Army Secretary nominee Mark Green under fire
CNN reports that Mark Green, President Trump’s nominee to be the Secretary of the Army is under fire from the Left for some of his political statements from when he was a state senator in Tennessee.
Democrats and LGBT groups have slammed Green over his previous comments on LGBT issues, which included saying: “If you poll the psychiatrists, they’re going to tell you that transgender is a disease.”
He’s also been criticized by Muslim groups for comments about not teaching “the pillars of Islam” in public schools.
On Monday, CNN reported Green is a self-identified creationist who delivered a lecture arguing against the theory of evolution.
Green defended himself against the criticism in a Facebook post last week, charging that the “liberal left has cut and spliced my words about terrorism and ISIS, blatantly falsifying what I’ve said.”
Can you imagine the Leftist outcry if public schools were teaching the stations of the cross? But, yeah, the pillars of Islam are fine to teach in public schools. I guess my question would be “So what?” Why would an Army Secretary be unqualified for that position because he opposes teaching tenets of Islam in schools? The same applies to his opinions on sexual deviancy. Social justice shouldn’t be a concern for an Army Secretary – my concern is that he is able to fight our nation’s wars for our benefit.
But my in box is full of propaganda from the Palm Center and the Human Rights Campaign telling me why I should oppose Green. By the way Green is an Army veteran. According to Wiki his bio reads like someone eminently qualified to lead the Army;
Green graduated from U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1986. From 1987 through 1990, Green served as an infantry officer in the United States Army. His first duty assignment following graduation from the US Army Ranger School was with the 194th Armored Brigade (United States) at Fort Knox. There he served as a rifle platoon leader, scout platoon leader and battalion adjutant for an Infantry Battalion. Following the Infantry Officer’s Advance Course, then Captain Green served with the 82nd Airborne Division as an airborne battalion supply officer and a rifle company commander. Following a traumatic event where his father’s life was saved by a team of surgeons and critical care doctors, Green requested the US Army send him to medical school. He attended Boonshoft School of Medicine at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. He did his residency in emergency medicine at Fort Hood Texas. After his residency Dr. Green was selected to serve as the Flight surgeon for the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.
Sounds like a guy who would do well leading the Army.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) doesn’t like him either – they also pretend to oppose him on LGBT issues.
Category: Army News
If that bag of granola (what ain’t fruits and nuts is flakes!) opposes him, good enough for reason for me to support him.
Drive on Mr. Green.
consider the CAIR objection as a valid endorsement
Absolutely. When CAIR and other whacked-out groups oppose him, to me it’s as if God Himself appeared and said, “He’s my guy.”
There is an old saying “a man is known by his enemies.”
Given Dr. Green’s self-identifying enemies, I have to say I like him.
Given his experience, I’d have to say that he is qualified to serve as Secretary of the Army.
Given that his education betrays a good intelligence and willingness to learn, I’d have to say that he will probably do a good job.
Meanwhile, the 0bama administration in his last days ordered the Army to stop using cluster munitions and land mines, in accordance of the “Ottawa Convention” or Mine Ban Treaty, which the US did NOT sign because it requires Congress approval.
And the gay Secretary of the Army, what-his-name, forced transgender integration during his very last week in office. The Army’s still abiding by these two rules.
We are fucked.
Link? Source?
He halted a shipment to Saudi Arabia. But the US still has them and there is nothing stopping us from using them except common sense.
Cluster bombs are to target large troop concentrations something we are not seeing and when we do other methods that are more effective can be allocated, such as air to ground attack assets. Resources that might be stretched thin or at high risk in a conventional fight and thus a cluster bomb might be the best choice.
So we still have them in our arsenal and almost certainly would us them NK or against a near peer.
As for landmines, we are still using them on the NK border. And we still use remote activated and manual mines.
Link: • Army Concerned Over Ban on Cluster Munitions, Land Mines
By Marcus Fichtl, Military.com, May 2, 2017
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/05/02/army-concerned-over-ban-on-cluster-munitions-land-mines.html
Hold on a second, did you think for a moment that I am like you and talk shit out of my ass with no sources?
I am sorry dude.
This has zero to do with the Obama administration. And nothing is stopping Trump from reversing or delaying the Pentagon decision.
We are replacing our “dumb” devices with sensor devices that can be remotely deactivated so they don’t kill civilians or friendly troops after the enemy has been removed from the target area.This has been a plan for decades and it does not mean we will not be using smarter cluster munitions in the future.
You original post is not accurate at all.
Don’t be sorry. Lars is ignant. And he just does not learn.
From the article:
“ammunition specialists are scrambling to develop quick-fix solutions to a fast-approaching Pentagon deadline that will end the use of cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines.
Defense Department policy mandates that the U.S. military stop using cluster munitions such as the 155mm Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition as well as anti-personnel mines often used to deny enemy forces access and freedom of movement on the battlefield by January 2019, Jim Shields, head of Program Executive Office Ammunition, told an audience Tuesday at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 2017 Armaments Systems Forum.
The policy is being driven by the “Ottawa accord even though we have not signed it,” Shields said, describing the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, typically referred to as the “Ottawa Convention” or “Mine Ban Treaty,” according to the Arms Control Association, a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C.
The loss of these munitions creates “capability gaps that we are really concerned about,” Shields said.
Its a DOD policy decision which can be extended or cancelled with the stroke of a pen, if it doesn’t look like we will make our own self imposed deadline. A likely occurrence in my estimation.
There are very few things that break up an assault like dual-purpose cluster munitions and dual-purpose scatterable minefields.
Basically, those two things made a Soviet sweep of Europe a rather dicey proposition. And made it -less- likely NATO would resort to nukes to stop such an attack.
-Losing- wars to various dictators (Socialist or Theocratic) will kill far, far more innocents that fighting and defeating those same dictators.
I don’t know. I think you are being a little dogmatic yourself. If the guy wants to believe whatever he wants, it is his problem unless it affects the performance of his job.
Evolution is not as clear cut as you pretend. Natural selection, the mechanism by which evolution is suppousely occurring, is easy to demonstrate because it is occurring right now, but evolution as a theory look at very large expanses of time who are by is very nature unverifiable, therefore requiring FAITH, just not the religious kind of faith.
I am open to all theories until proven wrong, but I ain’t going to blame nobody for refussing to believe in one of the core liberal-communist tenets.
yeah, like gravity.
Most of the arguments against evolution are specious at best, much because said natural selection (a cornerstone of evolution) IS so provable. And yes, there are some unverifiable long expanses of time… but basing your argument on that smacks of doubting the existence of the number one billion because your did not individually count off each number. Me, I am more concerned with his disagreement with evolution than I am with his opinions on the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ crowd or teaching Islam in school. (Admittedly, I think comparative religion should be taught in schools, given how much influence religion has on societies. Teach all of ’em or none of ’em.)
I am curious – has anyone ever actually POLLED psychiatrists to find out what they think? Be funny as hell if most of said “yep, they’re whacko as all get-out”
Teaching religion is significantly different than the libtarded method of actually forcing students to worship in the death cult religion for part of their classes. Comparative classes on religion would possibly be a good thing but will never happen, given the many court rulings that ignored the actual words present in the 1st amendment.
Trump could nominate George Takei as Secretary of the Army and LGBT groups and the Democrats would oppose the pick. Because Trump.
Dammit. I googled George Takei and he is that dude from Star Trek. Now I can’t enjoy Star Trek any more.
Thank you MSG Eric!
“Sulu” never said anything about 20th century stuff that I remember, except for thinking a Police 38 was a kinda nifty thing to find on a shore leave planet.
Besides anyone who can say “..fair maiden” to Nichelle Nichols “Lt Uhura” and get “Sorry, neither!” As a reply…. gotta be cool
Actually, I met George Takei at a Trek con in 1976. He literally ran into me as he exited an elevator. he was clearly in a hurry to get to his appearance, but stoped to see if a 12 year old star-struck kid was OK, chatted for a bit, then took the time to autograph my set of Enterprise blueprints. Then politely excused himself and resumed dashing to his appearance.
I though it a class act for a celebrity, and still think highly of it.
Politics? Spare me. He and I could fuel a warp core with arguments. But he seems an OK person, just with really different opinions.
Point? Dehumanizing the opposition precludes any common ground or persuasion.
Yeah, yeah, yeah Leftists, Islamists, and Obamaists…the adults are in charge. The Army is not some social petri dish…it’s an Army! It needs qualified and experiences leaders. Does anybody notice their objections are peripheral beliefs & viewpoints? He’s the man the Army needs, so let’s cut the bullshit liberal pissing and moaning and let him get to work.
I hold the same belief as Mr. Green. A time when we are goose stepping toward fascism is an idiotic time for the left to be trying to ridicule and shame a belief like that.
Godwin’s Law…you lose.
Fascism is not just Nazis.
Correct. There are various socialisms that make up Facism. The major flavored of that shit sandwich were National Socialism, the original version practiced by the Italian Fascists, and the spin offs that appeared in places like the Spanish Civil War. And, of course, the moment ISalmo-Facism, socialist and theocratic.
The basic premise of all of them is “Everything within the State. Nothing outside the State. Nothing against the State.”
Which is another decent summary of Socialism in general. “State control of the means of production” implies item 1, requires #2, and absolutely enforces #3.
All that money spent on college and you never bothered to read “The Worldly Philosophers”? (You’d probably like Heilbroner, he was a third-way sort) Maybe you just read Smith and Marx? Or, just took someone else’s word for what was important?
So much for the Berkely education. You make a poor advertisement, if this is your A-game at debate.
Yeah, and those bastards in Poland are next. Trumpster has already cut a deal with Putin to divvy up the country after we launch tanks across the border in a blitzkrieg that will ensure a 1000 year rule of the perfect race.
Does that play into your fantasies well enough?
Oh grow up, SheissKopfFuhrer. Trump is not a Socialist, National or Internetional.
He walks with a kind of “I am 70+” stoop, not a goosestep.
Besides, it is your side that tries to silence all other opinions. Your ilk champions the right to dissent, as long as no one dissents from -your- way.
I crushed him on that…you know he had to Google it to find why out he lost.
I mean goose steeping is an obvious reference to Generalissimo Franco and not Hitler, right? Wrong!
Lots of armed forces use that goofy walk to show off. Look at the Soviets and their various bastard offspring like the Norks.
We have no need of such crap. Our armed forces show off by kicking other armies asses to the curb, repeatedly.
The goosestep dance to fascism ended when the Mighty mulatto Buffoon and his criminal conspiracy got the hell out of the white house, and the socialist democrats lost power because they are universally fucktarded, you moron. Wake the hell up.
Dave,
With all due respect, the Theory of Evolution is just that – a theory some scientists use to help explain the biological diversity we find in the world. As with any scientific theory, there are certain things that it has trouble explaining.
As with all good science, there is debate between those who hold one theory, and those who hold competing theories.
Some scientists advocate for a theory which includes the possibility for an external creator who intelligently designed the biological diversity we see. As with any scientific theory, there are certain things that it has trouble explaining.
Calling those who hold an opposing theory “uneducated” is an ad hominem, and has no place in reasoned discussion.
Given that Dr. Green has a degree from West Point in addition to a medical degree, has served as a flight surgeon, calling him “uneducated” is patently false.
The issues in attempting to decide between two different theories were illustrated quite well in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Whatever one may think of Kuhn’s work, or of the various competing scientific theories in the sundry scientific fields, it is plain that scientific theories are just theories. They are not absolute facts to be accepted upon the authority of their proponents (another logical fallacy), and those who question a scientific theory may be far more scientific than those who accept the theory carte blanc.
The argument could be made that for many their “religious belief trumps all evidence and knowledge” – e.g. the snowflakes’ view of the state of the US government.
Speaking solely from the standpoint of a Christian, Scripture (by which I mean those collections of writings commonly referred to as the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament”) demands of its adherents that they think, review the facts, the evidence, and draw reasoned conclusions about its claims and explanations. What is often called ‘blind faith’ is alien to Scripture. The same cannot be said of the “academics” currently in control of the universities.
Reasoned discussion is not to be feared.
I agree that reasoned discussion should not be feared, it should be fostered.
Calling those who deny evolution “uneducated” is hardly an ad hominem attack. A total failure of logic and knowledge by emotional beliefs is cognitive dissonance.
Your understanding of the word “theory” as used in your statement shows a lack of scientific understanding. Gravity is a fact…the Theory of Gravity explains how it works. Germs are a fact…Germ Theory explains how they work. Evolution through the process of natural selection is a fact…the Theory of Evolution explains how it works.
Kuhn’s work is a wonderful example of philosophy. But, it is exactly that…as was his education. Nothing wrong with using philosophy to delve into almost anything…just don’t use it as evidence of any kind. It is entirely opinion.
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
― Mark Twain
American are free to worship as they choose. Anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If you have any reasonable proof The Theory of Evolution is wrong, I encourage you to write it down and go collect your Nobel Prize.
“Truth does not fear investigation.”
Actually, DH, Graybeard is correct.
Currently accepted scientific theories are not accepted because they have been “proven correct”. They are accepted because at the present time, they best explain current observations. If/when a better theory is advanced that better explains observed data, the currently accepted theory is discarded and a different theory replaces it.
Currently accepted scientific theories change dramatically over time. At various times, it was accepted as “scientific fact” (the quotes are intentional) that the earth was flat; that the sun revolved around the earth; that malaria was caused by “bad air; that everything was composed of four “elements” (earth, wind, fire, water) combined in different proportions; that atoms were indivisible; and that light moved through space via a medium called ether. None of those theories are accepted today – because we today have other theories that better explain observed reality. The same will be true of some scientific theories we accept today at some point in the future.
Do I believe evolution occurred? Certainly; observed data to date rather overwhelmingly is best explained by that theory, so it’s our current best estimate of the truth. In the absence of compelling data to the contrary, I’ll accept it as fact.
But give me compelling data to the contrary, and I’ll change my mind. And I’m not willing to persecute someone as being some kind of “heretic” because they don’t accept it as fact. (See Galileo for a historical example of exactly that – and it’s hardly the only example.)
Remember: Einstein himself was a vocal critic (today, they’d call him a “denier”) of the validity of quantum mechanics. However, modern quantum mechanics and its variants are today accepted as the closest explanations we have for subatomic interactions.
But even today, the theory remains incomplete. And Einstein’s disbelief of the theory hardly means he was an idiot who should have been persecuted for his beliefs.
The world is stranger than we know. Even today, we still don’t understand how it all really works – and we possibly never will. Science is simply our attempt to figure that out.
I tried desperately to find something in your response that I disagreed with enough to merit ire.
I believe we interpret what GB posted differently. It appeared to me that he was attempting to show there is some credibility to “creationism” or one of its poor veiled movements.
Creating a false sense that there is some other scientifically based theory other than evolution is a ploy by zealots. There is not one. There are not two sides to the issue.
Dr. Green is either uneducated when it comes to Evolution or is suffering from cognitive dissonance. Sadly he is not special in any way. That is very common.
There is not evidence whatsoever of an intelligent creator of any kind. Nuttin, zip, nadda, no evidence at all.
That type of arguement is used, as it was in Ohio, to push a false narrative into science classrooms. “Teach the controversy” even if it was created out of mystical ancient beliefs.
Question every scientific theory, the result is called progress. But do it with testable, repeatable, evidence.
Giving Intelligent Design loons even a crack in the door results in an erosion of actual science in our schools.
Maybe I am reading it in the wrong light or am influenced by my own bias…which is entirely possible.
There is no other scientific theory that challenges Evolution. Every time they re-word or try to re-package Creationism…it is proven to be not science.
DH, my only real issues with what you posted were (1) your telling GB he was incorrect in his use of the term theory (he wasn’t), and (2) your apparent (and rather strident) “it’s proven, so quit arguing and accept it” tone. You might not have intended your comment to come across that way, but that’s exactly how it did come across to me. That kind of attitude, backed by both secular and religious authorities, caused human progress to stagnate for literally a millennium during the Middle Ages. Seeing it today raises my hackles immediately – and we see it all the time from the Left regarding both social issues and so-called “settled” climate science. (My position on climate change is that we don’t have enough unaltered and thus trustworthy climate data to know at this point. The recent “adjustments” made by NOAA and others to global historical climate data sets IMO certainly appear to have assumed precisely what they’re trying to prove, and adjusted the data to match what they want to see. If that’s the case, that is NOT science; that’s called “rigging the game by changing the data to support your pet cause, truth be damned”.) On the subject of evolution, we agree. I regard it as the current theory that best fits the observed data – and overwhelmingly so. I thus believe evolution almost certainly is what resulted in the creation of different species on earth. But the key phrase there is “almost certainly”; given compelling evidence to the contrary, I’m willing to reevaluate that belief. I just haven’t seen that kind of data yet. FWIW: provided one doesn’t interpret the Bible word-for-word literally (and I don’t), neither position is incompatible with belief in a Deity. (Even if one does, the phrase “a thousand years is as a day to Me” comes to mind.) To paraphrase what Fermi said to Einstein during a different argument: “(Creationists), please quit telling God what He can and cannot do.” If the Deity chose to create the various species on earth via evolution, that would be His prerogative. I’m certainly… Read more »
In my opinion, along with most of the scientific community his use of the work “Theory” as if it were an guess is wrong. That is a common mistake made by those who wish to defend creationism. ” A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.” It seems that I came across exactly the way I intended to. Evolution through the process of natural selection is a proven fact. I will be should to shoulder with you on the Climate Change crowd using junk science or as they have in many cases using false and misleading data. That has proven and continues to be exposed…by other scientists. I understand your angst and share it. Sadly, their lack of credibility because of that has created an environment where even well founded data is being ignored. There is no for a Deity to have created anything. Almost all of what we observe can be explained without one. The few things that have yet to be discovered…will be answered in time. The universe did not come from nothingness. No astrophysicist claims that it did…they use the word metaphorically. Even Lawrence Krauss who penned a best seller uses the word as meaning it was created out of something other than what we observe today. If a he, she, or it did create our universe…there is no evidence that they did. Big Bang theory is admittedly incomplete. For starters it could have been neither big or a bang. Its very title is an oxymoron. When Guth added the much needed Inflation model many still see that as being as big a mistake as Einstein made with his Cosmological Constant. They were created to make a mathematical explanation viable. Einstein said that was his biggest mistake. I would much rather have questions that can not be answered than answers that can not be questioned. All science should be questioned. Religion is what… Read more »
Scientists almost universally deny God, because at heart they are very arrogant in their “superior” knowledge and scientific spiffiness. Arrogance goes before the fall, and some of the most basically wrong people I have ever seen are scientists, who claims something as fact, then get those facts shoved up their ass by other scientists with an even trendier THEORY. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them smell like shit. Climate change or global warming or whatever they are calling that nonsense is a good example.
In an effort to clarify my position on Mr. Green…I do not object to him holding the position.
I have to live in a world full of people that believe things I can either disprove or find utterly ridiculous. They concern me when they are in a position of authority…but I have little choice.
Jesus killed a Fig tree not a Fag. If he respects the position that people are free to believe or not believe his particular slant on religion and upholds their right to do so…his personal opinion becomes irrelevant to the position.
In many Islamic theocracies I would be put to death because I refuse to believe that which I find factually false.
Nobody died for my sins, I will not eat the flesh and drink the blood of a Jew, I will not be held accountable for anything my forefathers did, the earth frozen once but there was never a global flood, nobody can cure leprosy with a few birds and some string, my wife may cut her hair when she feels like it, I do not own her body, I will not give my daughter to anyone who rapes her, I will not cut out my wife’s tongue if she speaks about religion, and on and on and on.
Belief in supernatural telepathic powers to communicate to a being that will change the world on my behalf is utter nonsense. I will not teach such gibberish to children.
If this man will defend the country that gives me the right to hold those opinions…he can believe whatever hysterical faith he chooses. As long as he keeps it out of his work.
Neither you nor he can keep heartfelt belief out of work.
Nor should either of you.
Ultimately, your positions come down to a difference of premise, the starting point for reasoning.
If the premise is “It all just kinda happened, because it works that way”, you tend to go in a bit different direction that “It exists because all exist at things have a creator, else they would not exist”.
Look at some of the odd overlaps. What is the practical difference between “miracle” and “chain of incredibly remote-probability events”?
Depends on your premise, right?
Newton’s Theory of Gravity is -wrong-. It is a useful approximation at low velocities and masses, but go for enough and Mr. Einstein has a better therory. He struggled with Quantum Mechanics, because he held a very different premise.
And thus we go on debating, but few really listening. Because few want that premise challenged, because …
… then what?
And Human minds -really- tend to hate starting over from scratch.
Isn’t it odd how much of the arguing is “My mind is made up. I have reasoned it out from my incontrovertible premise, so you must be wrong, not me.”
The difference here is Gravity has always been a fact. The scientific theory may be slightly altered and evolve, but the fact remains. The Theory of Evolution through the process of natural selection may be tweaked but Evolution will always remain a fact. One may ‘believe’, without any evidence, that some creator was responsible for evolution. The premise that there is some other scientific theory that explains physical human existence is completely false. There is not one. I am simply pointing out an error, Evolution is not a belief…it is a fact. Lane Craig uses the Kalam cosmological argument in debate. He is effective, but it is still a position of philosophy and not scientific theory. Since Quantum Mechanics has been brought up again, I will try to explain its dilemma. Quantum Mechanics does provide solutions to problems at the subatomic level. Its use of wave functions results in counter intuitive explanations. That does not make it wrong, but problematic. The the biggest problem with using it is it also creates an almost infinite number of other answers to the same problem. It only gives results in probabilities per se. Even Steven Weinberg has come to question the validity of its use. Theoretical Physical is like some kind of dark art. Bohr knew that it was not complete. It will not hold up beyond the sub atomic realm. Einstein did not struggle with Quantum Mechanics…he rejected it. He made his famous “God does not play with dice” quote. His use was metaphorical but gets used to claim he had some belief in one. He did not and publicly corrected anyone who claimed he did. All quantum mechanics will tell us is a probability of what will happen when we observe subatomic particles. It clearly holds that the act of observation will change the outcome every time. That is why Physicists have been looking for a unifying theory that will bring the Standard Model and the Quantum one together. They all know it is flawed…as Einstein did. People need to understand that Evolution is not a belief…it is a provable fact.… Read more »
There is a difference between an assertion and proof. The “climat doom” types assert “proven fact”. Doesn’t make the right. I know plenty of people who believe that Evolution is a “good fit” theory. How is it “proven”? The alternative view “created” has not been disproven. The “God created us via natural processes”, is similarly a decent fit, but unproven. Because you get down to the un-provable premises. If you simply deny God, you are making an assertion. The believer in the divine is just as convinced his premise is correct. Stare it as a positive assertion like “the universe is a closed system of natural laws, acting entirely within its boundaries in knowable, predictable ways.” You can then look a t applying a scientific test, which requires negating and testing. if you -start- with a negative “there is no such-n-such”, how do you negate and test? So, unless you make a positive assertion, you are no more “scientific” or “fact based” than those you believe are deluded by fantasy. Which is the flaw in most Atheist argument. They state as a premise “no there isn’t” and then sit there, assuming they have no further effort required. Kinda seems like a cheat to me. You have clearly given it much thought, but you keep falling back on “no there isn’t”. Because ultimately, neither assertion is “provable” in the scientific sense. The universe “just happened” or “was created”. And ultimately, how does one distinguish between an absurdly small chance that nevertheless occurs, and the hand of a divine guide? DNA clearly is the engine of life. it is a fantastically sophisticated information technology, just four characters in its alphabet, yet self-replicating, building the machinery that reads, repairs, and re-creates it, allowing for change over time. That “Just happened”? That would seem to stretch credibility. But the bits that make it up tend to form spontaneously when the right materials exist in the right conditions. Other relatively spontaneous items tend to stick to it, and form the basics of life. When we look at what was,and what is, we can see the… Read more »
Outstanding post. I do not know of one proponent of Evolution that states that it just happened. Exactly the contrary is stated. The entire science of Evolutionary Biology is based explaining exactly how it happened. The mountain of observation and experimentation to prove Evolution is a fact is undeniable to anyone who investigates it. Even devout Christians like Ken Miller have debunked any scientific claims to the contrary of evolution. “Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community.” He said that the idea of intelligent design was not subject to falsification, and demonstrated that many claims made by intelligent-design advocates against evolution were invalid. Asked what the harm was, Miller gave a two-fold response. 1) “It falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means.” And 2) “As a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith.” Taking the position that Evolution is contrary to a belief in God paints the individual into a corner where they must choose between their love of God and knowledge. This kind of trap has been one of the bane of human progress throughout history. It is not limited to the Christian faith. Islam used it to mandate control of people and destroyed one of the most advance civilizations on earth. Evolution is not a ‘nice fit’. It is the only observable, testable, and potentially falsifiable explanations that exist. The assertion that “God created us via natural processes” is completely without observational evidence, is not testable, and in the best of light can only be seen as a giant leap of speculation. A common misconception is that Evolution claims to prove how life as we know it started. It does not, it never has. The science of creation… Read more »
“Like”
If a person has to explain their position using the word “believe” or any of its root words they are not a scientist nor do they accept the scientific method.
Yeah, and Jesus rode dinosaurs and there were tyrannosaurs on Noah’s Ark. Jeez….. Not only can they see evolution in the lab and the world at large, the can predict it and direct it. It is a deterministic process. Oh, and that bit about blind faith being alien to scriptures, milk came out of my nose when I read that.
Did you actually read any of the above discusssion before your vowel movement?
Ever consider a reasoned reading and response here? Do you avoid it because you are lazy or because you are stupid?
I suppose “and” also works.
You add nothing of value, nor importance, nor persuade anyone, nor advance anything. You cant even “troll” worth a dog fart. Zampolit on a bad day has greater reader utility than anything you have ever posted here.
He once had a comment that was concise, clear, and expressed a thought well. It was the only one before or since. I have no doubt that he cut it and pasted someone’s comment from somewhere else. He is truly a doorstop.
He only comes around when a Republican is President. He’s been MIA for eight years.
I know most of you here subscribe to the “Duh, if homosexuals can’t reproduce why haven’t they gone extinct” school of thought, but there are many scenarios in which homosexuality is adaptive to a species. What we’re learning about epigenitics lends support to that idea. Gay people are not a fluke or mentally ill, they belong here like the rest of us. Learn to deal with it.
Project much?
Neither God nor DNA predestine anyone to particular choices. It is a free will universe.
But you changed the subject, again, because you made yourself look like an idiot. Again.
Milk came out of your nose? You’re still breastfeeding at your age?
Retired Army Officer (LTC), both an Infantry Officer and Doctor, founder and CEO of a successful business, provider of free and low cost medical care to under served populations.
Yea, gotta find some thing they don’t like about the guy because of who nominated him.
His comments on LGBT issues should have sufficed.
But both sides will sling everything at the wall to see what sticks these days. It is not like the left is the only guilty party for this crap.
Babble, babble, babble, babble. Babbles McButthead, you have a mind like cement, it’s permanently set and all mixed up! 😁😄
Your comment is pointless trolling. Which is pretty much your entire existence on this board.
Nothing I said in my post was wrong or controversial. So responding the way you did shows the petty little snot nose Shit you are.
GEE WHIZ, I post an opinion and you spout off madder than Richard Simmons when his local pet shop runs out of gerbils!
“Your comment is pointless trolling. Which is pretty much your entire existence on this board.”
Na-na-na-na-na! Take that, API. He broke out the girly screech for you. Congrats.
If he even thinks that phases me he’s more fucked than Mohammed Oobla-boobla’s favorite goat on Thursday night! 😀 *snicker*. He didn’t whip out any empirical evidence today either, he’s falling behind on his game!
You constantly poison the well here by shitting in it, then complain that the water tastes bad.
If you are actually an officer, you must have forgotten that military service is not now nor ever was a RIGHT. Deviancy is not conducive to good order and discipline, and catering to it was done solely to weaken the military and be trendy, as socialist dems and liberals are wont to do. It does nothing for our ability to fight. And, yes, the left is the only party guilty on this issue. I don’t see republicans trying to social engineer the military with the objective of weakening it.
Much as I may regret this, here goes.
I am informed by multiple denizens of this Forum that the poster signing as “Commissar” is an Army Reserve Major.
I give him that much credit, he did serve.
He has since learned that he was merely a pawn of the military-industrial complex and that his service was to an economic system that he loathes. Suspicion is that he caught the PTSD somewhere behind the wire and is cashing in. As for cred for having served, so, too, did Benedict Arnold.
A Secretary of the Army nominee who doesn’t give two shits what the LGBT team thinks of him. That’s great news in my book. Maybe he’ll spend his time making sure the Army is ready to perform its duties when called upon instead of pandering to every LGBT issue thrown on his desk. What a concept!
Nobody threw LGBT issues cat the military. Gay’s were already serving and have since the the first group of humans organized themselves in an armed force. The only question is should be allowed to serve without fuckwits administratively gunning for them and discriminating against them.
It was inevitable they would eventually be allowed to serve with the same dignity as anyone who volunteers to put their life on the line for their country.
As for transgender? They were already serving too. Personally, I think there are a ton of medical conditions that make you unfit to serve, gender identity disorder could easily have been disqualifying. But that is not the direction we are going. Makes little sense to me. So I guess we agree on that one.
“…allowed to serve with the same dignity…”
Yeah, it’s about dignity. Their lifestyle is all about dignity.
Con dignidad, ¿EH? ¡ Fidel estaría tan orgulloso!
Sticking your dick in another man’s ass is quite dignified. It’s a very dignified image indeed. And the young officer hiking up his skirt to use the urinal? Nothing says class and dignity like that does. No question.
I don’t support transgender folks serving. I think it should be medically disqualifying.
So, your position is that anyone who self-identifies as a different gender than their biologically-defined gender should be barred from service?
Apparently you do. Because if that’s not the case you might want to actually, you know, look up the currently accepted definition of transgender.
Transgender =/= transexual, Berkeley-boi.
By the way: are you still afraid to answer the simple question I asked you two days ago re: JFK and Khrushchev? Or are you still waiting for the answer from your Party superiors having the “seal of approval” as being in accordance with established
“Progressive” revolutionary doctrine?
It’s the direction we were going prior to 20 January 2017. However, that may well have changed now.
Apparently this anger at homosexuals is all based on the fact that you guys can’t stop imagining other men having sex or using a urinal.
Um, that’s what they do, Lars. It’s what differentiates them from normal adult males.
This has long ago stopped being about “tolerance” for everyone, and morphed into a demand from the left that everyone -must- high-five it and say “right on”!
Or, the new Red Abteilung will bust heads, right?
Lars’ objection to mentioning what queer males actually do is akin to the outrage that erupts when babies are shown in wombs and then saline is injected and they writhe in unmistakable pain and then are ripped out piece by tiny piece. Abortionists have carefully cultivated the innocuous “woman’s choice” tag and go livid when the result of that “choice” is revealed. Lars and many others like him prefer not to go to the truth of these matters and attack when someone does.
“Uncle Tom’s Cabin” had a similar effect on Slavery.
Marxism, and various “not quite” versions of it, seem like high-minded philosophy to the adherents.
Until you start counting corpses in the camps, and eventually the streets, fields, and homes.
No, it comes from the fact that a good many queers are out for themselves and their deviant agenda, and that just don’t go with subordinating yourself to the needs of your unit, service, and country. They are not even a significant segment of the population, so how was that even a significant issue to take up?
The more that leftytwat moonbat groups screech against him (especially CAIR) the more qualified I think he is to lead.
Intelligent individual who signed a check with his life in the “for” space to serve our
Republic, Dr., successful Business Owner, State Senator who was elected to work a Conservative Agenda and did just that.
This is a fight for the true mainstream issues of our Nation, not some fringe element seeking to make a point. I do not know of another individual picked to work that is any more qualified to serve as this man!
“He did his residency in emergency medicine at Fort Hood Texas.”
THIS is the guy you want working in the ER if you are a patient. My luck? In a civilian hospital, I get a pediatrician who is moonlighting for extra bucks. /sarc Or in the military, a pediatrician or dermatologist who is there b/c of the call rotation.
In the Navy, who was the ER doc on duty went by the duty rotation schedule. Could have been a dermatologist, pediatrician, thoracic surgeon or trauma surgeon. Of course each specialty had an on-call guy/gal.
Luck of the draw …
“Retired Army Officer (LTC), both an Infantry Officer and Doctor, founder and CEO of a successful business, provider of free and low cost medical care to under served populations.”
Jeez, exactly what does the left want from the Trump administration? This guy is a proven leader, a smart guy, Army Ranger and the list goes on.
They want a black transgender, former metrosexual Marxist who has recently found Islam as the one true religion and thinks all Army combat arms and special ops units should be one-half female and one-quarter LGBTQ-whatevers. Just ask Lars.
Oh, and he can’t be one of those evil “climate change deniers.” Cause we need the DOD to continue buying that $80-100 dollar per gallon biofuel.
Understand. Also, having an Hispanic name, being a Berkley grad, tree hugger and a registered Democrat would be in their favor as well.
They also want the nominee to be a Certified Organic Gardener with a degree in Sensitivity Training and Gender Studies.
CAIR and LBGT rights in the same sentence… I thought I’d never see that in my lifetime.
CAIR dealt with it very delicately. After all, throwing fags from rooftops is a religious sporting event and I’m quite confident there was much discussion as to whether to mention LGBT at all. Then came the matter of how to broach the issue. CAIR kept its distance.
I was floored too. CAIR comes out of the closet at last.
Now I can’t remember is it the guy that takes in the bung hole the one that has to be hung or does he get 40 lashes with a whip in a public square IAW the holiest of books?
He is pissing off all the right domestic enemy alphabet NGO’s. Sounds like a good pick.
The real answer for the left is delivered by Bernie Sanders and starring multiple members of the DNC right here:
https://youtu.be/WN-aCYVVtyo
I think many in the gay/lesbian/other community are going to be very, very shocked as they slowly realize that the left is going to throw them under the bus to court the more numerous folks in the Islamic community.
Kinda hard to reconcile the supposed champions of Feminism and non-hetero sexuality, who then turn to excusing/ignoring/supporting sectors of Islam who mutilate little girls and throw gays off tall buildings.
Take it as a warning. The Dems will “help” you the way they “helped” the Cherokee to Oklahoma.
11B-Mailclerk: I’m waiting for the outrage from NOW re female genital mutilation. Let me guess … they’re exploring the issue and will have an opinion as soon as they receive it from the DNC. After all, they wouldn’t want to piss off such a large bloc who will probably vote for Democrats.
It will be worded in such a way as to not piss off the muzzies, by using words such as acceptance, customs, diversity and understanding. I think the young girls should have a vote on the issue. Oh, right, their opinion is the one they are given by the misogynistic goat humping men who dominate them and virtually every aspect of their life.
Come on, NOW, give it some thought and get back to us. Do you believe it is acceptable treatment of women?
CAIR objecting to someone on LGBT grounds? Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are.
I would say this man is more than qualified.
And….he’s out. We can thank The Drooler, McCain, in part, who found it “disturbing” that Green once referred to transgenders as diseased.
Too bad, he looked like a solid choice.