Comments Posted By Ksren
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments


re: (e) above --- "Intelligent Design" is the logical answer to the "origin of species" for the obvious reason that the evolutionary process is ORDERED and systematic. It's NOT chaos which it should be IF there is no "intelligent design."

Over the past billion/million (whatever) years, species (and the planet itself) have been evolving into more complex and advanced species and systems. The human body alone is SO "intelligently designed" that the most advanced computers pale by comparison.

For that matter, WHY does "survival of the fittest" exist in the first place? WHY are species designed -- and somehow programed -- TO survive and reproduce?

If "intelligent design" is to be shunned, then evolution occurred through "chaos" and disorder even though ORDER and structure is how we now exist and advance as a species. On it's face, pure Evolutionary Theory is blatantly ILLOGICAL.

You can't get something from nothing. Therefore, SOMETHING existed forever and ever and ever . . .and then it BEGAN to evolve. Again, what caused the evolutionary process, itself, to begin to evolve? IMO, the obvious: we are the product of "Intelligent design."

No intelligent design discussions here. No such thing as faith based science.

The idea that the theory of evolution has not evolved is utter nonsense. I guess you fell asleep in biology class when genetics were discussed. Evolutionary biology is a whole new scientific discipline that uses genetic markers to track the evolution of species.

Go to a religious board if you want to discuss ID. This is a pseudo-science free site.


Comment Posted By Ksren On 9.12.2009 @ 06:50


Odd -- my original post was redacted. I'll resubmit.

Ksren Said:
9:58 am

Hmmm . . .I simply must take issue with you view that the so-called “birthers” are all paranoid crazies. It’s simply not true.

When Maj. Hassan slaughtered US Army soldiers @ Ft. Hood, I recall an FBI Agent (probably on Fox) say that: “you know who a person is by his/her life history, associations & affiliations.” Right.

Problem is that we do know who Obama is by his life history, associations and affiliations too. The pattern of Obama’s life history — from cradle to present — is dominated by actual Communists (FMDavis and others), Black LIberation Revolutionaries (J. Wright) and a problematic number of militant America-hating Islamic radicals. There’s simply no evidence of transformation and rejection of marxist ideology — literally — at any point in his life except when he's stumping on the campaign trail.

“Guilt by association” is considered wrong, or perhaps simple-minded but in reality, one of the important ways we can understand the true mind/views/ideology of a person.

Re: the “birther” issue — well, in reality, it’s irrelevant where Obama was born. He could have been born in the Soviet Union (in 1961) and he’d still be a US Citizen (via the 14th Amendment) b/c his mother was a US Citizen.

The legal/constitutional question is whether Obama — with one US Citizen parent and one FOREIGN NATIONAL parent — is also, constitutionally/legally a “NATURAL born citizen [NBC] of the US” which he must be, per Article II of the US Constitution, in order to BE the POTUS and C-in-C.

Only a handful of SCOTUS cases exist that deal address the definition of NBC. . .and ALL acknowledge that only one definition of NBC exists in US Law currently: born on US soil/territory to US citizen parentS, meaning both parents.

FACT: Obama is the FIRST US President, born after 1787, who had only one US Citizen parent. In effect, Obama has just CHANGED the only recognized definition of NBC in Article II of the Constitution by, essentially, violating it/challenging it.

One can obtain US Citizenship via a couple/few processes: 14th Amendment “naturalization” and “citizen-at-birth”, statute and “naturally” (NBC).

My understanding is that Obama is a “citizen-at-birth” b/c his mother was a US citizen and he was born on US soil. He would still be a “citizen-at-birth” if he were born in the USSR or Kenya or Afghanistan or Iraq so long as ONE parent is a US Citizen OR Obama would be a “citizen-at-birth” if BOTH of his parents were foreign nationals but he was born on US soil.

The Article II requirement that the POTUS must be a NBC — and that is the ONLY use of NBC in US Law: eligibility of the POTUS/VP — was not affected by the 14th Amendment and cannot be affected by any statute.

The Constitution, itself, can only be changed via a Constitutional Amendment. So far, there has been no Amendment (ratified by the states).

Thus, to date, no such Amendment exists and no SCOTUS case law exists that EXTENDS the only known and recognized definition of NBC to include “born on US soil/territory to at least one US citizen parent.” And, SCOTUS has specifically ruled: “that all definitions of NBC other than “born on US soil to US Citizen Parent(S)is speculative.”

So, in 2008, a new precedent was created in which Article II of the US Constitution was CHANGED with no Amendment and no ruling by SCOTUS re: whether a NBC is a US Citizen with only one US citizen parent instead of two.

Obama changed Article II and by so doing he, personally, has opened Pandora’s Box to the question of WHO can hold that singularly most powerful position in the Executive Branch of the US Govt and WHO can be, legally, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force ever to exist on the planet.

Oh yah, this IS a dreadfully serious matter. I consider those who dismiss, outright, all questions concerning Obama’s constitutional/legal eligibility to BE the POTUS to be intellectually and shamefully careless.

In 2008, Article II of the US Constitution was rendered UNENFORCEABLE.

Comment Posted By Ksren On 8.12.2009 @ 10:43

BTW, and oddly, a candidate for POTUS does not need to be a NBC of the US. But no person who is NOT a NBC can BE the POTUS -- actually assume the Office of the POTUS and become the C-in-C of the United States Armed Forces.

And, incidentally, Black Liberation Theology is what J. Wright admits to preaching. Well, Liberation Theology IS marxism. So, Wright's church would not have been a ideological conflict for Obama. 20 years absorbing the truly anti-American, racist "hate-speech" of J. Wright . . .and the American people had no problem with that? Wow.

What if McCain had chosen to be a member of Dobson's or Robertson's church for 20 years, would that have been okay with you, Rick? It wouldn't have been okay with me. If McCain -- or ANY R Potus candidate-- had chosen to sit in Dobson's or Robertson's church for 20 years, he would have been UN-electable.

Perhaps sir you just don't comprehend the full breath of what occurred in the USA during the 2008 election cycle. I have no doubt that it will take historians generations to understand and reconcile both the 2008 election and the deeds and intentions of this current Administration.

Comment Posted By Ksren On 8.12.2009 @ 10:26



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page