Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by betsy

  1. "This is unacceptable!"

    How many times did Trudeau started his response with that line?   I heard it again yesterday on Question Period.

    Not only is it ridiculous - but it sounds so pathetically stupid coming from a Prime Minister - especially when what he calls , "unacceptable" .................

    ................has been going on.............................. for more than two weeks!






  2. If things go on the way they are - and, Canadians really feel the impact of these illegal blockades - I think all oppositions - whether they're ready or not -  will be forced to support a motion to bring down the government. 

    Or, they'll be forced  to call for provincial police  to enforce the law!  They'll have no option.   Sooner or later, violence will become inevitable!


    They shouldn't tarry any longer.  It's better to get the cops to do their jobs now.  Don't wait to get an enraged public to become vigilantes!




    'Potential catastrophe': Rail blockades disrupt supply chains for food — which may lead to grocery shortages

    Manufacturers scramble to deliver products, industry warns of potential shortages of propane and chlorine and mining companies curtail production




    This stalling and displayed weakness by the Feds only enboldens more protesters to form blockades wherever they choose!  The demands range from showing solidarity to environmentalism, to demands for clean water, to human rights etc....,  how can you deal with all that?


    Lol.  You can be sure that every time we have a liberal/socialist government - this blockades will become the norm for every issue they disagree with!

  3. People are losing jobs.   Commodities aren't being delivered.  Prices will go up - supply and demand.  Propane is being rationed.   We might even have a shortage of clean water.  And yet, Trudeau wouldn't make any decisive decisions.    Our national security is at stake - this could descend into chaos!


    Let's face it:  Trudeau is a deer caught in the headlights.   He's frozen stiff!

    It's the same thing that happened over his slow response to Canadians in Wuhan.  It seems he's so afraid to make any decisions.


    Can the Opposition get together and boot out Trudeau over this blockade crisis?  Can they cite non-confidence over his non-existing leadership?

    • Like 1

  4. 12 hours ago, eyeball said:

    Betsy, if the End of Days are nigh too isn't all this political stuff really neither here nor there in the bigger scheme of things you believe in?  Why in Heaven's name do you care in the least little bit about all this worldly nonsense?

    Lol.   You can't give anything without raising the God card!  Not even in politics.  :lol:


    You said nothing.

  5. 5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

    Could you possibly put more words in my mouth?

    Dude if the best you can do is argue against points,that not only did I not  make but don't even agree with, im not even sure responding is worth it, but im a glutton for punishment so here goes 

    All i said was  that following a man that claims to be an authority on everything but can't offer any supporting evidence. Ie; im rich but won't show comprehensive financial statements can't and shouldn't be trusted.

    But you keep making straw men so you can tear them down, but my head is in the sand? Silly little man

    You keep avoiding to provide anything to support your claims!



    Do you have anything.....................or none at all?

  6. 2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

    Your own video lies

    No legitimate scholar thinks the gospels were written by four guys named Mathieu, mark, luke and john, but were written by anonymous scribes,


    Even if what you say is true, does it change anything?  Like as if the authorship is crucial to the credibility of the historical sources on the life of Jesus!

    Here's an interesting, long feedback from William Lane Craig:




    Such an assumption is quite out of touch with contemporary historical criticism of the New Testament. I doubt that any historical Jesus scholar thinks that successfully identifying the authors of the various documents collected into the New Testament is crucial to their serving as credible historical sources for events or sayings from Jesus.

    For that reason, I think that you’ve seriously misread Bart Ehrman in taking his central claim to be that the Gospels were not written by their traditionally received authors. (J.C., characterizing uncertainty about the Gospels’ authorship as “forgery” also betrays misunderstanding. If, as you point out, the original Gospels carried no authors’ names, then they cannot be forgeries, for they make no claims about the names of their authors! Your concern, rather, is that the Gospels are anonymous, and the names of Matthew, Mark, and so on have only later come to be associated with them.) Ehrman recognizes that we can glean a lot of historical information about Jesus from the four Gospels (not to mention Paul’s letters), even if we do not know who wrote them. Indeed, until recently, despite his uncertainty about the Gospels’ authorship, Ehrman accepted the historicity of the central facts undergirding the inference to Jesus’ resurrection, namely, his burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb by a group of his female disciples, his post-mortem appearances, and the original disciples’ coming to believe that God had raised him from the dead. Ehrman’s recent backpedaling about some of these facts is not due to his uncertainty about the Gospels’ authorship but to other factors.

    So if historical Jesus scholars are not unduly worried about questions of authorship, how do they identify historical elements in the Gospels? One way is through the application of so-called “criteria of authenticity.”


    Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. For Acts overlaps significantly with the secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989).


    According to the classical historian A. N. Sherwin-White, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”[1] The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, a world-famous archaeologist, still stands: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”[2] Given this author’s care and demonstrated reliability, as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this man can be trusted when it comes to matters in the life of Jesus for which we do not enjoy independent confirmation.This last point demonstrates that having some knowledge of the Gospels’ authors can, indeed, be helpful. But the point remains: it’s not crucial.






    The reference to pascals wager is also just a tool to distract from the fact that the "God" of the bible has no morals

    I don't recall which you refer to - it's been a long time since I saw that video.   maybe you can give the timer?





    Not to mention simple objective truths the bible gets wrong for example 1 Kings 7:23 says pi is 3, if it can't get simple math correct,



    How many so-called mistakes or contradictions have been given and soundly rebutted? 






    The ancients did measure pi more precisely in some cases -- but this is found in places like the Rhynd Papyrus, a book of mathematical equations. The Kings and Chronicles writers were evidently literate, but there is no evidence that they were mathematicians. We would rightly expect accuracy of greater order from specialists in mathematics like the writer of the Rhynd Papyrus, and from Babylonian astrologers. But such an expectation is unreasonable from a non-mathematician.

    Put it this way: If we ask how many gallons of fuel a rocket contains, we expect a detailed answer like "4,942,827.78 gallons" from a NASA engineer, if he is involved in a techincal discussion with other engineers. If he's talking to the press, and he is savvy, he'll say "4.9 million gallons" rather than bewilder the scientifically inert with more detail. Your average hobbyist (or even a reporter) will say "5 million gallons".

    Are any of them incorrect? No, because there is a semantic contract that correlates the level of precision with the level of expertise. Unless the Bible authors were mathematicians on the level of Archimedes (one of the other few ancients to go this far in looking at pi), then it is unreasonable to expect precision to that level from them.

    Check out the video too.





    Let me remind you that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific book, nor does it challenge science to prove it right or wrong!

    HOWEVER - it just so happens that there are declarations/statements in the Bible that are reaffirmed by science!

  7. 56 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

    How did you interpret ME as being absolute here about whom to trust?




    I'm not interpreting you or anyone.


    This is what I said:



    However, we are also given our critical thinking,


    that we may discern the facts from the bull!



    You don't agree that we are endowed with critical thinking?  Yes or no?

    You don't agree that critical thinking is essential in discerning facts from bull?  Yes or no?


    • Sad 1

  8. 31 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

    "Nature-worshipping"? You don't need to 'worship' anything about nature to rationally recognize that the Earth is relatively limited in a way that prevents wishful thinking to assure it doesn't get destroyed by its inhabitants in a fair convention. If you believe your own denial about human intervention as being POSSIBLE, are you saying that no matter what we do, we cannot destroy OUR comfort in this world collectively? Are you saying, for instance, that it isn't possible for any HUMANS to deliberately start all the forests on fire, or set off a nuclear war, or do ANY intentional, let alone unintentional behavior, because some Supreme being would step in the way and save us all regardless? 

    Pretend you are correct. Then is it not also justified that the majority who DO agree that global human intervention as causing problems, whether correct ot nor, should be permitted to disagree and force those of you who don't to comply by FORCE? I mean, if your 'god' will intervene anyways, why should you care THAT others disagree and use their free will to impose upon your selective carelessness? 

    Or....is your 'god' just not so powerful after all?


    Religious interpretation of anything written at all is NOT 'critical thinking' because it fails on the assumption that IF one such paticular book's contents is absolutely true, what is the means to assert anything written down in any other book or scripture is 'false'?

    Lol.  You're saying all environmentalists are sane??  You believe everything they say?  You don't do your own research, or verification?  

    You're making an argument out of nothing!  You're putting words in my mouth!


    Read this again:


    However, we are also given our critical thinking,


    that we may discern the facts from the bull!



  9. 17 hours ago, French Patriot said:

    Yet religious fools believe what their lying preachers tell them of what no one observed either.

    That is why the supernatural is for fools.




    IRRELEVANT!   The only fool there is.....is...... the fool who flaunt  his ignorance!  Lol.   Read what you're responding to.


    Either get in the game, or...…………….

    …......……... create your own thread for stupid  rants! 






    If we have dominion here, then Satan does not, and the temptation of Jesus in the desert was a sham or lie.

    Christians keep wanting their cake and eat it too.






    Job 2;3 has god admitting to being evil and a sinner that can be moved by Satan.

    What was your point again?





      Lol.  And you ask about my point?  You can't even tell the point of this topic! :rolleyes:


    Any mention of God, and you react like a bull to a red flag!  You give me an imagery of a little devil, having a fit - pounding away at your keys.

    You need to chill, man.  


    Do  a "foaming vent-out" thread! :lol:


    Don't derail my thread!

  10. Job 38

    The Lord Speaks

    38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

    “Who is this that obscures my plans
    with words without knowledge?
    Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.

    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

    Tell me, if you understand.



    Science has failed to give any evidence as to how the universe began - let alone how life originated!

    Lol. They have failed to even give a reason as to why earth is the only freakin planet that's teeming with countless sorts of life-forms!

    Why aren't there any life anywhere?

    They're now searching outside our solar system for crying out loud - and they pee in their pants everything they see what
    they think is evidence of water! Because............... water is essential to life.


    Hello?  We're drowning in water!  :lol: 





    With NASA's strategy to "follow the water" in the search for life, Mars and Jupiter's moon Europa are priority targets for future robotic missions.

    Whatever discoveries future missions make will be powerful. If some worlds have conditions that could support life, but are lifeless, our dear Earth looks even more like a special case.

    If other worlds do have life, we're not alone.







    Universe younger, seems to be expanding faster than astronomers thought

    Nobel prize winner's calculation causing astronomers to re-think some universal concepts

    Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, Johns Hopkins University astronomer Adam Riess concluded in this week's Astrophysical Journal that the figure is nine per cent higher than the previous calculation, which was based on studying leftovers from the Big Bang.

    They find the conflict so confounding that they are talking about coming up with "new physics," incorporating perhaps some yet-to-be-discovered particle or other cosmic "fudge factors" like dark energy or dark matter.

    "It's looking more and more like we're going to need something new to explain this," said Riess, who won the 2011 Nobel in physics.

    NASA astrophysicist John Mather, another Nobel winner, said this leaves two obvious options: "One: we're making mistakes we can't find yet. Two: nature has something we can't find yet."





    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

    Tell me, if you understand.



    That seems like a fitting, taunting question by God -

    to scientists who give various speculations about the universe/life when they hadn't been there to witness or observe how it all began!

  11. 11 hours ago, eyeball said:

    Why Trust the Bible?

    Doing so makes it easy to completely disregard things like climate change or bankrupting our world's natural capital because God has a new one waiting for us.

    There really is a planet B! Hallelujah! Spread the Good News and fill yer boots!


    We disregard the cockamamie bull about climate change - the false preachings of the nature-worshipping climate changers! :lol:


    Lol.  We are given dominion over earth, and along with it comes responsibility


    However, we are also given our critical thinking,


    that we may discern the facts from the bull!




    Genesis 1

    27 So God created mankind in his own image,
        in the image of God he created them;
        male and female he created them.

    28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

    Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”


    29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

  12. 32 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:


    Jee and outside experts had big caveats for her number. She used only two gravitational lenses, which were all that were available, and so her margin of error is so large that it's possible the universe could be older than calculated, not dramatically younger.


    Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger


    Relax.    :lol:   No one's giving a conclusive answer.


  13. Job 38

    The Lord Speaks

    38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

    “Who is this that obscures my plans
    with words without knowledge?
    Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.

    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.



    Oh boy, here we go!



    The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought.
    Scientists are scrambling to figure out why.

    May 18, 2019

    New research suggests that the Big Bang that birthed the cosmos occurred 12.5 billion years ago.

    The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought. Scientists are scrambling to figure out why.




    Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger

    September 12, 2019

    The universe is looking younger every day, it seems.

    New calculations suggest the universe could be a couple billion years younger than scientists now estimate, and even younger than suggested by two other calculations published this year that trimmed hundreds of millions of years from the age of the cosmos.

    The huge swings in scientists' estimates—even this new calculation could be off by billions of years—reflect different approaches to the tricky problem of figuring the universe's real age.

    Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger


  14. RECAP.   Here are some of the evidences that were given:



    Page 3:       Reproduction (human genders, asexuals),  Dominion over animals, The Snake

    Page 16:  Genesis Enigma,  Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (list reaffirmed by science), The Cursed Snake,  Stretches (Present tense)

    Page 19:  Hydrological Cycle

    Page 20:  Atoms, Jacob and Laban (Selective Breeding), Springs in the Oceans, Paths of the Seas

    Page 23:  Air has weight, Singing Stars, First Law of Thermodynamics

    Page 24:  Big Bang for Birds

    Page 25:  Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus, Physical laws are Constant, mathematical probability,

    Page 26:  Brimstone


  15. The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.



    Job 38

    The Lord Speaks

    38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

    “Who is this that obscures my plans
    with words without knowledge?
    Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.

    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.





    Scientists are baffled: What’s up with the universe?

    November 1, 2019

    The universe doesn’t look right. It suddenly looks . . . out of whack.

    That is the strange message coming from astronomers and physicists, who are wondering whether they need to revise cosmic history.

    The universe is unimaginably big, and it keeps getting bigger. But astronomers cannot agree on how quickly it is growing — and the more they study the problem, the more they disagree. Some scientists call this a “crisis” in cosmology.

    A less dramatic term in circulation is “the Hubble Constant tension.”




  16. What are the facts they know so far about this virus?

    It also has some HIV components, right?


    news update, a few minutes ago:





    American cruise ship passenger tests positive in Malaysia after hundreds left ship, China death toll at 1,665


    An American woman who was previously aboard the MS Westerdam cruise ship in Cambodia has been tested positive after a second test for the coronavirus in Malaysia, local health authorities said Sunday. The results came after hundreds of passengers were already allowed to leave the ship, and authorities say that more than 140 of those passengers traveled through Malaysia’s Kuala Lumpur airport.

    Many of them traveled to onward destinations in the U.S., Europe and Australia, officials said.





  17. On 1/8/2019 at 10:01 AM, Argus said:

    Much insults have been heaped upon this writer for saying he wasn't interested in women who are 50 and older (he is 50), but he echoes a theme we've seen elsewhere. One online dating site said last year that while women considered  the 'perfect age' for men was generally a few years older than them, men thought the perfect age for women was 19. And that never changed, despite how old the men got. 

    In defense of men, I think that, like women, they are simply responding to instincts. Men are hard-coded to want to mate with women of child-bearing age. And that instinct does not care how reasonable or realistic that is. Women, on the other hand, are instinctively drawn to strong, powerful, aggressive men - by instinct. Those are the men who, for a million years, would be seen as the best providers and defenders of them and their children. And it doesn't matter that this is not actually true these days, where the scrawny computer engineer can earn five times the salary of the big strong labourer, and a civilized society makes violence unlikely.  It's all instinct.

    I'm not sure if it's Jonathan Haidt, or some other psychologist who has pointed out that most of our decisions are made on instinct, and then we use our intellect to rationalize what our instincts and emotions are telling us to do. But I think, by and large, that's the case with those we find sexually attractive.




    Let's be realistic -

    Men at 50 are usually going through mid-life crisis!   :lol:   They don't want to be reminded of age-ing!



  18. On 1/26/2020 at 5:04 PM, ProudConservative said:

    I'm starting to doubt that climate change is a hoax. We have had an usually warm winter in Kitchener, where many day's are above freezing. Although, I enjoy being able to walk outside without shivering, this is the dead of winter, and 75% of the time, it should be below freezing. I would like to contrast to the January averages from previous years

    I use to build snowmans as a kid, and every winter we would get 10 to 15 days in a row, that were below freezing. Now, were lucky to have more than 4 days below freezing.





    January 2010

    High & Low Weather Summary for January 2010

      Temperature Humidity Pressure
    High 5 °C (Jan 25, 12:04 am) 100% (Jan 10, 7:00 am) 103.04 kPa (Jan 10, 7:00 am)
    Low -21 °C (Jan 30, 7:00 am) 45% (Jan 30, 2:00 pm) 98.58 kPa (Jan 25, 9:05 am)
    Average -6 °C 82% 101.59 kPa

    January 2011

    High & Low Weather Summary for January 2011

      Temperature Humidity Pressure
    High 11 °C (Jan 1, 2:58 pm) 100% (Jan 1, 10:08 am) 103.61 kPa (Jan 1, 10:08 am)
    Low -24 °C (Jan 24, 6:00 am) 43% (Jan 31, 12:00 pm) 99.31 kPa (Jan 6, 10:57 pm)
    Average -8 °C 84% 101.51 kPa


    January 2020

    High & Low Weather Summary for January 2020

      Temperature Humidity Pressure
    High 11 °C (Jan 11, 7:06 am) 100% (Jan 4, 5:21 am) 104.56 kPa (Jan 4, 5:21 am)
    Low -18 °C (Jan 20, 4:02 am) 56% (Jan 23, 4:00 pm) 99.89 kPa (Jan 18, 6:24 pm)
    Average -2 °C 85% 101.82 kPa


    What are you thoughts? Do you remember having colder winters as a child?




    I still remember a beautiful warm winter a whole lot more than a decade ago!  Maybe 15 years ago?


  • Create New...