Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Bombs away
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  10:47:07  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So what's everybody think of our commander and chief dropping bombs on Libya? And how about the way he ignored congress on his way to war? Obviously we are only there for the Libyan oil, just like in Iraq. It should be anytime now we are gonna see the anti-war movement crowd out in the streets burning effigy's of Obama, as they should. He is a war criminal through and through. Nobel Peace Prize my eye. Obama really played us, huh?

BTW, when is he going cut into the "windfall profits" of big oil like he promised in the 08 campaign? Especially when you consider all that Libyan oil that Obama just went and got for them. Maybe Obama feels he owes them for all their campaign contributions in 08?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  11:18:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Lybia controls 2% of the worlds oil and if we were there for that reason it would make far more sense to help Ghadaffi. Let us know when we have a few hundred thousand boots on the ground then you can make your comparison.


"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  11:35:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I assume that you would have preferred that he sit back and allow Khaddafi ruthlessly slaughter his own people, and sending a signal to the rest of the region's dictators that they, as well, can use force indiscriminately.

As usual, you conveniently ignore that the rebels were begging for help from the West.

There is so much out-and-out crap in your post that I simply don't have the time to debunk your utter stupidity. That's the convenient part about your beliefs: it's so easy to spew out shit and takes much, much more time to debunk it all that it's not worth the effort.

By the way, it's "commander-in-chief", not "commander and chief".

So... I'm guessing that you had a conversation with god last night:

bill: Oh all-powerful overlord, what is thy bidding?

magical sky daddy: I want you to say liberals are evil on an internet forum.

bill: If I do this, will you please, please, please let me into heaven?

magical sky daddy: We'll see...

"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  11:40:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I mean come on people this not to difficult to follow here. For years dems and pups alike were saying that we needed to deal with Saddam, and if that required the military so be it. Bush comes into office, gets the approval of the congress and the UN and then goes and gets Saddam and the left goes ballistic burning Bush dolls gathering in the streets etc.... "Blood for oil" "Bush is a war criminal" blah, blah blah.......

Obama says he will get us out of Iraq, but we are still there. He says he is closing club gitmo and then leaves it open. He ramps up the fight in Afghanistan and he starts bombing the country of his choice with out even considering bring congress into the mix!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I mean if the left blew a gasket when Bush went after Saddam, even though he had the full approval of congress and UN resolutions to do so, their heads would have popped clean straight off of their bodies if Bush would have started bombing the county of his choice without even a peep to congress. Obama bombs the country of HIS choice and they point to his Nobel Peace Prize. *sigh*

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 03/25/2011 13:08:18
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  12:04:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Fripp



I assume that you would have preferred that he sit back and allow Khaddafi ruthlessly slaughter his own people, and sending a signal to the rest of the region's dictators that they, as well, can use force indiscriminately.


Did you want Bush to let Saddam keep doing the same thing to his people that Khaddafi is doing to his? And if this is just about going after dictators who treat their people bad why go after Libya? There are plenty of other dictators out there far worse than Momar. Shoot based on your reasoning we should have had our military in Iran and N. Korea, among many others nations, a long time ago. Ever heard of Darfur? Why did we not go stop that slaughter if we are the world's policeman?


As usual, you conveniently ignore that the rebels were begging for help from the West.


There was plenty of local opposition leaders to Saddam who wanted us to come in and get him. Not to even mention that Bush was authorized by the US congress to go get Saddam. Obama thumbs his nose at congress and bombs whoever he wants.

There is so much out-and-out crap in your post that I simply don't have the time to debunk your utter stupidity. That's the convenient part about your beliefs: it's so easy to spew out shit and takes much, much more time to debunk it all that it's not worth the effort.


The facts remain: Bush made his case to congress, got their approval, and then went after Saddam. Whether you agree with that military action or not it was approved by congress. It's not like Bush was a loose cannon out there doing as he pleased and thumbing his nose at congress, like Obama.



By the way, it's "commander-in-chief", not "commander and chief".

So... I'm guessing that you had a conversation with god last night:

bill: Oh all-powerful overlord, what is thy bidding?

magical sky daddy: I want you to say liberals are evil on an internet forum.

bill: If I do this, will you please, please, please let me into heaven?


magical sky daddy: We'll see...

You are just bent because your Nobel Peace Prize winning anointed one is really a maverick war hawk who drops bombs on whoever he decides needs it. Damn the congress and their input or approval.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  12:43:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott


Did you want Bush to let Saddam keep doing the same thing to his people that Khaddafi is doing to his? And if this is just about going after dictators who treat their people bad why go after Libya? There are plenty of other dictators out there far worse than Momar. Shoot based on your reasoning we should have had our military in Iran and N. Korea, among many others nations, a long time ago. Ever heard of Darfur? Why did we not go stop that slaughter if we are the world's policeman?


A quick refresher course for you. Bush 1 went in for almost exactly the same reasons.

Do you remember the ten-years of the no-fly zone in Iraq?

Speaking of Darfur, I have no doubt that you would be on here crowing about Obama allowing a genocide if he didn't intervene. We both know that you'd be criticizing him regardless.

It's just hilarious that you simply couldn't wait to come on here and spout your stupidity.


The facts remain: Bush made his case to congress, got their approval, and then went after Saddam. Whether you agree with that military action or not it was approved by congress. It's not like Bush was a loose cannon out there doing as he pleased and thumbing his nose at congress, like Obama.


No Bill. Those aren't the facts. I have neither the time nor the interest to debunk you point by point, but I am quite that others here will hand you your ass on a plate. As has become routine.



You are just bent because your Nobel Peace Prize winning anointed one is really a maverick war hawk who drops bombs on whoever he decides needs it. Damn the congress and their input or approval.


Oh yeah, that's it. I'm just "bent" at my "annointed" one. Are you really that f'ing stupid? Wait a second, you believe that a couple of prisoners getting a squirt of dopamine is evidence of god. Yes, you are that stupid.


"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  13:23:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich have both said that Obama should and shouldn't have done what he's done. Beck did both within the same 30 seconds of TV, while it took Newt two weeks to reverse his earlier "don't wait for the UN, just do it" position.

Obama can't possibly do anything correctly in the eyes of the wingnuts. Yes, Obama should have gotten real Congressional approval before committing to combat operations, but good grief the right is flip-flopping like crazy on whether US involvement is even the right thing to do at all.

And I've been against US combat involvement since day one.
Originally posted by Bill scott

Did you want Bush to let Saddam keep doing the same thing to his people that Khaddafi is doing to his?

...

The facts remain: Bush made his case to congress...
Bush the Younger didn't make a "protect the people" case to Congress, he lied to Congress about Saddam having WMDs and thus being an immanent threat to US citizens, not Iraqis. "We'll be greeted as liberators" came later, after Bush realized that the Congressional approval he got was carte blanche and allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted.
Let's face it, Obama is more of a rouge war hawk than was Bush.
Yeah, let's face it: Obama, despite the Democratic party affiliation, is a conservative at heart. He has continued Bush's unconstitutional intelligence policies, kept GITMO and two Republican wars going, followed Republican tax policy, had his lawyers argue against gay rights and bent over backwards for the right's approval on a butt-stupid health-care "reform" law. This is not the "change" I voted for.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  13:25:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Fripp


A quick refresher course for you. Bush 1 went in for almost exactly the same reasons.


A quick refresher for you. Bush 1 had the full approval of congress to do so.

Do you remember the ten-years of the no-fly zone in Iraq?


A quick refresher for you. Bush 1 and Clinton had the full approval of congress to do so.

Speaking of Darfur, I have no doubt that you would be on here crowing about Obama allowing a genocide if he didn't intervene. We both know that you'd be criticizing him regardless.


But yet Bush going in and getting rid of Saddam is genocide and makes him a war criminal? So Obama can bomb whoever HE wants in the name of removing dictators but yet when Bush does it, with the full approval of congress, he is a war criminal. You are all over the board here, jr.

It's just hilarious that you simply couldn't wait to come on here and spout your stupidity.


Pot meet kettle. And I have been waiting for days for the thread to appear and it did not. So I opened one.


No Bill. Those aren't the facts. I have neither the time nor the interest to debunk you point by point, but I am quite that others here will hand you your ass on a plate. As has become routine.


Show me where Bush did not have the approval of congress to bomb Iraq. Show me where Obama does have congressional approval to bomb Libya. You know that you cannot so you play the smoke and mirrors game.



Oh yeah, that's it. I'm just "bent" at my "annointed" one. Are you really that f'ing stupid? Wait a second, you believe that a couple of prisoners getting a squirt of dopamine is evidence of god. Yes, you are that stupid.


Your just grasping at straws now.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  13:44:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott
Bush comes into office, gets the approval of the congress and the UN and then goes and gets Saddam

You're lying your ass off.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq wasn't UN-sanctioned.


Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  13:47:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.



So Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich have both said that Obama should and shouldn't have done what he's done. Beck did both within the same 30 seconds of TV, while it took Newt two weeks to reverse his earlier "don't wait for the UN, just do it" position.


Who cares what Newt or Glen said? It's the US congress that needed to be involved and give approval before Obama just starts bombing dictators of his choice

Yes, Obama should have gotten real Congressional approval before committing to combat operations,


You don't say


but good grief the right is flip-flopping like crazy on whether US involvement is even the right thing to do at all.


I am just pissed because he is bombing people of his own free will. Again Bush gets approval and the left still goes nuts. Obama with no approval and it is not a big deal.



And I've been against US combat involvement since day one.


Me too

he lied to Congress about Saddam having WMDs and thus being an immanent threat to US citizens, not Iraqis.


Hahahahaha Congress saw the same stuff Bush saw and came to the same conclusion, get Saddam. Maybe some of the Iraq informants lied to us to get the US to do their dirty work, I can buy that.



"We'll be greeted as liberators" came later, after Bush realized that the Congressional approval he got was carte blanche and allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted.


At least Bush got approval to do anything he wanted. Obama does anything he wants without approval.




Yeah, let's face it: Obama, despite the Democratic party affiliation, is a conservative at heart. He has continued Bush's unconstitutional intelligence policies, kept GITMO and two Republican wars going, followed Republican tax policy, had his lawyers argue against gay rights and bent over backwards for the right's approval on a butt-stupid health-care "reform" law. This is not the "change" I voted for.



Not to even mention that he bombs the country of his choice without any congressional approval. That's almost like something Reagan would do. He did read Reagan's bio over his vacation show who knows?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  13:51:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by Bill scott
Bush comes into office, gets the approval of the congress and the UN and then goes and gets Saddam

You're lying your ass off.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq wasn't UN-sanctioned.




Sure it was, back in 1991. He violated all the agreements for the cease fire so in 2003 the game was back on.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  14:21:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by Fripp

A quick refresher course for you. Bush 1 went in for almost exactly the same reasons.

A quick refresher for you. Bush 1 had the full approval of congress to do so.
A quick refresher for you. The first Gulf War was sanctioned by UN to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and secure neighbouring countries from any threat that Iraq might pose to them.

Do you remember the ten-years of the no-fly zone in Iraq?

A quick refresher for you. Bush 1 and Clinton had the full approval of congress to do so.
A quick refresher for you. The No-fly-zone was sanctioned by United Nations.

Speaking of Darfur, I have no doubt that you would be on here crowing about Obama allowing a genocide if he didn't intervene. We both know that you'd be criticizing him regardless.


But yet Bush going in and getting rid of Saddam is genocide and makes him a war criminal?
Yes, because the Second Gulf Was was not sanctioned by United Nations, and Bush didn't send in enough troops to maintain domestic order as obligated by the Geneva Convention. More than a million Iraqis are dead and/or missing because of that.
We have evidence of blatant murder of civilians by American troops. (check the Collateral Murder-link in my signature)
The American invasion of Iraq has killed more Iraqis that Saddam could ever had dreamt of accomplishing. With the possible difference that the killed weren't mostly Kurds (or Shiites).

So Obama can bomb whoever HE wants in the name of removing dictators

The Libya No-fly-zone was sanctioned by the United Nations.
but yet when Bush does it, with the full approval of congress, he is a war criminal.
because it wasn't sanctioned by United Nations.

You are all over the board here, jr.
No he's not. But you're too clueless to realise that.

And I have been waiting for days for the thread to appear and it did not. So I opened one.
And yet again exposed your ignorance and Christian fundamentalist cheep mentality for the rest of us to laugh at. And cry for.




Show me where Bush did not have the approval of congress to bomb Iraq.
Bush may have had the approval of congress to invade Iraq, but United States of America does not decide policy on Public International Law. United Nations does.
Invading a country without just cause makes Bush a war criminal. Not following the Geneva Convention during armed conflict makes Bush a war criminal.

Show me where Obama does have congressional approval to bomb Libya.
I don't give a flying fuck about what American laws Obama violates when it comes to the actions against Libya and its murdering dictator. Internationally, what matters is International Law, and a UN Security Council Resolution sanctioning a No-Fly-Zone over Libya makes it International Law. Hence, Obama is not a war criminal, though be might get prosecuted under American law in USA... But that's a completely different matter.
On the other hand, Obama's failure to close Guantanamo is a crime against the Geneva Convention. Again, that has nothing to do with the current Libya-situation.


Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  14:52:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The President Does Not Need Congressional Approval for Libya No-Fly Zone (Yet)

...In this case, the Security Council voted to authorize military action under resolution 1973. Despite what Curtis Doebbler contends, it was generally understood to constitute the necessary authorization. Moreover, his argument that Article 42 was not complied with is disingenuous. Doebbler argues it does not meet "the requirements of article 42 that a determination has been made that 'measures not involving the use of force' have failed." In fact Art. 42 contains no such requirement. It merely says "should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate, or have proved to be inadequate, it may take [military action]. . . ." The preamble to 1973 clearly indicates the Council considered such efforts would have proven inadequate and, given the exigencies of the situation (Gaddafi's troops closing on Benghazi and his threat to find and kill rebels "house by house"), Mr. Doebbler's recommended delay would have cost thousands of Libyan civilian lives.

As for domestic legal authority, an American president must involve Congress. Such involvement manifests itself either actively or passively. The president can seek a specific authorization for use of force (AUMF) from Congress prior to commencing combat operations. Or he can rely on the already enacted 1973 War Powers Resolution, which to utilize is a political decision, but both may suffice. Arguably, it is always smarter politics to involve Congress early and often with respect to major military actions. However, President Obama chose not to do this. He followed the path President Ronald Reagan did in 1986, when he bombed Libya without an express Congressional resolution in response to the Libyan bombing of a Berlin disco that killed several American soldiers...

snip
American presidents must navigate tricky legal and political waters when undertaking endeavors such as establishing a "no-fly zone" or Libya. A correct balance must be struck among several factors, not the least of which includes public acceptance, international backing, cooperation from allies, and endorsement from Congress. Getting it right in all cases is rare. Maintaining the security of the United States and saving lives on the ground are sometimes competing interests. But where they dovetail, and the president summons the will to act, he is provided the tools to do so within the WPR framework.

What Obama did was legal. Also, there was no time to run this through congress. He is required to put it through congress now. But if you consider the humanitarian aspect of this mission, there wasn't enough time.

I would argue that what Reagen did there was plenty of time for. So I don't think the situations are really comparable other than the WPR was used to justify the legality of both actions. I suspect that in Reagen's case, he didn't want to tip his hand and tip off Libya...

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  14:54:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

At least Bush got approval to do anything he wanted.
He shouldn't have gotten such approval in the first place.
Obama does anything he wants without approval.
It's not like Congress has been run by people who got elected on the basis of their wisdom, anyway. Look what they approved for Bush II.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2011 :  15:14:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott
A quick refresher for you. Bush 1 had the full approval of congress to do so.


A quick refresher for you. Bush 1 and Clinton had the full approval of congress to do so.


Ummm... I know. That's not what i was debating. It's you who can't tell the difference between the first Gulf war and the second. For the record, I completely supported Bush 1 in Gulf war 1

But yet Bush going in and getting rid of Saddam is genocide and makes him a war criminal? So Obama can bomb whoever HE wants in the name of removing dictators but yet when Bush does it, with the full approval of congress, he is a war criminal. You are all over the board here, jr.


You're projecting, god boy.



Pot meet kettle. And I have been waiting for days for the thread to appear and it did not. So I opened one.


Oh, bill, don't you remember that "thou shalt not bear false witness"?







Your just grasping at straws now.



You claim that I'm "bent" that my "annointed one" is actually a war hawk and I'm grasping at straws? What a waste of my time.

I see a few others here have already torn apart your stupid argument so I'll going to let them continue...

"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/26/2011 :  03:32:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Fripp



blah blah blah blah blah



*yawn*

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.3 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000