|
|
|
| A Mormon President? |
|
TeamTerradactyl
Member #7,733
September 2006
 |
What an absolutely enthralling conversation you have going on here. Why not just make a "Presidential Speedhack" out of your favorite (or least-favorite) candidate? Then, you can show everyone who you would save/destroy. If you got lucky, some news station (or political campaigns) might even catch wind of the winning entry (or one of the runners-up) and you could get your 15 minutes of fame... Your games would all have to have catch-phrases. I think every game needs catch-phrases. Like, "Billy, put down that flaming cat. B...Billy?!" or "Away with ye! I have peons to roast!" or "No, Timmy, dominating the world doesn't mean THAT!"
|
|
Kauhiz
Member #4,798
July 2004
|
Quote: Slightly overweight women are only sexy and feminine! No, that's regular sized women. The "fashion ideal" is seriously underweight. --- |
|
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Quote: Quite a lot. Even before Bush started his holy war. Lot's of people are hiding behind religion these days. Instead of going to a Star Trek type society where science and logic dominates... And it is really strange, because no one has ever seen anything remotely close to proving even the slightest bit of any religion as true. Which means that humans are not really logical, even with all the sciences and other stuff that has been invented. If I was a US citizen, I would vote for any party that promised equal opportunities for all instead of promoting their own agenta, even if their religion was totally opposite to mine. What the Earth needs is less injustice, not more religion. |
|
Bob Keane
Member #7,342
June 2006
|
Every candidate promises equal opportunity but follows thier own agenda when elected. They run because they want to change things to be more favorable to them, and they promise everything including the moon to get elected. By reading this sig, I, the reader, agree to render my soul to Bob Keane. I, the reader, understand this is a legally binding contract and freely render my soul. |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
 |
Okay, this had to be done. Quote: A Mormon President? Don't we have one of those already? Oh. Wait. Mormon. -- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
Quote: Okay, this had to be done. Yes, yes it did. -- |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
 |
Quote: Your games would all have to have catch-phrases. How about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman?" And of course, the game would have to have nucular weapons.
|
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
I know. Get Chelsea pregnant and make Hillary win the election. You'll have a mormor president. I can't make Hillary president, but I can... never mind. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
HardTranceFan
Member #7,317
June 2006
 |
"The President's brain is missing" and call it Star Wars. -- |
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
 |
Quote: Lot's of people are hiding behind religion these days. Instead of going to a Star Trek type society where science and logic dominates...
We can't have both? -- |
|
SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
 |
No, religion is based on faith not logic. |
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Quote: No, religion is based on faith not logic.
As has been explained before, this is idiotic. No one believes in something without a reason unless they're insane. -- |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
Let's not open that can of worms again.
|
|
Rampage
Member #3,035
December 2002
 |
Having a reason not always implies having a logic reason. I'll shut up now. -R |
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Quote: Having a reason not always implies having a logic reason. Granted, but irrelevant. It's still not blind faith. -- |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
Quote: No one believes in something without a reason unless they're insane. The logical conclusion to which is that religious people are insane. -- |
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
So you'll stop trying to reason with us and shut it? Glad to hear it. -- |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
I've never tried to reason with you - I know full well that would be futile, as the truly devoted will never change their colors - just expose you all to any spectators as the lunatics you are. -- |
|
Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
 |
The good news is that Christians in the USA are finally starting to stand up to fundamentalist creationism! |
|
Jakub Wasilewski
Member #3,653
June 2003
 |
Can we please have the ban on religion discussion reinstated? Pretty, pretty please? --------------------------- |
|
OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
 |
Hey how this thread got derailed to endless religious discussion? It's OP was something about moron president. D'oh, it was mormon - aha... [My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online] |
|
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Quote: Can we please have the ban on religion discussion reinstated? Pretty, pretty please? The topic is about religion, actually. It is about a Mormon president, i.e. it is about if religion should define politics or not. Quote:
As has been explained before, this is idiotic. No one believes in something without a reason unless they're insane. But the reason does not have to be a proven proposition, or something logical. The brain works by using pattern matching. Religion is an attempt to solve the unsolvable problem of the universe's existence, and since the brain can not give a definitive answer, the selected pattern is that 'a divine entity must have created the universe'. The truth is, though, that without religion, there would be fewer wars, less excuses for the politicians to abuse people, less discrimination, less craziness. |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
Quote: i.e. it is about if religion should define politics or not. In other words, the topic is about the nature of politics, not religion.
|
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
That's such a cheap copout. How can we debate religion's impact on politics if we can't talk about religion? -- |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
If you can't figure out how to discuss whether or not religion should be a part of politics without having to discuss the nature of various religions (and more importantly, belittle people with religious beliefs), then you're not as smart as I thought you were.
|
|
|
|
It's about saving those who are swaying in the middle.
