User Profile: MrBigBillyB

Member Since: March 29, 2011


  • March 25, 2013 at 10:34am

    More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than by gun violence. Since Jim doesn’t drink alcohol, where’s his “funny” video about the heartless people who are against prohibition? Surely he wants to take away that right too? I mean, just because something is in the constitution doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t outlaw it, right? OK, maybe not all alcohol, just the hard liquor should be outlawed. And they should limit the size of the alcohol containers….

  • March 11, 2013 at 1:53pm

    If he really cares about health, then Bloomberg just doesn’t make any sense. What he says with his “If you want to have 32 ounces, just buy two 16-ounce cups.” is that they really don’t care how much you drink, they just want more taxes. It’s like buying in bulk. You don’t have to pay for as much packaging when you buy in bulk. When you have to buy 2 x 16oz cups, you end up paying more. Example, if you go to the movies, you pay $5 for a 16oz drink, but you only pay $8 for a 32oz drink. So Bloomberg is saying I want you to spend $10 instead of $8 so i can get the additional taxes. Who cares about portion control? No one. Who cares about more taxes? Bloomberg. Not to mention the additional trash his policy would create.

    Maybe we should just ask for the drinks like Steven Wright: “I’ll take a small drink in a large cup, and just fill it the rest of the way up.”

  • March 6, 2013 at 1:39pm

    This is happening all over. Here in Texas, my daughter got a letter sent home saying her BMI was too high for a 4th grader. Which is stupid because she spends a minimum of 10 hours a week doing gymnastics and actually has muscle definition in her arms and legs. We promptly ignored the note and let her eat whatever she wants within reason because she exercises so much. Like Just_Us2 said, BMI is a scam. They try to judge everybody the same all the while claiming that everyone is different.

  • February 22, 2013 at 1:14pm

    I was really just referring to the general discussion of whether or not the Bible is true, not about the Urban Dictionary comments. I believe that it is true and that there is compelling evidence to back it up. Others disagree and point to their own evidence. That’s all fine and good and intelligent conversation can be had between both parties.

    It’s the people like those using the Urban Dictionary to ridicule and laugh at the discussion that show their own ignorance. Again, not for their belief, but for their actions.

  • February 22, 2013 at 12:43pm

    It’s hard to get worked up about something like this. How is a public forum saying something negative about a religion surprising? You get a lot of the same things in these forums.

    The people with the negative comments want to be perceived as either shocking, or witty, or maybe both. They think it’s cool or funny to make fun of something they disagree with. They show their own ignorance, not because they don’t believe what the Bible has to say, but rather that they stoop to the level they do in order to essentially do nothing but offend someone else. There is no intelligent discussion on the issue. Just an effort to presumably embarrass someone into agreeing with them.

    It’s really kind of lame.

    Responses (4) +
  • February 12, 2013 at 10:19am

    I would LOVE to see this in the US. It would be perfect! That would confirm the fact that Atheism is indeed a religion (they have their own church and everything.) And since they are a religion with their own church, there would have to be a “separation of church and state.” Therefore, schools would have to stop teaching the ridiculousness of Evolution since that is one of the main beliefs of the Atheist/Humanist religion. Therefore the choice would have to be made, either allow creationism to be taught, or disallow evolution. You can’t play favorites on which religion is OK to teach, right?

    Responses (28) +
  • January 16, 2013 at 6:07pm

    @Free_Thought @@ghettovet
    There are any number of scientific laws in place, tested over and over, that point to an intelligent Designer rather than a creator. Laws like “Every effect has an adequate, antecedent cause.” The physical universe is an effect, and must therefore have an adequate antecedent cause. Laws of Thermodynamics stating that matter can neither be created or destroyed. Scientific principles like these point to an intelligent designer, and refute the “Big Bang” and evolution.

    Now the reverse can be asked of you. Can you provide any evidence for Macro-Evolution that can be tested and retested? Can you provide any evidence for the “Big Bang” that can be tested and re-tested? You have no evidence for macro-evolution, only micro-. You have to prove macro-evolution, which has never been done.

    I’m pretty sure all I will hear is crickets.

  • January 16, 2013 at 5:47pm

    Actually Mule is not a new species. As stated by Kaydeebeau it was a horse and donkey bred to make a mule. But a mule is sterile and cannot breed with anything, including other mules. So the only thing you can do is breed to very similar species of equines to get a sterile animal. It’s like saying you could breed a dog and a wolf. They are still both canines.

  • January 16, 2013 at 1:20pm

    Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. Macro-Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven or demonstrated. Micro-Evoluition is a fact. You can breed two dissimilar dogs to come up with a “new” breed of dog (Micro-Evolution) but you will never get something that is not a dog (Macro-Evolution).

    To believe in Macro-Evolution, you have to agree that either something gave birth to an animal that was not like itself (i.e. a monkey giving birth to a non-monkey), or that an animal, sometime within it’s life-span, turned into another animal (i.e. a monkey was walking through the jungle, and in the next instant it was no longer a monkey.) That would be the only two options no matter how many millions of years you add into the mix. One of those two things would have to occur for Macro evolution to be true.

  • January 16, 2013 at 11:48am

    “These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private,” he told io9. “But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules.”

    That’s funny. Because in public schools, it doesn’t matter whether or not Christians agree with or like what is being taught. They are forced to fund it anyway. Apparently he forgets that Christians are members of the public as well, and people are often forced to fund things that go against their personal beliefs whether it is creation, evolution, abortion, capital punishment, etc.

    Hypocrite much?

  • October 2, 2012 at 12:13pm

    “If those in our school do lean left, it is not because they are gay and lesbian but because they have, in general, more tolerant and open-minded views.”

    How very open-minded and tolerant of you to imply that anyone who doesn’t agree with a “left-leaning” position are intolerant and close-minded. That is the point that I took from Matt Birk’s article. Just like if you don’t agree with Gay Marriage you are labeled as a “bigot and a homophobe” as the article states, if you aren’t a “liberal” or “progressive” then you are intolerant and close-minded.

    How intolerant and close-minded of you.

  • October 2, 2012 at 10:38am

    I agree. I think it is hilarious when Kluwe says, (paraphrasing) don’t go to this study because it’s biased… and then immediately says, here’s your proof ” as evidenced by a meta-study of nineteen different LBGT studies”

    I wonder, do you think LBGT studies would be interested in a study that shows nothing wrong with LBGT marriage?

  • October 2, 2012 at 10:11am

    “According to NOAA, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are one in a million.”

    And yet people are struck by lightning all the time. One in a million is hardly out of the realm of possibility.

  • October 2, 2012 at 9:58am

    Guess where these came from:
    Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. …Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

    That’s right, the Constitution of Massachusetts 1780. Now let me see…who wrote that one again? Once again you are correct. John Adams. The first Vice-President and second President of the United States.

  • September 27, 2012 at 5:03pm

    That really can’t be a blanket statement about all public schools. I have 3 kids. One of them is Private School and the other two in public. When the private school raised tuition to the point where we couldn’t keep all 3 in, we let the oldest stay since she only had a couple of years left. The other two are very happy in their schools. They are still getting a good education and have opportunities to advance more than at the private school that didn’t have means of advancing students other than skipping a grade. My daughters are starting Pre-AP classes earlier and are a part of the Gifted and Talented programs that are not available in the private school that my oldest attends.

    So I wouldn’t make a sweeping statement about the evils of public education, just that there are places where it is very poorly handled (usually due to being in a poor area.) Then again, I live in Texas where I am not aware of any Teacher’s Union, with it being a Right to Work state.

  • September 27, 2012 at 4:36pm

    Very typical of Liberals of all color and creed. Make an accusation, and when you are refuted with facts, completely ignore the facts and change the subject. When the new subject doesn’t support your argument either, ignore the facts and change it again.

    While not a huge fan of Ann Coulter, I think she handled herself very well during the process. They accused her of going back to the past and she simply responds, “I only went back to the past because it was brought up.” They accuse her of supporting the minority voter suppression, and when she points out the facts of a Democratic Legislature is the first one to pass Voter ID’s and they immediately say “yeah, but…” and then scatter on to other subjects. The ninnies on the View are just like everyone has said, “cackling hens”.

  • September 26, 2012 at 10:26am

    @ ITGUY “Don’t buy the wraps! It‘s their product they are selling and if you don’t like it and they won‘t change it then don’t pay them for it. Maybe they will catch the hint.”

    But here is the thing. The only thing not buying it will do is have them make fewer and fewer until they stop offering the wrap as a choice. It’s not like this cafeteria is a Wraps Only place that will close down if they don’t sell enough wraps and the the owner has his mortgage riding on the business.

    These kid whining about the wraps not being folded is ridiculous. If the school cafeteria were about “accomodating us” then they should be complaining about how they don’t serve lobster and Sir Loin steaks and whatever top cut foods they want (all for the same price.) Yes the poorer students don’t have a choice to go elsewhere. So you take what you get.

  • September 24, 2012 at 5:54pm

    I hear you about the too few jobs and too many people. I don’t know what your degree is in or what region of the country you live in, but part of what most people are saying is that expanding your search not only includes what businesses to apply for, and what level of work you are seeking, but also where you are willing to work (i.e. are you willing to move to another location to get a job?) @Peace Maker mentioned a lot of jobs available in Denver, and areas of Utah. I know here in North Texas there are a LOT of positions that are needing to be filled. Are you willing to move across the country to find work?

    Some people (and I’m not accusing you) just want to look in their immediate vicinity and if nothing is available, they give up. Think about the Great Depression and Dust Bowl era. There were people who owned their own farms in middle America that made their way across the country because they heard there was opportunity for work. They didn’t sit back and wait for the government to take care of them.

    Some people won’t take a job that they feel is “below” them. My brother is one of them. Somehow living on unemployment isn’t below them, but mowing lawns and doing landscaping is. There is no set solution for your problem, but I don’t assume you are just sitting on your butt waiting for something to happen. But if you are, broaden your horizons.

  • September 18, 2012 at 6:05pm

    Two things that my help you out:

    1. No where does it say two of every “species” as we define them today. A reasonable and plausable assumption is that it would have been “two” of a broad category such as “dogs”, “horses”, “cows”, etc. and not “two austrailian shepherds, and two german shepherds,” etc. And that these broader representations contained within them the genetic diversity to produce all the subcategories that man has devised in the modern era.

    2. Micro-evolution is a FACT. And no reasonable person will dispute this. It is plainly seen that you can breed in or breed out charicatristics to create a “new” species. However Macro-Evolution is illogical because no matter how many times you breed two different dogs, the result of a breeding is still a dog. That is unless you believe that something gave birth to something that was not the same kind as itself (i.e. two dogs giving birth to a beaver) or that something changed in it’s lifetime to a different species (i.e. a dog walking down a path is at one instant a dog, and the very next instant a beaver.) The Evolutionists can add all the time they want and all the number of changes they want, but that’s what it comes down to, one of those two choices.

  • September 18, 2012 at 5:53pm


    Of course it will be the normal reactions from both sides. Those who are looking to refute Biblical texts will use this to claim with certainty that the Bible is absolutely false. Those who hold to the Biblical texts will automatically dismiss it as bogus. And they will both argue about it fervently.

    The only thing I will say about it is that it definitely says that someone named Jesus claims a wife. And that some female could be a diciple (which of course is true because a diciple is a follower of Jesus,) not necessarily an Apostle.