Mooney44Cards;1115480 wrote:Except for the fact that "The War of Northern Aggression" places a negative connotation on the Union, much the same as "The War of Southern Secession" does the same to the Confederacy. Hence why it's referred to as The American Civil War, or simply The Civil War, which places neither belligerent in a more negative light than the other.

Please don't presume to lecture me about the dynamics of the Civil War.

Ohhh touchy subject? Not a lecture just a different point of view from a different location.
Political correctness is BS. Call it what you want. Quack= duck

I took this thread and the poll to be pompously elitist....and the questions that were asked were loaded so as to portray these states and their people as ignorant. Where is the poll for Ohio and Michigan voters?

Now, I'm not dumb enough or a big enough idiot to try and say "LOL look, these are typical Republicans" but my god.....a good portion of these voters' beliefs belong in the 19th century or have absolutely no basis in reality at all

The problem with the Republican party and why many to most of them could never count on my vote, is because these are the voters that a lot of candidates pander to

I know the majority of people on this board are Republican and/or conservative, I wonder what you think about this. Are they a necessary evil of a certain political ideology? Do YOU think this way? Are Republican politicians partially to blame for letting these ideas go on?

By posting this slanted poll and the above statements I find it hard to believe the OP that these are serious questions, when there seems to be a blatant attempt to tie Republicans to the words racism, anti muslim, ignorance and pandering to the former.
I think believer had every right to turn the tables after such a baldfaced attempt.

HitsRus;1115568 wrote:and the questions that were asked were loaded so as to portray these states and their people as ignorant

It's not inaccurate. Most metrics rank Alabama and especially Mississippi at or near the bottom of state rankings based on intelligence.

jhay78;1114723 wrote:For someone who is obsessed with the thought of Rick Santorum imposing a theocracy upon us all and telling us all what we should believe and how we should live you sure are intolerant of people who hold different views on the origins of life.

I didn't say anything about the origins of life. But rather that evolution exists. Because it doesn't matter if these morons believe it or not it factually does exist. And these guys did give Santorum primary wins today so again...shoot. them. all.

Mooney44Cards;1115480 wrote:Except for the fact that "The War of Northern Aggression" places a negative connotation on the Union, much the same as "The War of Southern Secession" does the same to the Confederacy. Hence why it's referred to as The American Civil War, or simply The Civil War, which places neither belligerent in a more negative light than the other.

Please don't presume to lecture me about the dynamics of the Civil War.

No, the "War of Southern Secession" doesn't place a negative connotation on the Confederacy, it places a factual connotation on it. They did secede.

I Wear Pants;1115656 wrote:No, the "War of Southern Secession" doesn't place a negative connotation on the Confederacy, it places a factual connotation on it. They did secede.

The southern states seceded. They didn't invade the northern states. It's clear who the aggressor was.

Cleveland Buck;1115671 wrote:The southern states seceded. They didn't invade the northern states. It's clear who the aggressor was.

Was something I said incorrect then? I said the southern states seceded and therefore "War of Southern Secession" is an accurate title.

I Wear Pants;1115693 wrote:Was something I said incorrect then? I said the southern states seceded and therefore "War of Southern Secession" is an accurate title.

A middle ground and accurate title would be "War to Prevent Southern Secession". Fort Sumpter/Bull Run was a Northern invasion.

I Wear Pants;1115656 wrote:No, the "War of Southern Secession" doesn't place a negative connotation on the Confederacy, it places a factual connotation on it. They did secede.

And the northern states did factually aggress. Not necessarily a negative connotation either. I would only disagree with the rush to use force. When Lincoln took office he was dealing with 7 "cotton" states in the deep south that left and seceded from the union. Those states economic well being closely tied to institutional slavery. Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennesse were content to remain in the Union. There was still hope for peaceful reconcilliation. Secession is a political move not military force.

Forts across the 7 deep south states changed hands peacefully. At times commanded by those that would eventually join the confederacy. Just months after South Carolina seceded and shortly following 6 other states joined them. And just after Lincoln took office an order was given not to negotiate reconcilliation but provoke an incident. And South Carolina bit at Fort Sumter.

A minor military engagement was then used to fuel northern states to muster troops to crush the rebellion. Lincoln had been convinced the southern cotton states could be rolled over in short order. He was counting on Virginia mainly to take arms with the northern states. As well as Tennessee, North Carolina, and possibly Arkansas. But these four states could not take part in any rush to use military force to compell those states. Instead they saw it as an unjust and untimely agression. And they left the Union themselves and took their lot with the confederacy. And the deadliest conflict in American history began.

majorspark;1115712 wrote:And the northern states did factually aggress. Not necessarily a negative connotation either. I would only disagree with the rush to use force. When Lincoln took office he was dealing with 7 "cotton" states in the deep south that left and seceded from the union. Those states economic well being closely tied to institutional slavery. Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennesse were content to remain in the Union. There was still hope for peaceful reconcilliation. Secession is a political move not military force.

Forts across the 7 deep south states changed hands peacefully. At times commanded by those that would eventually join the confederacy. Just months after South Carolina seceded and shortly following 6 other states joined them. And just after Lincoln took office an order was given not to negotiate reconcilliation but provoke an incident. And South Carolina bit at Fort Sumter.

A minor military engagement was then used to fuel northern states to muster troops to crush the rebellion. Lincoln had been convinced the southern cotton states could be rolled over in short order. He was counting on Virginia mainly to take arms with the northern states. As well as Tennessee, North Carolina, and possibly Arkansas. But these four states could not take part in any rush to use military force to compell those states. Instead they saw it as an unjust and untimely agression. And they left the Union themselves and took their lot with the confederacy. And the deadliest conflict in American history began.

Indeed. I firmly believe that had Lincoln been a little more patient, the more moderate southern states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc.) would have placed pressure on the cotton states and war could have been avoided. Ironically Virginia (R.E. Lee), North Carolina, and Tennessee provided the Confederacy with its most poitent military might. Go figure.

The issue of slavery, meanwhile, would have taken care of itself naturally enough as political winds continued to bear down on the practice and as industrialism began to reshape the American economy. The abolishment of slavery may have taken a few more decades, but it was doomed even without the war. IMHO

jhay78;1114723 wrote: I don't believe he's a Muslim, but his father was one, his middle name is common in the Muslim world, and he attended a Muslim school as a child. So he may have more sympathies toward Islam than the average American, but that doesn't make him a Muslim.

I think this could actually be a good thing. He understands the religion and culture better than any other US president before him.

I Wear Pants;1115693 wrote:Was something I said incorrect then? I said the southern states seceded and therefore "War of Southern Secession" is an accurate title.

No, in my drunken stupor I misread what you wrote.

Gosh lets see
Slavery was nowhere near ending in 1860. The South was the richest section of our nation and its wealth was based on chattel slavery. The price of slaves was rising and they were being put to used beyond the plantation.
At the beginning of the seccession crisis Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed in order to save the Union. The South was still unwilling to return, they wanted to spread slavery.
The Confederacy started the war by firing thousands of shells at Fort Sumter.

I Wear Pants;1115648 wrote:I didn't say anything about the origins of life. But rather that evolution exists. Because it doesn't matter if these morons believe it or not it factually does exist. And these guys did give Santorum primary wins today so again...shoot. them. all.

It depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. Micro-evolution has been factually observed (adaptation within a species/genus/family/etc to adapt to environment). Macro-evolution (actually changing animal kingdoms over time) has never been observed, it has only been theorized.

You might be surprised how close those numbers from Alabama and Mississippi are to the overall US citizens.

As of a 2010 Gallup Poll, 40% of Americans believe in some form of Creationism by a higher being. 49% believe in evolution.

Of that 49%, 14% believed in the non-theistic evolution, 35% believed in theistic evolution.

I'm not arguing one side or the other, just saying that if you think Alabama and Mississippi are so "backwards" in this regard, you might want to label the whole country that way as well.

Lincoln started the war by invading Charleston Harbor with his warships and inciting South Carolina to fire on Fort Sumter, where no man was killed or even injured. The response to this was the slaughter of 600,000 Americans, imprisonment of thousands of political dissenters, closing down of opposition newspapers, a dictatorial regime.

I Wear Pants;1115648 wrote:I didn't say anything about the origins of life. But rather that evolution exists. Because it doesn't matter if these morons believe it or not it factually does exist.

Prove evolution exists. You can't. The creationists can't prove their side either. It takes faith to believe whichever side people choose to follow. Calling someone a moron for believing in a saviour is no less moronic than believing my ancestors were algae.

BGFalcons82;1115903 wrote:Prove evolution exists. You can't. The creationists can't prove their side either. It takes faith to believe whichever side people choose to follow. Calling someone a moron for believing in a saviour is no less moronic than believing my ancestors were algae.

Different strains of influenza appear every year. This is evolution. The strongest strains of influenza that are the most resistant to drugs survive and live on, the weak strains die. This is the case with almost all microorganisms. It alone is proof enough that evolution is a fact. Good luck trying to refute that.

Mooney44Cards;1116059 wrote:Different strains of influenza appear every year. This is evolution. The strongest strains of influenza that are the most resistant to drugs survive and live on, the weak strains die. This is the case with almost all microorganisms. It alone is proof enough that evolution is a fact. Good luck trying to refute that.

As jmog noted correctly:

It depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. Micro-evolution has been factually observed (adaptation within a species/genus/family/etc to adapt to environment). Macro-evolution (actually changing animal kingdoms over time) has never been observed, it has only been theorized.

You can't prove a thing. You can throw theory after consensus at it and it still doesn't prove anything. I'll remind you there once was a consensus the earth was flat. Certain Islamic sects still believe it. Does that prove it's flat? You believe evolution to be true just as I believe something far greater than the sum of man started everything in the universe. We all have to believe one way or the other. Calling each other morons doesn't make it so, but it does reflect on the typist's state of mind.

But see, that's not how science works. If we want to split hairs, NOTHING can be proven ever. That doesn't mean that we distrust something that has an overwhelming amount of evidence just because it can't be proven. You're right, at one point in time the earth was thought to be flat. It was actually a reasonable assumption for many people at the time to make because to the naked eye, the earth does not appear to curve. Until the earth was proven to be spherical, the earth was thought to be flat. That IS how science works. You believe something that has evidence to support it, until you find evidence that supports something different even more so than the first one. And on and on we go. There is a lot of evidence that evolution is a thing. No it can't be proven, but there are hints. There is no proof of creationism. Nor is there one single shred of evidence that should lead us to believe that is true. Not even a hint.

So if you're advocating that we should be skeptical of evolution until more evidence comes around, I can't say I disagree. But if you're saying we should discount evolution because we can't prove it, then I suggest you point me towards a different theory that has more evidence than evolution. Until then, you're just being a contrarian.

There are contested examples of macro evolution out there. certain plants, fly species and bacteria.

I will say if you believe that there is absolutely no proof of any type of evolution, you really are fighting a losing battle. If you want to debate about humans originating from apes, you can argue that.

I have been both atheist and believer. I cannot tell you why I am currently a believer . I understand and respect the atheist point of view as on its face believing in God does go against logic and science.i do get annoyed with the atheism 101 rhetoric that goes around that sounds great but is easily dismissed by anyone with any knowledge of Religion/God. That is why I will never push my faith on anyone or try to convince anyone. I found my faith on my own.

Mooney44Cards;1116059 wrote:Different strains of influenza appear every year. This is evolution. The strongest strains of influenza that are the most resistant to drugs survive and live on, the weak strains die. This is the case with almost all microorganisms. It alone is proof enough that evolution is a fact. Good luck trying to refute that.

Jmog correctly pointed out the difference between micro- and macro-evolution. No has, nor ever will, observe a reptilian species sprouting the intricately detailed wings of a bird species. If Darwinian macro-evolution was indeed a fact, then the fossil record would undoubtedly give us "facts" everywhere to prove its credibility. It does not, even though Darwin himself expected the fossil record to do so.

Until then, macro evolution is a theory just as much as creationism/Intelligent Design is a theory. Promoting one over the other as factual, while ignoring evidence to the contrary (as in public schools for example), is a de facto teaching of the religious model of secular humanism. Presenting both as theories is way more intellectually honest.

If you logically look at things, one can see a case based on existing evidence that evolution is a reality. Can it be proven? No.

But coming to the conclusion that a guy in the sky created two people who fucked a lot and populated the world 7,000 years ago or whatever it's supposed to be, and that at some point a guy collected two of every species, from elephants to the smallest insect, and put them on a boat, requires defying logic.

2kool4skool;1116295 wrote:If you logically look at things, one can see a case based on existing evidence that evolution is a reality. Can it be proven? No.

But coming to the conclusion that a guy in the sky created two people who fucked a lot and populated the world 7,000 years ago or whatever it's supposed to be, and that at some point a guy collected two of every species, from elephants to the smallest insect, and put them on a boat, requires defying logic.

All it takes is faith in that there is something bigger and better than momma earth. I'm OK that you don't have any. It doesn't make you any smarter nor me any more "moronic". Yet here is an entire thread beating the living daylights out of those that don't follow the secular humanist flock.

BGFalcons82;1116307 wrote:All it takes is faith in that there is something bigger and better than momma earth. I'm OK that you don't have any. It doesn't make you any smarter nor me any more "moronic". Yet here is an entire thread beating the living daylights out of those that don't follow the secular humanist flock.

At least it's different than another entire thread beating the living daylights out of those who subscribe to a more liberal mindset, like 90 percent of this board winds up being.

Although it is funny watching very, very, very, very partisan people whose purpose here is to try to blame all the evils of mankind on a "(D)" after a person's name whine whenever someone denigrates anything remotely related to their beliefs.

Mooney44Cards;1116145 wrote:But see, that's not how science works. If we want to split hairs, NOTHING can be proven ever. That doesn't mean that we distrust something that has an overwhelming amount of evidence just because it can't be proven. You're right, at one point in time the earth was thought to be flat. It was actually a reasonable assumption for many people at the time to make because to the naked eye, the earth does not appear to curve. Until the earth was proven to be spherical, the earth was thought to be flat. That IS how science works. You believe something that has evidence to support it, until you find evidence that supports something different even more so than the first one. And on and on we go. There is a lot of evidence that evolution is a thing. No it can't be proven, but there are hints. There is no proof of creationism. Nor is there one single shred of evidence that should lead us to believe that is true. Not even a hint.

So if you're advocating that we should be skeptical of evolution until more evidence comes around, I can't say I disagree. But if you're saying we should discount evolution because we can't prove it, then I suggest you point me towards a different theory that has more evidence than evolution. Until then, you're just being a contrarian.

Yes, many things have been proven by science: Gravity, the periodic table, and Pythagorean Theorem to name a few. The problem with evolution is that there are too many missing links to state without a doubt that we all came from momma and poppa algae. No, I don't think evolution should be discounted, but I also believe it's just as much a theory as creationism. I'm not being a contrarian, I just don't understand why those who follow the evolutionary trail find it necessary to label those that don't neanderthals, backwoods, rednecks, retards, ill-educated, cross-bred "morons". It's a question of faith, not of science, so why does such animosity and venom exist about who's "wrong" and "right"?

Neither one of us can prove the other is wrong nor right...and I think that's exactly how it was set up all along.