I don't see how that proves anything... There is ZERO mention of extraterrestrial sources or even the slightest suspicion of such in the article. The Navy is obviously going to be on the look out for any weapons being developed by potential enemies. Iran, Israel, Russia and China are capable of advanced weapons systems and tend not to share information with us.

A UFO simply means it flies and we don't know what it is.

1. That's just the BS you keep gorging yourself on. The IPCC actually attaches percentage estimates of how certain they are with their reports.
2. Saying the science is settled is NOT the same thing as refusing to accept new ideas. That's like saying the gas tank is empty so we will no longer buy gas. Yes, there have been times, like a little over a century ago where the science community thought everything was figured out, not because they didn't want to be challenged but because there WAS no challenge. Then quantum physics came along and guess what? Science accepted the challenge.


I didn't say YOU have a list... I said "daddy" does... And I'd love to see you try to find ANY list of acceptable theories that limits my own assessment. Go ahead... try it.

I wasn't talking about them - I was talking about myself. I'm not going to speak for people I don't even know. I have not personally been bitch-slapped by a lesbian, or anything similar, that's honesty, not denial.

As for all those other cry-babies, shaking their fists and swearing that they will overcome the gay people... man the hell up.

If your insulted that's on you. I am critical of specific social patterns into which some people here on OPP fit but I don't make undue assumptions about any of them. Yes, they are often offended and no, I don't care.


Yes, it does.

And what good would a defense attorney be against a kangaroo court? The fascist tradition is to kill the democratic socialists once power is consolidated... no defense teams.

So be careful what you wish for. For the last century it's been the democratic socialists and their progressive allies that pulled American workers out of third world conditions. Ya really wanna go back there?

Thank you Tug.

Oh, so when you say "when one holds God in contempt." what you REALLY mean is "when one IS in contempt". Sorry, I have a habit of reading the words rather than guessing what people really mean.


Yeah - "ha, ha, ha."
So, I guess you're saying the evidence I presented can't be disputed on logic alone and that one would have to study up on the case if there is any hope of finding a counter-argument. That's seem fair enough.

Of course that didn't stop some folks from reacting with irrelevant opinions and unsubstantiated claims about my relationship with God. I'm guessing for them, it's more important to attack people than it is to understand what they are saying.

Really?
You don't want to make that sound at least a LITTLE bit intelligent?


judging by that last comment you seem to have a problem understanding actual facts in the first place.


Failed?
What exactly do you think they failed to do?

Their interference with our election was a constant process. There's no way to tell exactly how many votes they may have flipped but their influence can be seen all over our media and with our penchant for idiotic conspiracy theories like the Clinton's ordering murders, operating child prostitution rings, and paying for Russian subversion, it's no wonder the Russians jumped on it.

Or maybe scheduling a vote on September 9th is just asinine. Maybe the Republicans should also have made the attempt to connect with the American people to commemorate 9/11 and scheduled the vote for 9/12.

BTW, politicians are not paid by the hour so "time off with pay" isn't even a "thing".

Wow... holding God in contempt... seriously, where do you guys come up with this crap? You seem to have a much lower opinion of God than I do... I can't imagine God being so submissive.

So I can pretty much guess no one is going to challenge my suggestion. Good - that's another one I can pass on to my op-ed bucket. ;)

Hello... mike. ;)
So first off, I'm not even sure HOW anyone would set himself above the courts. As for my opinion, that's on even ground. My argument is mostly a matter of logical deduction.


Is that a rhetorical question or do you seriously think anyone would know that?


In my opinion, that's a vague question. Many of the laws against discrimination are passed in order to protect the freedoms of the First Amendment, the freedom of religion being one of them.

...So, I'm getting a sense that you didn't actually read my post... Or maybe you just forgot where I this... "Of course I agree completely with the opinion that a business should NOT be forced to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs..."

So, obviously I am not defending an agenda to force people to violate their own religion, but thanks for the comic strip idea. lol

The point I was actually making starts with the charges being (as far as I know) entirely baseless. If there WAS some basis to the charges it wasn't mentioned in the article, which is kind of odd when you think about it... unless the point is to direct attention to the surrounding culture war - which is right where YOU went.

I only suggested the entire lawsuit was a scam for legal precedence because I couldn't think of any other logical reason for taking a baseless charge all the way to the states supreme court. The fact is, legal decisions become legal precedence even if such decisions are unnecessary. And the more precedence for allowing discrimination there is, the easier it will be for legal teams in the future to defend acts of discrimination.


So then you never heard of politics.


huh... I guess I don't see much challenge there... Then again, I've never been force-fed anything by a militant lesbian before, what was it like?


Yeah, I tried but I just can't understand what you're trying to say here. sorry.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-free-speech-religious-freedom/

A recent court decision in Arizona is being celebrated as a lofty victory for freedom. You would think a national holiday is in order. Of course I agree completely with the opinion that a business should NOT be forced to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs but what I find more compelling about this story in particular is how it exhibits the absurdity of the right-wing culture war. In this case, the fact that the victory is against an enemy that doesn't even exist.

I read about this in the National Review, probably the most famous source of right-wing propaganda. The article emphasizes the righteous victory of the ruling that the two artists and owners of a business "Brush & Nib Studios" should not be forced to provide services that conflict with their believes, such as designing wedding invitations for same-sex weddings. You can almost hear the celebratory fireworks as you read the article. But I also noticed a complete omission of any detail about the case itself other than the odd reference to the business owners as plaintiffs, not defendants.

As far as we know, the business owners were not forced the provide any such service to anyone and from a constitutional standpoint, no such offense is legally permissible anyway. It appears that this is a case where a business and/or it's legal representation was attacking a city ordinance that prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against people of protected status -- which includes sexual orientation.

Well, designing wedding invitations is NOT a public accommodation. This is what so many people fail to realize. Constitutional law only applies to government, hence the term "public accommodation". So even if a same-sex couple WAS to demand service from "Brush & Nib Studios", which apparently never happened, preexisting laws against discrimination wouldn't apply and and it would be a simple open and shut case. The fact is private business has every right to refuse service and they always have.

But that isn't what this is really about. This is about the process of gathering legal precedence to help support the future defenders of discriminatory behavior. In this case, the Alliance for Freedom, representing the plaintiff, created such a precedence literally out of thin air. They saw an anti-discriminatory law that no one was accused of breaking and a couple of up-tight Christian business owners that were not being forced to do anything they didn't want to do, implied a non-existent conflict and made a case out of it.

Fascinating what these little weasels do.

So, you just confirmed my point. Columbus was persecuted by the censorship of religion because of his scientific discovery (thinking he circumnavigated the earth). He wasn't being persecuted by the scientists he was being persecuted by a church trying to defend its preconceived claim that the earth is flat. Thank you for the example.


Well, someone should have explained that to the church when they were persecuting Columbus for suggesting the earth is a globe or when they arrested Galileo for using scientific evidence to suggest the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Maybe someone can explain it to the religious people today who refuse to consider the scientific evidence that we evolved and would probably be arresting the Darwinists if not for the fact that we're a secular republic now.


I think everyone can agree on this - the disagreement seems to be whether we call it nature or "God's creation."


It's ok. Personally, I don't need to believe God created something for it to be awesome - our modest observations of the universe so far is enough to boggle my mind with what they suggest.


Thank you Iliamna, I hope you got some sleep and BTW God has always been part of my life. People tend to assume I am an atheist because I'm not sold on Creationism but you can acknowledge the existence of something without having to comply with any of the specific theories about it.

I understand the point you are making but it doesn't invalidate the argument that religion and science employ opposite patterns. Yes, a scientist is largely defined by his field of study but that doesn't mean the abundance of fields don't have common methods. And underlying these common methods there is a spirit of discovery which is opposite to the central theme of religious censorship.

Bottom line here is that science, at it's common denominator, is a process of redefining reality based on discoveries while religion is a process of preserving reality despite the discoveries.

And yes, there are scientists who are also religious. But religion is no less diverse than science and there is a wide range of perspectives on what or who we think God is.

Since you have such a firm grasp on what science is, might I suggest applying it to your own perspective. Through logical deduction you can discern the difference between the "real" scientists and the "fake" scientists by what they do, not whether or not their theory is on the "Approved by Daddy" list.

;)