Tony Snow, RIP

[Bizzarofelice]

First of all, let me preface my shit by saying I think warren is funny as hell. I cringe when seeing the names of most of the folks here, but I rush to read warren posts. That being said, warren, you're attacking your view of "liberals" based upon some sort of groupthink you either suround yourself with or give creedence to those who surround themselves with it.

I believe I was sounding off to the typical hatred you mindless leftist sheep spew

There's absolutely no reason to give that much of a damn about a dead partisan, but to rush in to defend him even before any threats surface is indictative of some sort of aberration in your thinking. The fact that you use terms like "typical" leads me to believe you have an image in your head that won't be broken anytime soon.

That decorum is something you ignorant, heartless wastes of oxygen fucks wouldn't understand.

Yet, nobody said crap about Tony Snow. Calm down and realize the partisan hype in all in your head.

[Mister Bushice]

First of all, let me preface my shit by saying I think warren is funny as hell.

My favorite warren post was when he came in here screaming about filing lawsuits against all parties responsible for fucking up his Moms computer when he visited this site the day before - only to find out that he had been porn site hopping or somesuch, and had picked up a computerable disease. The back pedal he did after that was awesomely funny.

good times, good times.

[Diogenes]

Yet, nobody said crap about Tony Snow. Calm down and realize the partisan hype in all in your head.

Snow will be soon forgotten and not well remembered.

Snow was brought in to put a happy face on the crimes of Bush Inc. For that he was a scum sucking rat.

Oil prices rising and out of control, food prices are soaring,banks going under, unemployment numbers staggering economy, another war looming in the middle east, consumer confidence at a 16 yr low...
Tony Snow dead...

Thanks god for providing us with at least some good news.

That's at least two nobodies.

But props to all on the left who if incapable of showing active respect to the recently departed, at least remain silent.

Credit where due and all.

[BSmack]

But props to all on the left who if incapable of showing active respect to the recently departed, at least remain silent.

To paraphrase MLK, the silence of good men is all that is needed for tyranny to prosper.

Now go fuck yourself.

[Diogenes]

But props to all on the left who if incapable of showing active respect to the recently departed, at least remain silent.

I'm still bitter about Gore losing and hate America.

I'm pretty sure that if George Steponallovus or DeeDee Myers dies (not wishing it) those of us who disagreed with everything they spewed could show some class and be silent.

For the record...

Tim Russert, Demo activist.

RIP.

Vaya Con Dios.

[warren]

First of all, let me preface my shit by saying I think warren is funny as hell. I cringe when seeing the names of most of the folks here, but I rush to read warren posts. That being said, warren, you're attacking your view of "liberals" based upon some sort of groupthink you either suround yourself with or give creedence to those who surround themselves with it.

I believe I was sounding off to the typical hatred you mindless leftist sheep spew

There's absolutely no reason to give that much of a damn about a dead partisan, but to rush in to defend him even before any threats surface is indictative of some sort of aberration in your thinking. The fact that you use terms like "typical" leads me to believe you have an image in your head that won't be broken anytime soon.

That decorum is something you ignorant, heartless wastes of oxygen fucks wouldn't understand.

Yet, nobody said crap about Tony Snow. Calm down and realize the partisan hype in all in your head.

I appreciate your candor and accolades, however was this in my head?

Snow will be soon forgotten and not well remembered.PSUFAN wrote:


This is just one among others, you can't deny that there are those uninformed that root themselves in the hatred of all that even shades of Conservatism.

Soon forgotten and not well remembered. Classy. I was just echoing the AP and A-holes that inhabit this hobbit hole of morons that it doesn't matter the content of a man's soul for those types, it matters that they get in their 2 pence of ignorance and lock and step with Bill Maher talking points.

My only thought was that the guy was a decent human being and I enjoyed the fact that he challenged Bush on a number of issues that I disagree with the President on, yet that's not good enough for the multitude of John Stewart sheep that ecompass the Dem. Party as well as it could be said about the Repub's that echo the Ruch Limbaugh gangsters.

I am not a Ron Paul Libertarian, however, I am damn sure not a Republican anymore, we are on the verge of a third party and it ain't "green" it's a populous party that's going to deal with life on life's issues.

They've all failed us guy's; and the one gal that may post on here. Our President has unprecedented lows in popularity, the Congress is in single digits, so their is room for everyone that believes in this country to start giving a shit and not dogging each other with cheap shots and such.

My main point was just the fact that not so much on this board, but all over the media, a really cool dude, by the name of Snow, was trashed.

That's all, happy fucking day to all of you. I really do enjoy the times I can get on here and listen to you creeps make crop circles out of your gray matter. It reminds me that I might still have a shot in this world. w.

[warren]

First of all, let me preface my shit by saying I think warren is funny as hell.

My favorite warren post was when he came in here screaming about filing lawsuits against all parties responsible for fucking up his Moms computer when he visited this site the day before - only to find out that he had been porn site hopping or somesuch, and had picked up a computerable disease. The back pedal he did after that was awesomely funny.

good times, good times.

First of all that had to be tounge and cheek or I was still drinking at the time.

However, I do remember that and that laugh is surely on me, and yes, my face is turning a little red right now.

I got sober and married and actually have gotten pretty domestic now. I will give you this one Bushice, I can easily be a dumbass after a quart of Vodka anytime, I just choose not to now.

Thanks for the memory bitch.

Have a good one bra.

[Diogenes]

For the record, not one who tends to do this.

Too much of a snob and shit. But...














Rack Warren.

Outstanding.

[PSUFAN]

Snow will be soon forgotten and not well remembered.PSUFAN wrote:

That was BSmack. Looks like you grabbed part of his sig in there.

[LTS TRN 2]

Warren, I think those porn viruses have infected your various remaing lobes. What part of Tony Snow as shameless wind up hack for the FOX Propaganda Network don't you get? What part of Tony Snow as shameless mouthpiece for the most corrupt and vile (unelected) administration in American history don't you get?

"Conservatism," as you use the word refers to the foul, swift-boating war profiteers and oil whores, depraved Christers and general perverts and criminals who have and are being indicted and forced from office at an appalling rate. ALL of the so-called conservative policies and laws have proven disasterous for the American people and the world. WHO is supposed to be the "real" conservative anyway? Reagan and his astonishingly corrupt administration? Barry Goldwater and his dream? Ayn Rand?

You're a pathetic driveler, and the idea that you would respect Tony Snow pretty much says it all.

[Diogenes]

Warren, I think those porn viruses have infected your various remaing lobes. What part of Tony Snow as shameless wind up hack for the FOX Propaganda Network don't you get? What part of Tony Snow as shameless mouthpiece for the most corrupt and vile (unelected) administration in American history don't you get?

"Conservatism," as you use the word refers to the foul, swift-boating war profiteers and oil whores, depraved Christers and general perverts and criminals who have and are being indicted and forced from office at an appalling rate. ALL of the so-called conservative policies and laws have proven disasterous for the American people and the world. WHO is supposed to be the "real" conservative anyway? Reagan and his astonishingly corrupt administration? Barry Goldwater and his dream? Ayn Rand?

You're a pathetic driveler, and the idea that you would respect Tony Snow pretty much says it all.

Bace, your thoughts?

[warren]

No, they've been left to die because the demos have no balls.

So you expect us to believe that with majorities in both the House and Senate and armed with "clear and convincing evidence" of impeachable "crimes", the Dems don't have the balls to impeach one of the most despised and least popular Presidents in recent history?!?

No sale. What could they have possibly have lost by trying? If you honestly believe this load of shit then there is NO ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE for failing to take action against it. None.

Thanks Mvscal, I jumped your ass about the disrespectable Jesus stuff, but you are now and have for the most part, been on message and I apologize for some of the sophomoric lambasting I gave you.

I know you are an Agnostic and have zero problem with that, I mean who in their right mind could? However, I wish you would find it in your heart to refrain from calling a man that has been mentioned more than Barry Goldwater, a "dirty hippy."

Other than that, I agree with most of your rantings.

Having said that, I am organizing a Charter Cruise to Costa Rica in the preposterous event that the Obamination wins the Election.

Details are soon to follow.

[Felix]

I know you are an Agnostic

he's an Atheist

[Dinsdale]

I know you are an Agnostic

he's an Atheist

Which is scientifically flawed, as well.


There's only one logical choice -- agnosticism.

Since no one really knows about any sort of "creator" -- although the "creator" of the major religions is so unlikely, it's scientifically insignificant.


But one certainly can't rule out alien seeding of Earth, so there'ya'go -- agnosticism.

[Dinsdale]

Show me some evidence that God exists and I will consider it on its merits. I can't help it. I'm from Missouri.

With "god," you limit the scope to traditional religions... which are obviously rubbish, to be certain.


But by your own logic, you can't completely discount the possibility that there might have been some shenanigans involving the origin of life on earth, and therefore can't disprove that there was some form or another of "higher power" at work... however unlikely.


As bashers of organized religion, we can't allow ourselves to fall into the same close-minded trap that our adversaries do.

[poptart]

Show me some evidence that God exists and I will consider it on its merits.

The complete and truly astonishing fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy but the man, Jesus, is ... yeah, fairly compelling stuff.
Unless one remains blind to it.


You can look at the surroundings, the world, and know in your belly that God exists.

You know it, but it's more fun at this point to be a message board hard-ass.


lol

[PSUFAN]

As bashers of organized religion

Why didn't I get an email?

I brought the Lay's Eucharist wafers just the same

[Smackie Chan]

I'm not obliged to disprove anything for which there is no evidence.

Just as those who do believe (a group that doesn't include me) are not obliged to prove or provide evidence of a supreme being's existence, or disprove the non-existence of one. This is the nature and essence of faith. Belief in a supreme being is no different than the belief that one has never existed, except for the fact that what is being believed in each case is diametrically opposed to the other. Your argument appears similar to "innocent until proven guilty," where you have assigned the role of innocence to disbelief in God, and the role of guilt to belief. This works fine in law, but not in logical discourse. In law, the deck is stacked in favor of innocence. In logic, both sides should be assumed to have equal standing, especially in an argument such as this in which there is no evidence either way. Hence, atheism is defined as the belief that there is no God, as opposed to acceptance of the fact that there is no God, because God's non-existence (just as his existence) cannot be proven, and therefore cannot be considered to be a fact. No one ever refers to belief in 2 + 2 being equal to 4, because it is a fact that can be proven, so if one doesn't "believe" it, that person is misinformed, an idiot, or both. Belief has nothing to do with acceptance of that which can be proven, but only with matters of faith. Therefore, atheism is no different than theism from a logical standpoint - they are both belief systems.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is not a belief system. It is merely acceptance that there are certain things that can never be known. It is anti-faith, if you will - the refusal to believe in something that can't be proven. I've heard from many people, including those for whom I have a great deal of respect, that it is better to believe in something than to not have any faith. I've just never been able to get from them a sound reason why. To me, there is nothing wrong or immoral about not believing in anything that can't be proven. What's wrong with, "I don't know, and neither do you"? Personally, I don't believe in God. I also don't believe in the non-existence of God.

If your hypothesis is that some form of "higher power" was at work in the creation of the universe then, by all means, submit some evidence to that effect.

I'll be standing by.

Just as those from whom you're awaiting an answer will be standing by for the proof of non-existence that you're not obliged to provide.

[War Wagon]

Were it not for me being drawn to a Smackie Chan post like a moth to a porch light, I might have missed this:

I'm from Missouri.

What? huh?

I fucking knew that.

Which part? I've got you pegged as being from Hannibal, or wishing you were. You're T1B's version of Mark Twain.

RACK! Smackie, btw.

And RACK! mv's 18,000 posts.

What an endearing asshole.

[Felix]

You can look at the surroundings, the world, and know in your belly that God exists.

so why do you suppose "god" made so much of the land virtually uninhabitable (see Sahara, Arabian, and Gobi deserts)

some design

[Smackie Chan]

Belief in a supreme being is no different than the belief that one has never existed,

If you believe in something that has no basis in fact, you are a fucking fool.

But that's exactly what you're doing. The existence of God has no basis in fact. The non-existence of God similarly has no basis is fact, yet you subscribe to it. So should I from now on address you as fucking fool?

You say you have no obligation to prove the non-existence of God, and you're right. But if you were so obliged, or if you chose to do so despite not having the obligation, could you? If the answer is "no," (and it is), then you believe in something that has no basis in fact.

[BSmack]

Who is filling your head with this shit? Have you completely forgotten how to you use your brain for critical reasoning? If there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of god, then why in the fuck would you believe in it?

I suppose I should also believe that you molest kids and beat your wife senseless every night. There is absolutely no evidence to support that conclusion so that means I should believe it.



This is the kind of mush-minded horseshit you will find yourself in when you claim to agnostic.

So your proof for the non-existence of God is that you have found no proof for his existence?

Though your position is rife with common sense, it is by no means a certainty that God (defined as an all knowing omniscient being) must give evidence of his existence in order to actually exist.

[Smackie Chan]

The non-existence of God similarly has no basis is fact, yet you subscribe to it.

If there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of god, then why in the fuck would you believe in it?

As I've clearly stated, I don't. But in your overly simplistic view of the world, you feel that if you don't believe in (a), then, by default, you must believe in (b). This is not true. I don't believe in either (a) or (b), because neither are worthy of my belief in them. You take the approach that one has to believe in something, and therefore have chosen one. I haven't.

I suppose I should also believe that you molest kids and beat your wife senseless every night. There is absolutely no evidence to support that conclusion so that means I should believe it.

Again, your view of the world is one of either/or. Mine isn't. You're from Missouri, so you should understand this. Show me that something is worth believing in, and I'll believe. If you're unable or unwilling to show me, I won't. You're unable to prove that God doesn't exist, yet you believe the whole world should believe he doesn't because you don't, even though you can't prove it. The same applies to Christers, but in the other direction. That is the way of the tard. The inability to prove something does not prove that the antithesis is true.

Mathematics provides ample examples of where this approach is routinely applied. Fermat's Last Theorem is a prime example. It appears to be true, and in all likelihood is true, but no one has been able to prove with certainty that it is, so it remains a theorem. But the fact that it hasn't been proven doesn't make it bullshit. In your mind, it probably is.

This is the kind of mush-minded horseshit you will find yourself in when you claim to agnostic.

No, this is where one finds himself when he admits that he's not all-knowing. Not that I expect you to find yourself there anytime soon.

[Smackie Chan]

You're unable to prove that God doesn't exist,

Negative proof is a classic logical fallacy.

True, but it's also a fallacy to assume that the inability to prove a positive today necessarily means the negative is true. It could be that the means of proof are not currently available, but someday will be, or that there are things that can never be proven, which still does not prove the negative. If your go-to approach to such matters is to believe the negative until the positive is proven, fine. But that approach is no more sound than wait-and-see or agnosticism. Citing a lack of evidence may work in a court of law, but it is not conclusive in philosophical, religious, and logical discussions.

[Felix]

I've got to be honest here...my head is spinning from SC's "logic" wherein in his world everything that can't be proven beyond a shadow of doubt is acceptable

therefore, my belief in the Flying Spaghetti monster is as valid as any Christer's belief in God

http://www.venganza.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Smackie Chan]

True, but it's also a fallacy to assume that the inability to prove a positive today necessarily means the negative is true.

Wrong. Not only is it not fallacy, it is in fact the only logical, rational conclusion to draw. If there is no evidence to suggest that a phenomenon even exists, the only logical conclusion is that there is no such phenomenon.

You're proving yourself to be quite the idiot. Before the invention of the microscope and the ability to show with certainty that bacteria and other germs existed, by your "logic," the only rational conclusion to draw was that they didn't exist, that germ theory, as an unproven phenomenon, was utter bullshit. Once it was proven that germs did exist, did the previously irrational beliefs of Lister et al suddenly become rational? History is rife with examples of conventional wisdom and "logical conclusions" being turned upside-down by new discoveries. It continues today, and will continue tomorrow. But feel free to keep believing that what is known today is all that can be known or proven.

Your inability to reason in a logical manner is quite sad actually.

Your belief in your omniscience and mastery of logic is quite amusing actually.

[Smackie Chan]

I've got to be honest here...my head is spinning from SC's "logic" wherein in his world everything that can't be proven beyond a shadow of doubt is acceptable

Not sure how you drew this conclusion from what I posted, or what you mean by acceptable. What I'm saying is that doubt isn't removed until proof can be presented. Proof, by definition, should remove all doubt. But doubt and the conclusion that something isn't true because proof of its truth has not been presented are two different things. Does God exist? I don't know - it's never been proven. So does that mean he doesn't or never has existed? mvscal says yes, I say no. Maybe tomorrow, irrefutable evidence will emerge proving his existence (though I highly doubt it). I'm OK with waiting rather than jumping to the "logical" conclusion that he never has because no one has been able to provide proof of his existence yet. You're free to believe what you want.

therefore, my belief in the Flying Spaghetti monster is as valid as any Christer's belief in God

Right. What's your point?

[BSmack]

I've got to be honest here...my head is spinning from SC's "logic" wherein in his world everything that can't be proven beyond a shadow of doubt is acceptable

therefore, my belief in the Flying Spaghetti monster is as valid as any Christer's belief in God

http://www.venganza.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is a logical fallacy. Absence of absolute proof for either a yes or no answer to the question of God's existence does not confer validity to EITHER answer.

You obviously failed metaphysics.

[Felix]

That is a logical fallacy. Absence of absolute proof for either a yes or no answer to the question of God's existence does not confer validity to EITHER answer.

You obviously failed metaphysics.

the theory of gravity cannot be proved until every opportunity for it to fail has been tested

Metaphysics 101

[Smackie Chan]

Absence of absolute proof for either a yes or no answer to the question of God's existence does not confer validity to EITHER answer.

The technical term for this fallacy is Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

[Smackie Chan]

the theory of gravity cannot be proved until every opportunity for it to fail has been tested

That's why it's still a theory.

[Felix]

mvscal says yes, I say no.

he never said any such thing....he asked for some kind of evidence for the existence of god and until such evidence was offered, he opts to side with what can be observed.

Maybe tomorrow, irrefutable evidence will emerge proving his existence (though I highly doubt it). I'm OK with waiting rather than jumping to the "logical" conclusion that he never has because no one has been able to provide proof of his existence yet. You're free to believe what you want.

maybe it will-and then guys like mvs and I will be seriously fucked-meanwhile, fence sitters like you will always have the old "hey, I never said I didn't believe in you" excuse to fall back on-I'm sure God will understand

[Smackie Chan]

it's quite a stretch between belief in germ theory and belief in a mythological figure from a prehistoric superstition.

We're talking about two different gods, then. I agree that the God of Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythologies is not subject to scientific or serious philosophical debate. If we're talking about an old guy with a beard living behind pearly gates in a place called Heaven who has an evil counterpart living in a fiery hell, that's complete fiction - a fairy tale. My arguments are not centered on a biblical God who dictates morality, but on one who may or may not be responsible for creation. I'm talking theism, not deism.

God isn't a subject of scientific scrutiny for the simple reason that there is nothing to scrutinize. There is nothing to observe. There is nothing to record. There is nothing around which to contruct a hypothesis.

But a hypothesis can be constructed around the universe's origin, which would lead to a valid discussion about whether a prime mover (or god) was required. The universe can be observed and scrutinized, and questions about its origin are (and have been for time immemorial) subject to scholarly debate. There are plenty of worthy cosmological arguments for and against the necessary existence of a causal force (god) for the universe's creation. None have been proven, and likely never will be. I'm content with that, and find no compelling reason to believe one way or the other. I'd be willing to take either side in a debate, though.

But feel free to keep believing that what is known today is all that can be known or proven.

So we've moved on from sophomoric logical fallacies to strawmen? Outstanding. Throw in a red herring and hit the trifecta of tiresome bullshit.

You invited my valid criticism through your fallacious argument to ignorance. I attacked no strawman. When you claim the only logical conclusion to draw from a lack of proof is the assumption that the converse must be true, you've committed a logical fallacy and subjected yourself to be called on it. Lack of proof on one side of an argument does not constitute proof that the other side's argument is true. Granted, if this were a scored debate that I had initiated by claiming "God exists," it would be incumbent on me to provide the proof, or I'd lose the debate. I never made that claim, however. You, essentially, initiated the debate by claiming that since no proof of God exists, he therefore can't. By doing so, you've painted yourself into a corner by having to prove a negative, which you've already indicated can't be done. If your initial claim wasn't an initiation, but rather a response to the proclamations by Christers and others that God exists, then it is up to them (not me) to provide the proof.

[Mister Bushice]

Couldn't you just let mvscal call you a gibbering dumbfuck and get this over with instead of getting all logical and sensible sounding?

[Smackie Chan]

Couldn't you just let mvscal call you a gibbering dumbfuck and get this over with instead of getting all logical and sensible sounding?

Let him? Shit, he has many times, and will many more. I don't think he's holding his breath waiting for my permission for him to do so. Besides, I already recognize that I'm one, so it's not like he'll be scooping anyone with that newsflash.

[Smackie Chan]

Guess again, shitstain.

OK. I guess you're a dumbfuck.

[huh?]

If god does exist, do you think his hair was as nice as Tony Snow's?

[Felix]

A valid discussion of such a hypothesis presupposes supporting evidence

you mean "God did it" isn't a hypothesis with "just look at the grand canyon" as supporting evidence?

pretty narrow minded bud

[titlover]

the theory of gravity cannot be proved until every opportunity for it to fail has been tested

That's why it's still a theory.

i've always heard gravity referred to as a Law in teh science community. :?

[Felix]

If god does exist, do you think his hair was as nice as Tony Snow's?

probably...I'm sure He parts it down the middle though

the theory of gravity cannot be proved until every opportunity for it to fail has been tested

That's why it's still a theory.

i've always heard gravity referred to as a Law in teh science community. :?

it's accepted as a "law" by scientists, but technically it's still a theory for the reasons outlined above