User Profile: rolla020980

Member Since: June 30, 2011


  • April 23, 2014 at 1:23pm

    BTW, I wouldn’t trust a government funded geologist who knows if he says fracking is good will lose his funding to tell me the truth either.

    Science is sold. oil company geologists, government funded geologists, science has lost too much credibility. It is time for a little common sense. The chemicals only account for less that one half of one percent. That is in the fluid itself. That is less than the amount of chemicals added to your drinking water.

  • April 23, 2014 at 1:12pm

    Really? A factor of 2…. that is a lie. The benefit to Ohio is much greater than you realize. I don’t pretend to know how many jobs were promised vs how many exist, but I can tell you that, in particular, the town of Cambridge has seen a boom in restaurants, hotels, and retail on top of the fracking jobs. You completely left out all of the support industries as libs love to do.

    My stance on all of this is that extracting natural resources is dirty. It is no less dirty overall than drilling for oil or mining coal. Libs just want to sit there and talk about solar and wind and won’t admit to the massive environmental impact of farms. Until we come up with something better, oil and gas are here to stay. If we don’t get it ourselves, where else will it come from?

  • April 17, 2014 at 1:45pm

    Good point. Last year according to the CDC, 214 children were killed in accidents due to lack of or improper use of a child seat. I believe that is higher than the number that find a gun under a bed and shoot their brothers.

  • April 11, 2014 at 4:25pm

    Come on pass… that is a stupid reason. We all hate the red light cameras, but if you can’t see the light to tell if it is green or not, then why do you just barrel through. That is not only reckless, but it is stupid. You cannot trust other drivers. Who knows, maybe that truck in front of you ran the light. If you cause an accident, it is your fault.

    When will people learn that 5:00 or not, you are in control of a 2 ton piece if equipment traveling at a high rate of speed? Accidents at intersections have a high rate of fatality; more than rear end collisions, so maybe it would be better to be rear ended than t-boned.

  • March 28, 2014 at 12:00pm

    Not necessarily. I have a job where a college degree was in the requirements, but I don’t have one. What I do have are professional certifications, which are a steal compared to a degree AND they better prepare you for the job you are doing. Companies that do what you say are not only reckless, they are throwing away a potential gem of a candidate and that is just stupid.

  • March 28, 2014 at 11:56am

    I believe that professional certifications are a better indicator of knowledge and skill than a college degree. Think back to all of the BS classes that were required for your degree. If you run a business and you need an IT person, who will you hire? The applicant without a degree that holds a CCNA certificate, or the recently graduated computer science major with no certificate?

  • February 12, 2014 at 1:23pm

    Did the police use force? I hope so. Especially being that he kicked a medic and bit a firefighter, not to mention what he did to those people.

  • February 11, 2014 at 12:39pm

    Oblivious is right… Christians don’t fight each other (Ireland not included). We might argue or debate our beliefs, but we are accepting as we realize that the differences are inconsequential between the dominant Christian denominations.

    “How could God be so loving when he will send millions to hell?”
    This is a big debate. Hell was conceived of during the dark ages to put fear into people so they would behave. The Bible only talks about being admitted into Heaven, not what comes otherwise. My belief is that if you do not get into Heaven, that you will be stuck in Purgatory.

    Think of it as a reward for those who do good and no reward for the others. Not necessarily a punishment, just no reward.

    This guy is an American. He could have left his job and gone to another church. To sit there and take abuse and then use that as an excuse is one of the things wrong with this country. It is clear he had no belief to begin with, or at least his belief was on shaky ground.

  • January 30, 2014 at 5:42pm

    OK, Blink… let’s go your route, let’s rename Los Angeles, St Louis, St Petersburg, San Francisco, San Antonio, St Augustine, San Diego etc. Those are religious names.

    Of course the Blue Angels are gone.

    There are many more, but you know they will not change. The constitution does not state or imply that religious symbols are not permitted on public property. It only states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Tell me where it tells us that we are not permitted to have religion or display our religious beliefs. Tell me the line that says crosses are not permitted on public land.

    The problem with people like you is that you somehow feel that you have some freedom from religion. You do have a right to no religion, just as this billboard has a right to be there, and while I disagree with your lifestyle, I respect your right to believe what you believe. When will you start respecting my right to believe what I believe?

  • January 28, 2014 at 10:58am

    Amen to that… especially figuring it will be -30 wind chills here.

  • January 27, 2014 at 4:49pm

    So, the head of a company that makes it’s fortune selling security software tells you your device is vulnerable. HA!!! That’s like the mechanic telling me I need a new engine when I go in for an oil change.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 27, 2014 at 4:46pm

    If you listen to the interviews of people who support the FFRF, they state that they want everything removed including religious billboards and religious items that can be seen from a public place., They believe that any public place should be completely devoid of anything religious, whether it is a statehouse or a freeway.

    I cannot find the exact article, but I remember reading and hearing it several times.

  • January 27, 2014 at 12:58pm

    If he rented, he didn’t have 80,000 in losses. Besides, how do you know he had any family or pets, bonds or certificates, gold or silver, or firearms? I will admit it is stupid to go back after an XBOX, let alone anything you mentioned (everything you mentioned should be in a fireproof safe anyway). Insurance is there for a reason. Not saying he had any, but what to save is his choice, not yours.

    You are really judgmental about people you don’t know.

  • January 27, 2014 at 12:48pm

    Look at this list of terrorist attacks by death toll:

    Do you see a trend? How many terrorists were Christians?

    You are mistaking Rally’s point by not realizing that people will defend Israel from attacks, not murder innocent women and children like the terrorists do.

  • January 27, 2014 at 12:42pm

    The problem isn’t government erecting religious symbols on private land. What the FFRF wants is to prevent the people from erecting them on public land, which is protected by the constitution. You do know that they want any crosses removed from steeples that are visible from public property, right?

    My major problem with this isn’t the local government moving the crosses. It isn’t the local people wanting the crosses moved (which they don’t). municipalities can govern themselves by the local people. A national organization has no business interfering with a town they do not live in. I am sick of that. If a local resident is offended, then that local resident can sue.

  • January 24, 2014 at 12:31pm

    I will not argue that there are good teachers out there that teach kids to question their scientific beliefs. The problem with your comment is that you feel the need to have evidence first. That is called a hypothesis. There has to be something that causes you to investigate and form a hypothesis.

  • January 24, 2014 at 11:56am

    How has science failed us? Two words: Global Warming.

    Try to question it as a scientist and you are persecuted. Science is about questioning the current belief and forming a hypothesis. I won’t go into the scientific method here, but you get my point.

    Creation is religion, not science? It wasn’t that long ago people said the same thing about extra-terrestrial life. The massive quantities of planets discovered changed that from fantasy to possibility. Now the search for life is real science.

    My point is just because we cannot explain something does not dismiss it as a scientific possibility. My belief in creationism does stem from my religious beliefs, but it could be tested. The problem is that no scientist would invest the time and money to test creationism. You don’t have to believe in God to realize that some other entity could have designed life on Earth. We have cloning techniques, so the idea shouldn’t be too far fetched.

  • January 23, 2014 at 4:51pm

    The danger is not about the next generation denying science, but a generation trained to not question the current state of scientific theories. Science only advances if a scientist is free to question the current theories. Read The Deniers, it is about the scientists who questioned global warming and were persecuted by the scientific community for going against their current belief. This is the current state of scientific research. Believe what we believe or else.

  • January 23, 2014 at 4:34pm

    Wow, long thread.

    here’s my $.02:
    Referring to evolution an a religion is not actually stating it is a belief in a higher power. It is comparing it as a close-minded approach. It is like calling a car a lemon. Is it actually a lemon? Did it grow on a tree? No, it is just a bad product that leaves a “sour taste”. It is a waste of time to respond before understanding the previous post.

    That being said, modern science has failed us too many times to be blindly trusted. The sheer complexity of the simplest multi-cellular organism makes evolution a difficult pill to swallow. That is why creationists have a hard time believing evolution.

    Evolutionists have a hard time believing in creation because they have closed their minds. Scientists need to be the most open-minded individuals in existence. We say that the theory of relativity makes FTL impossible, but maybe there is some piece we do not yet know. It is not only the job, but the responsibility of scientists to question everything we currently hold as absolute. This is a massively complex existence. We have learned a great deal, but what we knew has been proven false so many times. If I could take a scientist from ancient Rome and have him play an XBOX, what do you think he would say?

    We do not have the technology to either prove or disprove creationism. I am tired of so called scientists saying it is impossible.

  • January 22, 2014 at 5:38pm

    More effective AND cheaper.