The Preamble clearly and unequivocally states who these "liberties" are secured to! "Citizens" that is who!
Odd, then, that the word "citizen" isn't mentioned a single time. That's actually kinda the opposite of "clearly and unequivocally"
You can't master basic English and definitions of words, yet we're somewhow supposed to accept your legal analysis?!?! BWAHAHAHAHA
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is going to take you seriously when you insist on putting all 5 of your names at the end of your posts. I makes you look self-absorbed and WAY WAY WAY too convinced of your own importance. You're being laughed at and can't see it through your smugness.
One last thing, Davy Ollie Grammy Sammy: Calling someone named Lawrence "Lawrie" after repeatedly rolling out your own ridiculous names just makes you look extra stupid.
I guess that's why Trump bothers you because he doesn't need bilk America to make his money like the others.
There's no evidence of this whatsoever. (Hint: Trump saying this doesn't make it true. From we've heard from him so far, it's a good bet that whatever he says is provably false)
If we could only see the darned tax returns of his ... wonder why not?
please continue to attribute the few things I say to imply that I mean several other things I do not.
There's a simple solution to being misattributed: MAKE A FUCKING ACCOUNT. But you won't because you know you will forced to eat the stupid shit you spew.
I only disparage you for it, because I believe you have made comments that yo hate generalizations or labels despite having assumed a few of your own.
How would you know that? Maybe because PaulT has the courage of his convictions and stand by the things he says, preferring not to be a shitposter like you.
EVERY comment you make will be marked "reported" by me. Nobody needs to read your stupid shit that even you won't stand behind.
Just like here in this forum where all of the acolytes still think Wheeler is not a dingo because he made terrible but "nice sounding" rules.
You say this despite the clear and incontrovertible mountains of evidence (ie: many, many articles decrying the rules falling short and not being implemented fully), yet somehow you think people will take you seriously?
You're very deluded.
Of course they're not in the filing. That would be undermining their own argument (weak as it is). Roger strong was referring to the fact the TD linked to the relevant RFCs in their original articles.
Second, having one bad individual in the past is not the same as the lefts ideology that has lasted for 200+ years. The left spent 200 years fighting equality. They do it now with economics.
Congrats! That's the most stupid thing I've read in a long, long time.
And I would hardly consider this even a positive example of "creating" jobs. This type of thing is just an emperors new clothes version of welfare.
This needs responding to as well. Perhaps (in some distorted way of thinking) it was welfare, but it was only needed because of the greed of free market capitalists who caused the Great Depression. FFS.
I'm positive you understand nothing at all.
Psst. Here's a hint: Civilian Conservation Corps. That's just a start on a loooooong journey of how wrong you are.
our government does not create jobs, they never have
Only a dipshit would write a whole paragraph trying to make that point when it is easily disprovable. Try looking at the Civilian Conservation Corps for a starter.
When you're done with that, you can come back and say, "Ok, there was that ONE time," and I'll be happy to provide you with another example. We can keep doing that until you either get tired of being continually proven wrong or just admit you're talking out of your ass. K?
Not all people come to the same conclusion while reviewing the same evidence.
Yet somehow the people who look at the evidence overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. Weird, huh?
People with more knowledge are harder to convince.
You're right. People like actual scientists who specialize in climatology. As a group they would be pretty hard to convince. Yet somehow they have been.
Are you a climate scientist?
Nope. Are you? I'm not an air conditioning repairman either. But when 99 of 100 people who have been trained, experienced and specialize in repairing air conditioners tell me the same thing, I kinda think they're probably right. Then again, I'm not full of hubris.
I look at the same evidence and have come to a different conclusion.
By all means, please elaborate on how the mountains of evidence has led you to a different conclusion. I'll get the popcorn! This will be fun.
But tell me, what do you make of a judge that says slavery is ok?
Don't be mad that judges aren't ruling the way you want them to anymore. At least they have finally opened their eyes. Maybe someday you will too.
So, it's been determined that NC's voter restrictions were not just racist but were designed to be racist.
Thad disapproves of these racist restrictions.
You approve of these racist restrictions.
Yet you're claiming that he is the racist?!?!?
What the actual fuck?
You can delude yourself, but it's not gonna work on the rest of us.
I see a group of what I can equate to "Religious Zealots" saying there is a consensus. I hear them all of the time, yet somehow, despite my absolute respect for science I have yet to be convinced.
It's pretty clear you have little or no respect for science, otherwise you would already be convinced just like the vast majority of actual scientists who specifically study the climate.
Question: despite the mountain of evidence already right in front of your face, what would it take to convince you?
(Not that anyone actually will give a fuck about the "demands" of somehow who is unable to form an argument without resorting to ad homs. But it will be fun to watch!)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good on Them
The Preamble clearly and unequivocally states who these "liberties" are secured to! "Citizens" that is who! Odd, then, that the word "citizen" isn't mentioned a single time. That's actually kinda the opposite of "clearly and unequivocally" You can't master basic English and definitions of words, yet we're somewhow supposed to accept your legal analysis?!?! BWAHAHAHAHA
Re:
And suggesting that it's "too early" to tell if he's screwing the pooch or not is obviously a case of being willfully ignorant.
Re: Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is going to take you seriously when you insist on putting all 5 of your names at the end of your posts. I makes you look self-absorbed and WAY WAY WAY too convinced of your own importance. You're being laughed at and can't see it through your smugness.
One last thing, Davy Ollie Grammy Sammy: Calling someone named Lawrence "Lawrie" after repeatedly rolling out your own ridiculous names just makes you look extra stupid.
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
I guess that's why Trump bothers you because he doesn't need bilk America to make his money like the others. There's no evidence of this whatsoever. (Hint: Trump saying this doesn't make it true. From we've heard from him so far, it's a good bet that whatever he says is provably false) If we could only see the darned tax returns of his ... wonder why not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok then. There is no evidence. Got it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is exactly fucking right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wheeler...
Re: Re: Re: So much for bringing jobs home.
Re: Re: Re: RFCs
Of course they're not in the filing. That would be undermining their own argument (weak as it is). Roger strong was referring to the fact the TD linked to the relevant RFCs in their original articles.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
Those are JOBS. Created by the goverment. Here's another (modern day) example of government created jobs. I can do this all day.
Re: Re: Re:
I'm positive you understand nothing at all. Psst. Here's a hint: Civilian Conservation Corps. That's just a start on a loooooong journey of how wrong you are.
Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
kenichi, you're just plain stupid.
Only a dipshit would write a whole paragraph trying to make that point when it is easily disprovable. Try looking at the Civilian Conservation Corps for a starter. When you're done with that, you can come back and say, "Ok, there was that ONE time," and I'll be happy to provide you with another example. We can keep doing that until you either get tired of being continually proven wrong or just admit you're talking out of your ass. K?Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Media Bias is necessary
Most people believe and have evidence in a God or Gods.
Bzzzt. That's called faith, not evidence.
Try harder.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Media Bias is necessary
Sorry I started a fight in the middle of your white power partaay. [taking liberties with a Forrest Gump quote]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Media Bias is necessary
Not all people come to the same conclusion while reviewing the same evidence. Yet somehow the people who look at the evidence overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. Weird, huh? People with more knowledge are harder to convince. You're right. People like actual scientists who specialize in climatology. As a group they would be pretty hard to convince. Yet somehow they have been. Are you a climate scientist? Nope. Are you? I'm not an air conditioning repairman either. But when 99 of 100 people who have been trained, experienced and specialize in repairing air conditioners tell me the same thing, I kinda think they're probably right. Then again, I'm not full of hubris. I look at the same evidence and have come to a different conclusion. By all means, please elaborate on how the mountains of evidence has led you to a different conclusion. I'll get the popcorn! This will be fun.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Media Bias is necessary
But tell me, what do you make of a judge that says slavery is ok? Don't be mad that judges aren't ruling the way you want them to anymore. At least they have finally opened their eyes. Maybe someday you will too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Media Bias is necessary
So, it's been determined that NC's voter restrictions were not just racist but were designed to be racist. Thad disapproves of these racist restrictions. You approve of these racist restrictions. Yet you're claiming that he is the racist?!?!? What the actual fuck? You can delude yourself, but it's not gonna work on the rest of us.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Media Bias is necessary
I see a group of what I can equate to "Religious Zealots" saying there is a consensus. I hear them all of the time, yet somehow, despite my absolute respect for science I have yet to be convinced. It's pretty clear you have little or no respect for science, otherwise you would already be convinced just like the vast majority of actual scientists who specifically study the climate. Question: despite the mountain of evidence already right in front of your face, what would it take to convince you? (Not that anyone actually will give a fuck about the "demands" of somehow who is unable to form an argument without resorting to ad homs. But it will be fun to watch!)