|
Post by Tiger on Jan 2, 2010 13:17:37 GMT -5
I thought of that and decided that the best solution would be to connect the moat to a river and design it so that the current through the moat is something fierce. This would also partially solve the food and water problems, provided the virus isn't waterborne.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 2, 2010 13:00:21 GMT -5
It would work, sure - I always figured that the best defense against zombies would be an 8-foot deep concrete-lined moat. The problem with any siege scenario, though, is that you need food and water. The zombies don't.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 2, 2010 12:52:40 GMT -5
Possibly, but no other talking head has shown the same qualities as Rush in being able to strong arm politicians into compliance with their will with the mere mention of dislike. In either case, things would either stay the same or get better.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 2, 2010 12:47:13 GMT -5
Right, it's an additional reason. Also, note that the guy did address the difference between the two candidates' platforms. Oh I know that he mentioned McCain's views on immigration but the overall message was still, "We can't allow even a half-black person to become President." I will concede that the video was likely irrelevant to my point regarding similarity of ideology.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 2, 2010 12:44:24 GMT -5
What you're suggesting is you have to be inable to lift a rock of SOME KIND in order to apply for omnipotence, but at the same time, it disqualifies you from that. Of course, this is ridiculous. If you can lift any rock, you have the power to lift any rock. If you can make any rock, you have the power to make any rock. I am suggesting that any being must have either the ability to create any rock, or the ability to lift any rock. If they possess the latter, then by the proposed example they do not have the former, and vice-versa. My line of thinking follows tiger's line, thats why I didn't think any answers were good till i found what was paraphrased by zachski. An omnipotent being could create a rock, remove it's own omnipotence (it can do anything right? ) and then be unable to lift said rock. Thus it has created a rock it can't lift. The problem with the "removing omnipotence" thing is that if it can restore its omnipotence at any time, then it's really just holding back. And is technically still omnipotent, since it can still do anything, it would just have to set omnipotence = true first. If it can't restore its omnipotence at any time, then that just proves my point.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 2, 2010 0:54:01 GMT -5
I think AV would be a close runner-up, but I'm still going to have to support Schlafly due to the sheer effort he's put into his craziness. Posting inane things on forums doesn't really compare to founding Conservapedia and whatever else he's done. And the Bible retranslation project on its own would put him in the top place for proving George Bernard Shaw right.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 2, 2010 0:40:28 GMT -5
But all beings must possess at least one inability; either the inability to create a rock large enough that it can't be moved or an inability to move said rock once created.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 23:29:15 GMT -5
But possessing that inability disqualifies you for omnipotence.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 22:59:45 GMT -5
Wouldn't technically be martyrdom. And the only people who would get riled up by his death are the dittoheads who are already riled up anyway, so I don't see the problem.
His death grip on Republican politics would also go away, allowing the party to gradually become more progressive.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 21:45:32 GMT -5
Well in that case, one of the two candidates was black, so I'm not sure how much of McCain's platform mattered for some of these guys... Right, it's an additional reason. Also, note that the guy did address the difference between the two candidates' platforms.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 21:43:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 16:35:14 GMT -5
Martyrdom only comes into play if the person is executed or murdered in some other way. The only thing I could see coming out of his death (a death which seems unlikely at this point) would be one less belligerent tool spoon-feeding the dittoheads their arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 16:30:58 GMT -5
The fact that you have racist supporters does not mean that you yourself are racist. True. But it does call into question Why Racists are giving their support.. Because racism is a reactionary ideology and as such its adherents would be most likely to support the reactionary party. See also:
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 16:28:35 GMT -5
Matthew 5:17-19 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For self-proclaimed Biblical literalists, they're sure not interested in actually following the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 16:23:52 GMT -5
One isn't completely ridiculous. And the other one is the literal definition of omnipotence. omnipotent |ämˈnipətənt| adjective (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
|
|