Over 59557

Evolution Politics

THE SECOND AMENDMENT - Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.


AMERICAN REVOLUTION II IS GETTING CLOSER!!! - A new revolution is upon us. Liberalism is going down.

TAGS: american revolution two
Rating: 4.1/5

More politifakes by vbattaile

thatmfguy - October 13, 2012, 10:23 am
Liberalism isn't the problem, neoconservatism and progressivism are.

WE THE PEOPLE - America's Second Revolution

EVERY GENERATION - needs a new revolution. ~ Thomas Jefferson

THE SECOND AMENDMENT - It's For Tyrants, Stupid! An Armed Public Deters Tyranny

THE ANSWER TO 1984 IS 1776! - Reload, and let's roll.

Evolution -

TEABAGGERS - They sling the word socialist much like chimpanzees fling their own feces.

IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY - When a long train of abuses evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.

THE 2ND AMENDMENT - isn't for hunting.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - Would Have Never Happened With Gun Control

WE'RE COMING... - In November, 2012


FIRE THE DEMOCRATS - Take Back America. Destroy Socialism!

" IMPERIUS REX ET POPULUSQUE AMERICANUS " - S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 Senate Seeks to Create Caesar Obama.

LIBERALISM IS A GENETIC DEFECT - Liberalism is a Refuge of the Immature

" THE OSAWATOMIE COINCIDENCE " - Osawatomie was the publication of the Weather Underground! Weather Underground terrorists…Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn. Didn’t Obama used to hang out with those guys?

NANCY PELOSI: ‘GOD BLESS’ WALL STREET PROTESTERS - Hmmm.....Anyone still doubting 'who's' Army they are?

POLITICIANS AND THE BIG BUSINESSES HAVE DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY - and I fear it's going to take a massive revolution to change it back.


THE COLONEL FLEES... - .... & found working in a fry zone

THOMAS PAINE - American Socialist.

" THE ORIGINAL CONFEDERATE REBEL ARMY " - Jesse Jackson: "Congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate 'states in rebellion'."

AMERICAN REVOLUTION II IS GETTING CLOSER !!! - Every generation needs a new revolution. THOMAS JEFFERSON

LOSERS TAKE TO THE STREETS, IT'S A REVOLUTION - TEA Party takes to the streets, it was mob of Nazis.

AMERICAN REVOLUTION - We did it once before because someone taxed our tea. What will it take to invoke another one?

PARTY LIKE ITS 1775 - A revolution is a comin.....

" DEFINITION OF TOTALITARIANISM " - Personality cultism.Regulation and restriction of speech.Control over the economy. Mass surveillance, political repression. Regulate every aspect of public and private life. politics


APPROVAL RATINGS COMPARISON : OBAMA VS. JIMMY CARTER. - Still tracking below Carter, tough times are about to get a whole lot worse?

TIME IS UP - Our grandchildren will remember this as the start of the Revolution... The day the polititions stopped listening to the people.


The Revolution is Coming -

TAGS: battaile vik revolution civil war
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by vbattaile

crankyhead - May 12, 2013, 1:05 pm
I thought a minute ago you said in another poster, that you despised armed revolutionaries? Vik, I think the possibility exists, that you have some conflicting prescriptions.


" ACORN BEHIND OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTEST " - Famously corrupt leftist community organization with deep ties to President Barack Obama is largely behind the national movement


2013 - OBAMA'S VERSION OF 'LES MISéRABLES' - When President Obama was first elected in November 2008, 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps. August 2012, 47.1 million were – almost 50 percent rise.

" DARK AGES COMING? " - Going back, back, back in TIME, all covers are framed in red! And yet, the TIME Magazine cover picture of President Obama, Person of the Year, is framed in grey.

All my life -

DEVOLUTION - Not All Change Is Evolution

RIGHT OF REVOLUTION - The people have an obligation to revolt when their government fails them

THE REVOLUTION CONTINUES - Meet the eight libertarian Republican Congressmen who just won seats in the House.


SPOILED BRAT PROTESTERS - Bringing a communist revolution to our doorstep.


"Plato Knew' -

Revolution -



TAGS: devolution
Rating: 4.27/5

More politifakes by foxrecon19d

JGalt - August 17, 2014, 8:13 pm
the only problem is that they thought pollution was causing an ice age in the 1970's, (including rising CO2 levels causing cooling)

IF EVOLUTION IS REAL, - why are there still Democrats and liberals? For the same reason there are still monkeys and apes. They're unevolved! Liberalism is a Refuge of the Immature.

Romans 14:19 -



Fears for another American Revolution -

TAGS: battaile vik revolution
Rating: 4/5

More politifakes by vbattaile

BobbEdwards - May 16, 2013, 10:06 am
For the record, I have no thoughts or feelings about anything. I'm a friggin' statue. Sincerely, Minuteman Monument Concord MA

Things liberals hate -

Cycle of the State -

" INCOMING " - I think this man (Obama) really does believe he can change the world & people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere crooked politicians. Thomas Sowell


STREETS OF BLOOD - Coming to a US City near you.

HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF ? - A hypothetical question. If Trumka would be Ernst Röhm. Then who would Joe Biden be ?



WHY I LEFT - I wanted a party capable of evolution, not one lead by a damn chimpanzee.


Liberals -

TAGS: liberal anarchism socialism democracy revolution
Rating: 2.6/5

More politifakes by Cannabal

Cannabal - May 5, 2013, 12:55 pm
Well, the small bank perhaps.
terroraustralis - May 5, 2013, 12:38 pm
arguably, it is in the banks best interest, as higher employment and more people with stable incomes means more loans, and more loan repayments. what they lose in taxes they will regain, as a more stable economy means higher interest rates.
terroraustralis - May 5, 2013, 12:35 pm
true, but isnt it better to use profit taxes which only harm shareholder dividends of people who are already rich, than to use payroll taxes and sales taxes which affect jobs and viability of small retailers?
Cannabal - May 5, 2013, 7:48 am
Because banks make their money by charging interest on the loans they make out to the public, which makes it usury. In this aspect, banks are "producing" financial solutions for people, hence why they are taxed.
terroraustralis - May 5, 2013, 2:44 am
when banks make hundreds of billions of dollars profit every year, when the provide no product and no service, why shouldnt we be taxing them to pay for the military and other government expenditure?
terroraustralis - May 5, 2013, 2:43 am
income taxes for anyone who earns less than 200k per year should be abolished, sales taxes and payroll taxes should be abolished too. the only taxes that should exist are profit taxes, taxes which do not threaten jobs and harm the economy.
terroraustralis - May 5, 2013, 2:38 am
the main distinction between libertarians and conservatives today, is that libertarians oppose religious interference in government, whereas conservatives basically fight to install a theocracy built around the bible.
Cannabal - May 3, 2013, 8:49 pm
Well, I guess they are not very "Liberal," now are they?
StoneTools - May 3, 2013, 7:40 pm
Liberals do not advocate for a free market, they want a government controlled market.
Cannabal - May 3, 2013, 6:08 pm
Mmmmm, no, conservatives today either fall under the category of paleoconservative or neoconservative. The advocacy of the free market has always been a liberal idea. Conservatives only advocate it for selfish benefit. But I bet you knew that, "moonbat."
PapaFox - May 3, 2013, 4:13 pm
Begone, silly troll.
ChadAllen - May 3, 2013, 3:39 pm
You "eeeeeek!", just like a girl, Pops. Go figure. lol
ChadAllen - May 3, 2013, 3:38 pm
You sound patently ignorant there cannonball, but what else is to be expected from an establishment "tool" & useful idiot.
ChadAllen - May 3, 2013, 3:34 pm
Conservatives today are what classic liberals use to be before they became infested with subversive hedonistic nihilists.
Cannabal - May 3, 2013, 3:34 pm
"Libertarian" is a fancy-pants new word used to bring back ideas that were originally Liberal in the first place, like free market economics and laissez faire government. Libertarian is espoused mostly by people who don't wanna pay taxes period.
terroraustralis - May 3, 2013, 2:40 pm
libertarian, bud. they USED to be the same thing as liberals, but "liberals" has started to mean "supporters of the democratic party", which is not libertarian in any way shape or form.
PapaFox - May 3, 2013, 11:20 am
OMG see how dangerous those liberals are eeeeeek! ;)

Bobby Jindal -

TAGS: jindal conservative republican creationism evolution
Rating: 2.4/5

More politifakes by Cannabal

ipaprime - April 27, 2013, 8:58 am
titian probably, Neptune no
PapaFox - April 25, 2013, 9:27 am
Sorry, but you insist on dodging the fact that ID/Creationism is based on religion. You really should read up on Kitzmiller v Dover.
Renza - April 25, 2013, 9:19 am
Easy solution, as I've asked, if ID as you are referring to it is in fact not from, or based upon religious beliefs, what is the basis for it? And if your answer is science, by what process has this particular variation been derived?
falconfan00 - April 25, 2013, 9:13 am
I never used it that way. YOu seem to be the one insistent on injecting religion here.
PapaFox - April 25, 2013, 9:11 am
Actually Intelligent Design is a religious-right buzzword that tries to mask religious belief behind a sciency-sounding term. Again, refer to Kitzmiller v Dover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
falconfan00 - April 25, 2013, 9:10 am
I understand you cannot review the data presented without bias. I say ID, you inject religion. It does not matter how the data is presented. You've made that clear. I cannot circumvent the prejudice of a closed mind. We agree to disagree.
Renza - April 25, 2013, 8:44 am
It's not that you hit some kind of buzzword, it's that you seem to be trying to confuse religion with science.
Renza - April 25, 2013, 8:37 am
Saying you didn't bring up a religious subject by bringing up ID, is like saying you didn't bring up religious subject by mentioning the bible, god, Mohammed, the church, priests, etc. What other basis is there for ID, as science is not one?
falconfan00 - April 25, 2013, 8:30 am
oh ok. I hit on a liberal buzzword apparently. If you guys could send me a list of all the words i can't use that's be great. The fact that i never once used religion in the argument is irrelevant, it's just there because you say it is. /SMH
Renza - April 24, 2013, 9:20 pm
ID/creationism has always come from religions. Given that the idea is working off the opposite of the scientific theory, people took the end result and are choosing info to suit it. I'm aware of only one exception to this, and its pretty recent at that
Renza - April 24, 2013, 9:15 pm
And since when has intelligent design ever not been based off a religious belief? Given the origination of creation based on this requires an intelligence with preexisting knowledge of how everything is supposed to work, you aren't left with many options
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 7:31 pm
You used "religious inflection," as you put it, the second you mentioned Intelligent Design. ID *is* Creationism, despite all the attempts hide it, such as in the Dover Area School District case. Their attempts to deny it were pretty feeble.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 7:14 pm
I'm not using religious inflection at all, am I? Creationism is specific to the religion, ID is not. It's the theory that 'some' design is in play, the origin unknown. Gods, aliens, Volgons...whatever. You know,So long, and thanks for all the fish.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 7:06 pm
It's hard NOT to place religious inflections in there when ID is simply re-hashed creationism, and has no scientific merit at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 7:05 pm
And at what point did i ever mention religion of any kind? Maybe you could point it out to me. Otherwise don't waste my time with this brand of petty circular redirection.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 5:04 pm
My bad, I thought you were suggest it to be more of a scientific theory rather than the religious belief aspect of it.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 5:02 pm
Though if you want to go on just the ideology of life being rare based on requiring specific environments etc, they basically already teach that, hence most people knowing the reference of the "goldilocks zone"
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 5:00 pm
Geez Renza scroll up and read for yourself. THat's my argument for it, and I believe it's valid. Maybe not enough for you, but then again it was posted there for the 'rational' audience.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 5:00 pm
The biggest thing that would hold that back is that unless you could get it acknowledged as a scientific theory rather than some misc fiction, you would need to teach basically every single origin belief out there, at least for christian version of ID.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:58 pm
I can see it being included in an optional religious course, what argument could you present for it to be a scientific theory (requiring factual evidence to support it) rather than any other random hypothesis?
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:55 pm
Oh i think it's all fascinating stuff, i really do. I just think ignoring it, especially in the places where we are supposed to sponsor and encourage ideas, isn't all that healthy. Let there be talk, debate. We shouldn't shut down the process.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:54 pm
well... someone's probably gotten a reasonable idea on the time frames of things. But still, for all we know dinosaurs could have already had raptor jesus before they got wiped out... it was really his second coming that ended them, hence the "rapture"
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:53 pm
Fair enough. But what i'm asking for here, remember, is for ID to not be ignored by schools completely. Nothing more. It only has religious inflections if they are placed there. From a pure scientific view, it becomes a conversation worthy theory.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:52 pm
I think it's entirely possible for there to be basically countless advanced life forms out there. Who's to say whether when our planet developed in relation to other worlds, or how many extinction level events have occurred here compared to others.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:48 pm
For example, water bears (Tardigrade) can survive in ridiculous environments, including extended periods of time in outer space. The reason this world is perfect for us, as pf noted, is that this is where we began, we've adapted to earth.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 4:48 pm
... given that it took a VERY long time for it to show up here, and took very specific conditions for it to develop.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 4:48 pm
Whatever the odds at abiogenesis, remember that there are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. That's a LOT of iterations. Now, I am much more skeptical about the existence of numerous intelligent, technologically advanced species out there...
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:46 pm
It probably couldn't survive on our planet given the vastly different ecosystem, but it would likely be well adapted to surviving there. They wouldn't need to fit our current biological design or habitat to exist and live...
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:43 pm
For example, there is liquid water on Titan, one of Jupiter's moons. There's liquid water, there's no doubt been electrical occurances there, and odds are there are base material. So somewhere in the past few billion decades, life probably started there
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:41 pm
...From judging this world as it is currently, to judging the likeliness of something happening at all. Going by the likeliness that life will happen given the appropriate circumstances (electricity, water, base material) life will then occur and adapt
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:39 pm
If you look at the limitless possibilities of existence, yes, it is statistically impossible for us to exist as we are currently, yet we do, we happen to be the one out of infinity that worked out on this world. However, if you change your perspective...
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:32 pm
sorry for repeated post. Stupid lag.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:31 pm
The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was the right one. It was religiously motivated, and therefore I understand the decision. However, I continue to support ID as noteworthy because of the severe mathematical strains required to arrive at life today.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:31 pm
The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was the right one. It was religiously motivated, and therefore I understand the decision. However, I continue to support ID as noteworthy because of the severe mathematical strains required to arrive at life today.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:31 pm
The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was the right one. It was religiously motivated, and therefore I understand the decision. However, I continue to support ID as noteworthy because of the severe mathematical strains required to arrive at life today.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 4:24 pm
As the puddle said, "Look! This hole is perfectly designed to fit me!" Intelligent Design was clearly shown to be religion-based in Kitzmiller v Dover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:14 pm
Limited to 250 characters, it's difficult to lay a complex argument, but I think the point is made that intelligent design goes beyond theology. It's odds-defying math at it's greatest.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:11 pm
All of these things are 'perfect' for us to have life. The random chance of it working out this perfectly is a fantastic. Yet it has. Thus, I argue, deserving of honorable mention in the classroom.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:10 pm
before we even launch ourselves into the abilities to attempt to replicate life, you have to acknowledge that the planet, solar system, galaxy, etc. all have to be in order for the chance of life to exists.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:08 pm
A galactic habitable zone, circumstellar habitable zone, the right oxygen/nitrogen atmospheric mix, a proper sun, a(near) circular orbit, proper planet mass, a moon for stabalization, a terrestrial planet, a carbon base, etc. etc. etc.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:05 pm
Wow. Throw a lot at a brother why don't you? Aight, lemme see. Let's do your belief that requirements for life are not all that complicated. From a simple astrological sense, i'll list some prerequisites....
Renza - April 24, 2013, 12:03 pm
There is one potential viable argument I've heard for what's basically creationism, I'll let the fundies search desperately rather than openly mentioning it again.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 12:01 pm
next, relative statements are relevant to the scope of the statement. I say it's probably extremely common on a galactic scale. As for the legitimacy of intelligent design, what's your scientific basis? I've heard of one, but its related to religion.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 11:56 am
Creationism is based on a particular religious belief, and thus has no scientific basis. It has no more place in a classroom than discussion of other pseudosciences like crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle or astrology.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 11:56 am
Also, the experiments I'm referring to are not the creation of complex organisms, but simple amino acids or single celled organisms. Science can, and has created living things.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 11:52 am
Not to mention, there have been high end organism successes as well, such as cloning. Simply put, if you want people to consider your opinion/beliefs, you should consider doing the same rather than blindly rejecting them.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 11:49 am
From there, your opinion of what life is, is not the basis for the definition. Small scale organism and organic matter have been created, which if you don't blindly disregard evolution, is easily argued as a base for what we are today.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 11:45 am
I have, you should consider doing the same. I also suggest reading entire sentences rather than just a couple of the words. fairly high is a relative term, and life doesn't need to be 'perfect', look at pandas, they're lazying themselves into extinction
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 11:00 am
And your a**umptions about the mathematical odds of life existing being 'fairly high' are outright comical. The requirements for life as we know it are astronomically complex. They must be, in a word, perfect. Go and read, young padawan.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 10:50 am
Wow, are you wrong. Science cannot create life. The experiments you refer to are the combining of organic materials to create a more complex representation, not life itself. Try doing it from scratch. And you worry about me mudding up science class?
Renza - April 24, 2013, 10:37 am
Seems overall to be that all you need to create life is basically some base materials and energy. So far I believe we've only had conclusive results with various materials combined with water and electricity specifically, still pretty interesting.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 10:34 am
On top of that there have been quite a few successful experiments to create life, some using extremely basic things, like crystals with prolonged exposure to electricity, or amino acids with sand water and electricity. its apparently pretty easy to start
Renza - April 24, 2013, 10:26 am
I think the odds on life existing are guessed to be fairly high, we've already seen *possible* fossils on mars, and there's liquid water on both titan an I believe neptune...
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 10:21 am
I also agree that presentation is everything in this case. All i'm saying is that it has its place, from a mathematical stanpoint, to draw mention as an existing alternative theory.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 10:18 am
That said, i'd like to see it garner mention in the classroom, if only to bring up these fantastic odds of life that have somehow prevailed in this universe. I'd hate to see this kind of thing repressed. It's not something to fear, i wouldn't think.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 10:13 am
I wouldn't say 'no scientific basis', but I agree inconclusive and wide open to scrutiny. The arugument is based on mathematical complexities which prove that the odds of a living universe is, for all practical purposes, infintesitmally minute (small).
Renza - April 24, 2013, 9:56 am
if they did offer courses to explain misc religions on an educational level though, it would need to either be fairly comprehensive, or offer a large variety.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 9:52 am
The only reason I could see is scientific theory vs religious belief, so it would need to be taught in a religious class. However I see no reason why we couldn't incorporate *optional* courses on religions or religious belief on an educational level.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 9:51 am
OTOH, if one wants to include it in a class on comparative religions, that would probably be acceptable (?) as long as no single religion was stressed over the others.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 9:51 am
(Besides the fact that it's ridiculous to teach pseudoscience in a science class.)
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 9:51 am
Which sounds perfectly reasonable, except that Intelligent Design 1) has no scientific basis, and 2) is just Creationism with a different label. Thus, as a religious belief, it has no place in public schools.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 9:39 am
Not exactly sure why you'd 'slap him in the face' with the Constitution... If schools are to be a marketplace of ideas, i wouldn't see why 'Intelligent Design' couldn't be included as one of those ideas.
Cannabal - April 16, 2013, 9:18 pm
Better throw in a copy of "The Origin of Species" for good measure.
PapaFox - April 16, 2013, 8:44 pm
Someone needs to mail him a copy of the US Constitution. Or slap him across the face with it a few times.

The next civil war -

EVOLUTION - The right doesn't believe in it.

TENNESSEE - Indeed, anyone purporting science from this state should not be trusted.

Obama picks Revolution Day in Mexico to announce amnesty -

Duck Soup -

This Is The Government The Founders Warned Us About -

I am a creationist -


Be That Guy -

The symbol of racism and hate -

God's Explanation for Republican Science Deniers? -