with you in a concentration camp? Since you so easily conflate disapproving of something with wanting to kill everyone who engages in a particular behavior, I have to assume that you do.