Peter Popoff?

Jan 30, 2009
139
1
JFK 9-11-1960

"But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. "

Fact is JFK almost lost because he was Catholic. People feared that it would end up giving the Pope/Catholic Church too much control over the country.
 
Jan 30, 2009
139
1
key word.Almost.

Actually thats not the key word. Being Catholic did not help him. It was something he had to overcome. His debate with Nixon is one of the most important debates in history and had a large effect on him winning. Saying being Catholic was why he won is just wrong.
 
Dec 17, 2007
858
2
Canada
Actually thats not the key word. Being Catholic did not help him. It was something he had to overcome. His debate with Nixon is one of the most important debates in history and had a large effect on him winning. Saying being Catholic was why he won is just wrong.

JFK being catholic was a MAJOR part of why he won not the only part.



-Michael
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
My name is Michael not Mike. And I don't want the last word I want to put you in your place which I have. Also if you read my first post it was very informative.

Translation: yes you do want the last word.

this going back and forth between yes it was a big part and no it wasn't. just drop it. it's more annoying than informative. we've heard both points, let the people make up their minds for themselves.

Those who have them, that is.

In an attempt to grab the thread by the short and curlies and drag it back on track, is anyone here familiar with the works of Docc Hilford, Richard Webster, or Craig Browning? They have some very interesting things to say about the psychic/mentalism industries and where the lines that should not be crossed lie.
 
Sep 4, 2007
60
0
Now I do believe in God because it makes just as much cense to believe that an all powerful being has been around forever opposed to energy that had to think and evolve forever, also if you base your decision on Pascal's wager alone your better bet is to believe in God.

To start off, compose a proper sentence, and learn to spell. Don't talk down to people when you yourself can't get the basics of the language down in it's written form.

Second, Creationism and it's advocates, who love to call themselves Scientists and have yet to actually prove anything, love to utilize the principle of the excluded middle while verbalizing their daydreams of a religious reality. No one with the ability to apply critical thinking can stomach the belief's behind Creationism without forgoing basic logic.

A nice quote from the ever so brilliant writer, Mr. Ebert:

"Imagine flipping a coin over and over. For each toss, the odds are fifty-fifty that it will come up heads (a one-in-two chance). The odds of getting two heads in a row is a one-in-two-to-the-power-of-two chance, or one-in-four. Five heads in a row is 1:2^5, or one-in-thirty-two. A hundred heads? 1:2^100, or roughly one in 1.3 trillion trillion trillion (thank Gates for the little calculator program on my computer). A creationist would claim that all the lucky chances that evolution requires is like getting not one, not five, but millions upon millions of heads in a row.

"But the creationists are forgetting something. Evolution ISN'T random, as they often claim. It's selected. You can't really blame creationists for missing this fact...Darwin cleverly concealed it from view by calling his theory 'natural selection.' Let's return to our coin-tossing example, this time including the principle of selection. What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails? Now, given the ability to select, how long would it take to rack up a hundred heads in a row? About two hundred throws.

"Once you understand the concept of selection, and how it applies to evolution, you realize that what was thought to be vanishingly unlikely actually becomes virtually inevitable."


Hmmm maybe you should stop sleeping in science class where they slowly are teaching CREATIONISM.

I'm afraid not Michael. You're belief system has a long LONG uphill battle ahead, if you consider it a battle. The school system, as a whole, will never teach Creationism as a science. Never.

Also, I wouldn't be so bold as to claim, with no evidence or logic, that Steerpike isn't liked. I quite like him, and agree with him. Consequently, I see his presence on this forum and E's as quite beneficial to a lot of members. Among other posters that are well informed and intelligent, he is one of the best.

urban
 
Dec 17, 2007
858
2
Canada
To start off, compose a proper sentence, and learn to spell. Don't talk down to people when you yourself can't get the basics of the language down in it's written form.

Second, Creationism and it's advocates, who love to call themselves Scientists and have yet to actually prove anything, love to utilize the principle of the excluded middle while verbalizing their daydreams of a religious reality. No one with the ability to apply critical thinking can stomach the belief's behind Creationism without forgoing basic logic.

A nice quote from the ever so brilliant writer, Mr. Ebert:

"Imagine flipping a coin over and over. For each toss, the odds are fifty-fifty that it will come up heads (a one-in-two chance). The odds of getting two heads in a row is a one-in-two-to-the-power-of-two chance, or one-in-four. Five heads in a row is 1:2^5, or one-in-thirty-two. A hundred heads? 1:2^100, or roughly one in 1.3 trillion trillion trillion (thank Gates for the little calculator program on my computer). A creationist would claim that all the lucky chances that evolution requires is like getting not one, not five, but millions upon millions of heads in a row.

"But the creationists are forgetting something. Evolution ISN'T random, as they often claim. It's selected. You can't really blame creationists for missing this fact...Darwin cleverly concealed it from view by calling his theory 'natural selection.' Let's return to our coin-tossing example, this time including the principle of selection. What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails? Now, given the ability to select, how long would it take to rack up a hundred heads in a row? About two hundred throws.

"Once you understand the concept of selection, and how it applies to evolution, you realize that what was thought to be vanishingly unlikely actually becomes virtually inevitable."




I'm afraid not Michael. You're belief system has a long LONG uphill battle ahead, if you consider it a battle. The school system, as a whole, will never teach Creationism as a science. Never.

Also, I wouldn't be so bold as to claim, with no evidence or logic, that Steerpike isn't liked. I quite like him, and agree with him. Consequently, I see his presence on this forum and E's as quite beneficial to a lot of members. Among other posters that are well informed and intelligent, he is one of the best.

urban


You still forget to mention how energy was around forever. Surely you don't believe that something could be around for that long could you?


-Michael
 
Steerpike should take his own advice.


-Michael

This isn't his advice, it is a philosophy that my grandpa said to me, steerpike has just proven this saying to be truth.

Every time you post something you are showing your immaturity, and your
condescending nature of most of your post are really irking me. The reason I am not calling out steerpike is because this simple reason.

HE IS RIGHT IN MOST POSTS HE MAKES.

Now i do believe my architecture teacher is monitoring what I am doing on this computer so I bid you good day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 17, 2007
858
2
Canada
This isn't his advice, it is a philosophy that my grandpa said to me, steerpike has just proven this saying to be truth.

Every time you post something you are showing your immaturity, and your
condescending nature of most of your post are really irking me. The reason I am not calling out steerpike is because this simple reason.

HE IS RIGHT IN EVERY POST HE MAKES.

Now i do believe my architecture teacher is monitoring what I am doing on this computer so I bid you good day.


When you have the right to tell me what I can and can not do I will let you know. And if you would like to talk about the condescending nature of my posts PM me like a real man. And we shall settle it like normal people.

Until then, I'm out.


-Michael
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results