Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Let's All Get Naked And Hate Bush

Featured Replies

Really?  what about the nickname "Hanoi Jane"?  What about Susan Sarandon .... is she "over-the-hill and bitter" too?  Women who are political and old are not necessarily "bitter".  No more so than the legions of conservative, right-wing males that are pissed off because they can't get laid.

And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :D

:o

Couldn't have it said better myself !!!

Susan is probably getting more dick now than she ever did :D

  • Replies 63
  • Views 676
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

She was bitter and twisted in her Hanoi Jane years.

B-Fly & I are referring to back when she did Barbarella - her last good movie... :D

She was 18 then

Women are still hot until their late 20s :o

Susan is probably getting more dick now than she ever did  :o

Yeah, with a man who is 14 years younger and has stuck by her for 2 decades.

If you think those anti-Bush women are bad, what do you think would show up for an anti-Al (bore you to death) Gore or anti-Kerry (flip-flop) Edwards rally would look like ?

Do you really think the world, and the US, would be a better place if Gore had beat Bush the first time, or Edwards the 2nd time ?

Do you really think any US president would have sat back and done nothing under the same circumstances ?

If Bush (or his people) were smart, they'd hire a bunch of drop-dead gorgeous women to bare it all at counter-demonstration (Bushes for Bush !). It would generate lots of publicity and get most of the red-blooded American males on his side !

Really?  what about the nickname "Hanoi Jane"?  What about Susan Sarandon .... is she "over-the-hill and bitter" too?  Women who are political and old are not necessarily "bitter".  No more so than the legions of conservative, right-wing males that are pissed off because they can't get laid.

And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :D

Susan Sarandon - dunno her bug eyes always bothered me. :o

Really?  what about the nickname "Hanoi Jane"?  What about Susan Sarandon .... is she "over-the-hill and bitter" too?  Women who are political and old are not necessarily "bitter".  No more so than the legions of conservative, right-wing males that are pissed off because they can't get laid.

And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :D

Susan Sarandon - dunno her bug eyes always bothered me. :D

:o

Damnit, Janet. Put those things back in!

  • Author
And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :o

05.09.27.NewCreation-X.gif

Methinks, dear Boon, you visit the wrong rallies:

post-1263-1127934615_thumb.jpg

this was taken of the woman who accepted my application to join the Communist party.

  • Author

Good on ya, Tom!

Anyhow, here's another shot of the rally last weekend I'm sure will warm the cockles of your heart! :o

freedom.jpg

Standing up to totalitarian sociopaths: it takes courage, whether you're in Washington, D.C. or Beijing.

The man in the pictures is a U.S. Marine who recently returned from Iraq. On Saturday, he held up a sign that said "Freedom is Not Free" and marched 50 yards ahead of the 150,000 protesters at the ANSWER rally. At one point, the antiwar protesters got so upset that he was marching ahead of them -- and that he was the first person that onlookers saw -- that they stopped the whole 150,000 march so that he would get farther ahead of them. But then he stopped too.

Subsequent pictures show him arguing with the mob. He took a bullhorn from one of protesters and started telling them about crimes against humanity committed under the Hussein regime.

Thanks to Powerline .

Really?  what about the nickname "Hanoi Jane"?  What about Susan Sarandon .... is she "over-the-hill and bitter" too?  Women who are political and old are not necessarily "bitter".  No more so than the legions of conservative, right-wing males that are pissed off because they can't get laid.

And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :D

Susan Sarandon - dunno her bug eyes always bothered me. :D

:o

Damnit, Janet. Put those things back in!

As I said, the problem very often doesn't originate with the woman, unless you consider growing old a problem. I hate to see what most of you will/do look like at 50. And if you want to understand bitter, over-the-hill people, just talk to most of the expat men on this site.

Really?  what about the nickname "Hanoi Jane"?  What about Susan Sarandon .... is she "over-the-hill and bitter" too?  Women who are political and old are not necessarily "bitter".  No more so than the legions of conservative, right-wing males that are pissed off because they can't get laid.

And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :D

Susan Sarandon - dunno her bug eyes always bothered me. :D

:o

Damnit, Janet. Put those things back in!

As I said, the problem very often doesn't originate with the woman, unless you consider growing old a problem. I hate to see what most of you will/do look like at 50. And if you want to understand bitter, over-the-hill people, just talk to most of the expat men on this site.

What are you on about now, Kat? I did say she was ugly, old, or worthless. So, where does this statement come from?

  • Author
Sure he does  :D

Trolling again...it's gonna get you in trouble - as before? :o

  • Author
Sure he does  :D

Trolling again...it's gonna get you in trouble - as before? :o

Well, is he right, Boon?

About Susan Saradan being ugly?

She's not my cup of tea...

  • Author
Sure he does  :D

Trolling again...it's gonna get you in trouble - as before? :D

Well, is he right, Boon?

About Susan Saradan being ugly?

She's not my cup of tea...

You're a yank you don't drink tea.

I mean about intelligent design, as if you didn't know what I was asking. :o

I became Buddhist a long time ago so this 'intelligent design' stuff does not matter a twit to me. :D

BTW, I drink iced tea :D

Sure he does  :D

Trolling again...it's gonna get you in trouble - as before? :D

Well, is he right, Boon?

About Susan Saradan being ugly?

She's not my cup of tea...

You're a yank you don't drink tea.

I mean about intelligent design, as if you didn't know what I was asking. :o

I became Buddhist a long time ago so this 'intelligent design' stuff does not matter a twit to me. :D

BTW, I drink iced tea :D

Well, that's a relief, on both counts. :D

Well, that's a relief, on both counts. :D

Wrong. Again. Another lie. On the bearpit he kept going on and on about Christian fundamentalists and how they were persecuted and how ID (aka Creationism) was being targetted by libbies etc... the usual crap. Do a search there and you will see that Boon Me is your "typical" conservative :o

Excerpted from Natural History Magazine:

"... The argument from design, as it is known, prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. The weight of the evidence that Darwin had patiently gathered swiftly convinced scientists that evolution by natural selection better explained life's complexity and diversity. "

Basically, Boon votes for the same politcal party that wants to revise centuries of scientific discovery to now uphold creationism theory - oh excuse me - I neglected the new pseudo scientific label ..... 'Intelligent Design'. Basically a bunch of backward fundamentalist Christians now want to use their false "intelligence" in the name of science to foist their religious and philosophical views on everyone else. Please explain to me how this is any different than fundamentalist Muslims eschewing principles, science, and common sense in the name of Islam.

A little light-reading below:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Evolution response to Michael J. Behe

The Flaw in the Mousetrap

Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.

By Kenneth R. Miller

Michael J. Behe fails to provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design.

To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. ...

Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.

Evolution produces complex biochemical machines.

Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine.

Natural selection favors an organism's parts for different functions.

He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.

The blood clotting system is an example of evolution.

The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.

Working researchers see evolution in subcellular systems.

And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution.

Behe's points are philosophical, not scientific. ...

Really?  what about the nickname "Hanoi Jane"?  What about Susan Sarandon .... is she "over-the-hill and bitter" too?  Women who are political and old are not necessarily "bitter".  No more so than the legions of conservative, right-wing males that are pissed off because they can't get laid.

And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :D

Susan Sarandon - dunno her bug eyes always bothered me. :D

:D

Damnit, Janet. Put those things back in!

As I said, the problem very often doesn't originate with the woman, unless you consider growing old a problem. I hate to see what most of you will/do look like at 50. And if you want to understand bitter, over-the-hill people, just talk to most of the expat men on this site.

What are you on about now, Kat? I did say she was ugly, old, or worthless. So, where does this statement come from?

:o Well, it comes as a response to you. You make a sexually derogatory innuendo about a woman's body, and then post somewhere else about how you "respect" women. That's what I was on about, since you asked.

Excerpted from Natural History Magazine:

"... The argument from design, as it is known, prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. The weight of the evidence that Darwin had patiently gathered swiftly convinced scientists that evolution by natural selection better explained life's complexity and diversity. "

Basically, Boon votes for the same politcal party that wants to revise centuries of scientific discovery to now uphold creationism theory - oh excuse me - I neglected the new pseudo scientific label ..... 'Intelligent Design'.  Basically a bunch of backward fundamentalist Christians now want to use their false "intelligence" in the name of science to foist their religious and philosophical views on everyone else.  Please explain to me how this is any different than fundamentalist Muslims eschewing principles, science, and common sense in the name of Islam.

A little light-reading below:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Evolution response to Michael J. Behe

The Flaw in the Mousetrap

Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.

By Kenneth R. Miller 

Michael J. Behe fails to provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design.

 

To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. ...

Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.

Evolution produces complex biochemical machines.

Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine.

Natural selection favors an organism's parts for different functions.

He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.

The blood clotting system is an example of evolution.

The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.

Working researchers see evolution  in subcellular systems.

And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution.

Behe's points are philosophical, not scientific. ...

You are absolutely correct that ID is not a scientific theory....I'm surprised that this has not been emphasized more by scientists. To be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis...which is a statement which you think is true and it must be stated in a way so that you can design an experiment to collect data to test the theory. The next step is to design an experiment, then run the experiment and collect the data, then analyze the data, and then draw conclusions. I have never heard of any testable statements made that support ID and if you think about it for a while you will probably see why...its just like trying to prove that god exists....so far no one has been able to do it. This idea that scientists have that a scientific theory must be testable is not restricted to ID. In particle physics the latest 'theory' is called string theory....many scientists are working on this purely mathematical idea to develop it.....but many many scientists are very very uncomfortable about even calling it a scientific theory because no one has yet devised a way to test whether its true or not.......so you see this idea that a scientific theory must be testable is not just used to harass the ID folks....on the contrary it is part and parcel of what the term science means and THIS is exactly why ID should not be included in science classes because it is (up until now as far as I can tell) a non science idea and can only confuse students if presented as a science....if they want to include it in a philosopohy course then great....as a science...definitely not a science....definitely not.....

"....if they want to include it in a philosopohy course then great....as a science...definitely not a science....definitely not....."

Yes, 100%. And as far as philosophy, it already exists; they can read Anselm, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza in class like the rest of us. They can even take academic religious courses, but they need to keep their fervent little dogmas off of science.

Well, that's a relief, on both counts. :D

Wrong. Again. Another lie. On the bearpit he kept going on and on about Christian fundamentalists and how they were persecuted and how ID (aka Creationism) was being targetted by libbies etc... the usual crap. Do a search there and you will see that Boon Me is your "typical" conservative :o

I try to stay out of there. It's just no fun reading people fighting. :D

Excerpted from Natural History Magazine:

"... The argument from design, as it is known, prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. The weight of the evidence that Darwin had patiently gathered swiftly convinced scientists that evolution by natural selection better explained life's complexity and diversity. "

Basically, Boon votes for the same politcal party that wants to revise centuries of scientific discovery to now uphold creationism theory - oh excuse me - I neglected the new pseudo scientific label ..... 'Intelligent Design'.  Basically a bunch of backward fundamentalist Christians now want to use their false "intelligence" in the name of science to foist their religious and philosophical views on everyone else.  Please explain to me how this is any different than fundamentalist Muslims eschewing principles, science, and common sense in the name of Islam.

The only difference between Muslim fundies and Christain fundies is money. The Muslims don't have any do they have nothing to lose. The Xistians do therefore they are more careful about really expressing their beliefs. Take that money away and there would be no difference. America has already seen Xistian fundies kill for their beliefs, it will happen again.

A little light-reading below:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Evolution response to Michael J. Behe

The Flaw in the Mousetrap

Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.

By Kenneth R. Miller 

Michael J. Behe fails to provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design.

 

To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. ...

Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.

Evolution produces complex biochemical machines.

Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine.

Natural selection favors an organism's parts for different functions.

He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.

The blood clotting system is an example of evolution.

The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.

Working researchers see evolution  in subcellular systems.

And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution.

Behe's points are philosophical, not scientific. ...

Really?  what about the nickname "Hanoi Jane"?  What about Susan Sarandon .... is she "over-the-hill and bitter" too?  Women who are political and old are not necessarily "bitter".  No more so than the legions of conservative, right-wing males that are pissed off because they can't get laid.

And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :D

Susan Sarandon - dunno her bug eyes always bothered me. :D

:D

Damnit, Janet. Put those things back in!

As I said, the problem very often doesn't originate with the woman, unless you consider growing old a problem. I hate to see what most of you will/do look like at 50. And if you want to understand bitter, over-the-hill people, just talk to most of the expat men on this site.

What are you on about now, Kat? I did say she was ugly, old, or worthless. So, where does this statement come from?

:o Well, it comes as a response to you. You make a sexually derogatory innuendo about a woman's body, and then post somewhere else about how you "respect" women. That's what I was on about, since you asked.

Kat, I was talking about her eyes. The poster said before me that she had bug eyes. I have always like her and have always found her attractive, but her eyes do kinda' pop out at ya. There was nothing sexual about what I was saying.

Yeah I like the idea of Creationism and ID as a philosophy topic, but trying to "convert" non-believers is out of line.

Yeah I like the idea of Creationism and ID as a philosophy topic, but trying to "convert" non-believers is out of line.

Agreed.

Really?  what about the nickname "Hanoi Jane"?  What about Susan Sarandon .... is she "over-the-hill and bitter" too?  Women who are political and old are not necessarily "bitter".  No more so than the legions of conservative, right-wing males that are pissed off because they can't get laid.

And no more so than the right-wing morons who want to replace scietific evolutionary theory with Pro-creationism.  :D

Susan Sarandon - dunno her bug eyes always bothered me. :D

:D

Damnit, Janet. Put those things back in!

As I said, the problem very often doesn't originate with the woman, unless you consider growing old a problem. I hate to see what most of you will/do look like at 50. And if you want to understand bitter, over-the-hill people, just talk to most of the expat men on this site.

What are you on about now, Kat? I did say she was ugly, old, or worthless. So, where does this statement come from?

:o Well, it comes as a response to you. You make a sexually derogatory innuendo about a woman's body, and then post somewhere else about how you "respect" women. That's what I was on about, since you asked.

Kat, I was talking about her eyes. The poster said before me that she had bug eyes. I have always like her and have always found her attractive, but her eyes do kinda' pop out at ya. There was nothing sexual about what I was saying.

Oh, sorry, then Bebop. I misinterpreted your comment.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.