Quote# 93899

Questions:

1. In the last several decades, what ethnic/religious group has engaged in terrorist acts that are almost exclusively against helpless, harmless civilian targets?

2. In the last several decades, what ethnic/religious group has been responsible for all international acts of terrorism?

3. In the last several decades, what ethnic/religious group has boldly justified its terrorist activity against "infidels" by stating that they are following the dictates of their odious moon-god as revealed by an insane, murderous pedophile?

4. Do the leftist scumbuckets have even ONE example of terrorist activity by a white, heterosexual, right-wing, Bible- and God-clinging Christian male? When was the last time a Baptist exploded a suicide belt in a crowded bus or restaurant? When was the last time a Catholic hijacked an airliner? When was the last time a Pentecostal planted IEDs in roadways?

Ann Coulter's perceptive comment can be extended to all forms of terrorism.

"...One hundred percent of the successful terrorist attacks on commercial airlines for 20 years have been committed by Arabs. When there is a 100 percent chance of being hijacked by an Arab Muslim Extremist, it ceases to be a profile. It's called a 'description of the suspect'. This is not a psychological judgment about an ethnic group - it is an all-points bulletin: Warning! The next terrorist to board a commercial flight will be an Arab or Muslim male."
-- Ann Coulter

And Muzzies have been responsible for just about every news-making act of terrorism. Ergo the insane passion for avoiding the obvious in Bahstin is fooling no one with more than a few functioning neurons.

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 60 Comments [4/21/2013 8:05:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 41

Quote# 93029

[Carly Rae Jepsen refuses to participate in the Boy Scouts of America Jamboree over their ban on gay scouts/scout masters.]

Can you say "dyke", boys and girls?

Earth to queers: if you want to see how welcome the obsession is with forcing the Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals, start your own scouting organization — e.g., Gay Scouts of America — and see how much of a market there is for the concept. Allowing the degenerate minority of insatiable agitators to ram their demands down the BSA's throat is not going to win supporters.

As for that ugly one-hit-wonder bitch, until this thread I never heard of her. It is an introduction that I dearly wish had been indefiinitely postponed.

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 68 Comments [3/9/2013 4:24:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 48
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog

Quote# 92989

For the sake of argument, let's dispense with the liberal "birthers" bullshit. There are millions of aware, troubled Americans who are NOT willing to suck the "historic" Marxist's dick because of his skin color and ignore the very real question of his constitutional eligibility for the office of POTUS. Insultingly dismissing concerned, politically savvy citizens with a mindless buzzword is what liberals do. It's akin to calling critics of Gorebull Warming "deniers". Never mind the arguments. Just defame them.

[...]

If [Obama] is proven to be ineligible, it's not a matter of, "Will it happen?" By definition, a bill that has been signed into law by a person who is not qualified to sign it has not been enacted. It is not a law, no matter how much one wants it to be so. Ignoring that reality would change nothing, and it would signal the collapse of the US legislative system.

A world-shaking constitutional crisis would result from Obastard being proven to have been unqualified for office. For one thing, America would have been without a president since January 20, 2009, in violation of Article II of the Constitution. As such, nothing involving the POTUS performing an executive action was valid, by definition. If a person is not legitimately the President of the United States, the person could not have acted in that capacity.

It matters not one phucking iota that the result of that revelation would be devastating. One cannot escape the consequences by pretending that the causes did not happen or are irrelevant. To say, "Well, it's done and we can't change it, so we must live with it," is intolerable and more disastrous to America than the ineligibility of the president for the office. Elections and reelections don't alter reality. If the person in that office is not there legally, he is not the POTUS, period, no matter what tens of millions of deceived voters thought.

It behooves America to get the cold, hard facts. All of the credible evidence points to Obastard not being a natural-born US citizen. What do deliberately forged birth certificates say? What does a faked SS number say? What do millions of dollars spent burying every trace of his past say?

"Barrack has led by example, when we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test." What does that unjoking admission by Moochelle during a June 2008 campaign speech say?

This country MUST know the truth. It wouldn't be "nice" to know. It is mandatory to know. Even if he had been out of office for a decade when the facts were proven, the consequences would be no less horrific. Everything he did in his eight years of illegal occupancy of the People's House would be nullified. And the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

I for one would be relieved if that asshole DID prove his legitimacy. Then he could be opposed strictly on his record. However, anyone who isn't lip-locked on his phallus knows that he and his lackeys have gone out of their way to avoid answering the question of his eligibility. What the phuck is he hiding?

Clueless appeasers trying to bury the issue with chants of "birthers" are doing no one any favors.

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 21 Comments [3/5/2013 4:15:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 26
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog

Quote# 92774

"I see no problem with theory (and speculation)."

Nor do I, but when every aspect of a "science" consists solely of theory and speculation; when there is no possible way to test and falsify theory and speculation; when theory and speculation become quasireligious doctrine; when theory and speculation are are enforced by the legislatures and courts; when we are told that our kids cannot understand the natural world unless they are required to base their understanding on theory and speculation; when the true believers in theory and speculation attack as "ignorant" and "unscientific" anyone who dares to question the theory and speculation; then theory and speculation cease to be rational and becomes cultic.

As for artists' drawings becoming evidence, need one mention the infamous Nebraska Man, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii? Why have evolutionists swept it under the carpet rather than openly admit that it was bullshit from the getgo?

For the curious, Nebraska Man was the centerpiece of the preposterous Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925, immortalized in the egregiously inaccurate movie, "Inherit The Wind". Ol' Nebby's species, an entire race of early "man", was fleshed out from a single tooth, and the invented creature was used as proof of evolution. The smug, arrogant evolutionists sneered, "See THAT, you blankety-drat creationists? Evolution is a FACT!"

Evolutionists have been strangely silent about this lamentably bad science ever since the single tooth was later discovered to have come from an extinct peccary — a pig.

A pig made monkeys of evolutionists. Not surprisingly, Hollywood did not make a sequel titled, "Disinherit The Windbags".

When you lament that your kids' rooms look like pig sties, remember their predecessors.

At least Southwest Colorado Man had a somewhat more noble ancestry. He was invented from the tooth of a horse. The evolutionists never owned up to that blunder, either.

Did Kettlewell see peppered moths landing on tree trunks and being eaten? No. In fact, he glued them there for his infamous photos. Peppered moths almost never land on tree trunks. They much prefer the underside of leaves where they are not visible to hungry birds. And, Kettlewell did not explain why this mythical "evolution" did not occur in even one of the hundreds of other species of moths and butterflies that inhabit the British Isles and were therefore exposed to exactly the same influences. Lastly, he did NOT elaborate on the fact that the various shadings of peppered moths have existed together for however long they've been around, and that changes in populations of existing species do not constitute evolution.

Why is Ernst Haeckel's "recapitulation theory" ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") still found in textbooks even though it has long since been proven to be a colossal fraud? Ditto the Piltdown Man, another hoax created by a Jesuit priest name Tielhard de Jardin, who was trying to harmonize evolution with Christianity and had to invent his own evidence when nature failed to provide it.

• The Java Ape Man, Pithecanthropus erectus, was constructed from a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh-bone, and three molar teeth, found over a year and a range of 70 feet in a river bed full of bones of extinct animals. There is no consensus of opinion on its worth.
• Another Pithecanthropus found in Java in 1926 was invented from the kneebone of an extinct elephant;
• Every trace of Peking Man has vanished;
• Etcetera etcetera.

In Origin of Species alone, Darwin used subjunctive-mood expressions such as "Let us assume", "We may well suppose..." etcetera over 800 times. That's a mighty schitteload of assuming and supposing for the so-called "central theory in biology".

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 44 Comments [2/20/2013 4:27:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 47

Quote# 92591

Those of us who value REAL science have been exposed to the B-movie "science" of ETBs for decades. Your pseudoscientific religion cannot withstand objective analysis.

• Of what possible worth is a "science" that survives only by using the legislatures and the courts to enforce its exclusivity?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that employs censorship to silence its critics?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that seeks to destroy the reputations, the careers and the lives of scientists who dare to question it?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that dares not encounter its critics in an academic setting?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that is assumptions heaped on conjectures piled on suppositions overlaid with wild-ass guesses?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that is untestable and unfalsifiable?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that has exactly zero evidence to support it, and that considers "scientific" the premise that because something must have happened, it therefore happened?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that attacks its opponents for using "outdated" arguments, but that has as it foundation a book published in 1859, when knowledge of the awesome complexity of life did not exist?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" based on a "theory" that must explain everything and that allows no exceptions?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that defines what is scientific and that uses that definition to discredit anything that does not agree with it?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that is intractably hostile to REAL science?

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 58 Comments [2/10/2013 6:55:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 71
Submitted By: David

Quote# 92537

Technology has made the end times possible. As a result of the Enlightenment, followed by the Industrial Revolution, followed by our current progress in information/communication we have surpassed all previous gains historical or otherwise. That technology has ushered in the last days.

E.g., the "mark of the beast" (Rev 13:16-18, 14:9-11) would have been impossible even as late as the mid-20th. However, the exponential growth of computer technology in the last few decades has rendered it not only doable but inevitable. It makes a cashless economy possible, and once all transactions are carried by the computer networks, it is ridiculously simple to require "that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name" (Rev 13:17). Ever try to use a credit card that has been rejected for insufficient funds? The merchant swipes the card, his terminal talks to a computer perhaps thousands of miles away, and immediately the merchant is informed that the card can't be used.

And how long will it be before cards are obsolete, replaced by implanted microchips that serve as unfalsifiable personal IDs? Given the plague of identity theft, an alternative that eliminates it will be an easy sell. It's unique to the individual. It can't be forgotten, lost or stolen. There's no fumbling through a wallet full of plastic for the right card. Wave the chip past the reader and everything else is done by the computers. What citizen of the 21st century wouldn't welcome that convenience and security?

Once that's in place, the mark can be implemented. Anyone not accepting the chip or the authority of the AC will out of the loop. There will be no cash. No one will be able to buy without the chip. No merchant will be able to sell to someone without it. And if the person does accept the chip prior to the mark, but refuses to worship the AC, it becomes a lo-jack device that pinpoints the person's location for the authorities every time an attempt is made to use it, or it is in the proximity of a scanner.

The technology for the mark exists right now. All that's left is good, old fashioned salesmanship.

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 43 Comments [2/8/2013 4:32:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 39

Quote# 92433

Obassole was reelected for one reason only: his skin is not "white". 95% of blacks pulled the levers for him like blind, obedient little robots, even though not one of them can point to one thing that the Magic Negro actually did in their behalf. Ditto Hispanics, feminazis, gays, union thugs and all the other reliable RAT voting blocs.

The Celebrity In Chief, Barack Hussein Kardashian, was reelected becaiuse he is a media-invented idol. The coronation is now behind him, and he has no future election to temper his sociopathic obsession with power and control. He is going to reveal his consummate assholery in ways that even his media dick-suckers will not be able to conceal. They owe him nothing. When it becomes glaringly obvious to them that he is as dangerous to their cushy, parasitic jobs as he is to the country, self-preservation will become the dominant factor. Their allegiance is to liberalism, not to him.

They made a demigod of the Kenyan-born ghetto trash. They can break him. Ask Ms. Clinton about that.

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 30 Comments [2/3/2013 8:51:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 22

Quote# 92338

Bratty child, you have not shown ONE sign, not ONE trace, of scientific competence in your scribblings. You, like every other omniscient, self-worshipping juvenile, do not debate, discuss or argue. You merely attack. The only reasonable conclusion: science education in "skoolz" has become a pathetic joke, and you are the proof of that.

It would be futile to attempt to provoke an ignorant, arrogant pissant like you into engaging in an actual debate on the subject. I have yet to encounter an evowacko who is capable of anything other than snotty, hostile, insulting rhetoric. On the continuum of scientific knowledge, evozealots are between the paramecium and the lobotomized kumquat.


Please be considerate of the adults here. Go find a nice, dark corner, curl up in the fetal position, suck on one thumb, insert the other in your aft aperture, play switchfinger, and reflect in your primitive way on how much better life would be if you had a functioning brain.

Go back you your chatroom and try to impress your fellow barely-post-pubescent punks. Maybe they'll ask you to show them your "thing" again.

BTW, Bonzo, I was flaming when the best part of you ran down your daddy's furry leg and dripped on his banana peels.

[Emphasis mine.]

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 45 Comments [1/29/2013 4:41:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 50
Submitted By: David

Quote# 92328

The cold, hard facts: liberals want children to die by gun violence, the more the better. I am 100% certain that they high-fived each other when the Sandy Hook tragedy was reported. To liberals (e.g., Obastard, Feinstain, Schumer, the Brady Bunch, and the vermin at DUh and FISTED), dead children are politically advantageous in terms of disarming the populace.

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 63 Comments [1/28/2013 5:17:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 70

Quote# 92268

Earth to ETB (Evolutionism True Believer): science, pure science, seeks answers no matter what those answers might be. It does NOT rule out any answer for philosophical or ideological reasons. If all the research and studies and evidence point to an inevitable conclusion that this or that cannot possibly be explained other than by design, it is NOT scientific to reject that conclusion because one doesn't happen to like it.

[...]

Evolutionism is a mindless, cultic religion that would rather believe in fairy tales than in what the evidence clearly demonstrates.

[...]

You are "blocking its teaching" because you cannot disprove intelligent design coldly, logically and intellectually. If you ETBs were so bloody sure of your egregious mythology, you would welcome the opportunity to confront creationism and intelligent design in the classrooms and thoroughly disprove it. But you don't. Why is that?

The simple answer: ETBs are of a single mindset: "We cannot possibly refute what they are saying based on the existing evidence, so we will use the legislatures and the courts to censor all opposing viewpoints and enforce exclusivity for our outrageous pseudoscience."

And ETBs have the brass balls to call their fabulous fiction a "science".

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 39 Comments [1/25/2013 4:25:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 35
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog