ydoaPs

That's quite a change in opinion from when you said only one post earlier.

Aside from Pakistan, the rest of the world is overwhelmingly supporting Obama. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687 You were saying? Good. Look at the poll the BBC did with far more than 3 respondents.

Not really at all.

Why wouldn't you? Your friend said exactly what Obama did on the same day.

Oh, yes, the rest of the world (except Pakistan) are flat out lying when they say they overwhelmingly support Obama.

The daily briefings. Unlike Bush, Obama goes to most of his.

And then there's the Conservapedia Bible

Oh, then enlighten us. We're still waiting for something more than vague accusations here.

Actually, the historical basis is one of the ways we know that literalism must be wrong.

Perhaps you'd like to got back and address my posts about infinity then.

These are both factually incorrect. There are multitudes of differences between ancient manuscripts. Even the end of Luke is a later addition. They say that it is historically and archaeologically false. You act as though the NT scholars agree with you. They don't. In fact, their jobs depend on these differences in the manuscripts.

No, he's saying: 1) They are in fact NOT eyewitness testimony. 2) They are written by third party people generations after the fact. An important bit here is that they were not at all uninterested accounts. What he should have added: 1) They are incompatible with what we know of history and science. 2) Despite being largely plagiarized, they are wildly contradictory. If the Bible is so historically reliable, give me the year Jesus was born. You have all of the historical anchors you need in the text.

Are you seriously suggesting that presidents ought to completely disregard their intelligence briefings in favor of just making shit up without any evidence?

I don't think he will, primarily, because he can't.

In the quote box of the post you responded to with a request to know where you claimed he lied. That is, both your post #124 and my post #125. So, you've still got nothing?

That makes everything better.

There are actually "living fossils" of every stage of eye evolution from a single light-sensitive cell to our eyes.

Where I quoted you. That bit. So, you've still got literally nothing? Good to know.

Still missing: rigney saying what the "stink" is. Please, quote for me where Obama lied about this.

There's a distinction made in academia between "racialism" and "racism". Racialism is just categorizing humans into races, whereas racism is turning the categorization into a hierarchy of value. There can be racialist judgements that aren't racist.

What part of "that is what he was told at his intelligence briefings" do you not understand? Or is it that you do understand and just would prefer that he actually had lied? Again, in clear words, what is the "fiasco" apart from FOX lying and spinning at the speed of light? That seems to be about the gist of it. Like he did the day after the attack and the day after that?

He's one of the third party candidates that has no chance of winning.

Without even looking at any of the posts, one can tell rigney's not got to this thread yet

Aside from Pakistan, the rest of the world is overwhelmingly supporting Obama. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687 Also, I actually voted for Obama like a week ago. Yay for early voting!

The article is from FOX. Are you really going to trust their science journalism?