|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 3, 2024 18:46:18 GMT
Freon, I don't care if you change or not. Arguing with you on here about anything is a waste of time. You are not an honest person, you do not engage honestly. All you care about is playing dumb games. I was merely pointing out that, like about many things, you ignorantly tried to assert that it is not constitutional to fund religious schools through vouchers or other school choice funding. It is a simple statement of fact to correct your ignorance. Take it or don't, I don't care, you are too dishonest and ignorant either way. The argument over whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is interpreted as a separation of Church and State is UNRESOLVED. So my interpretation of it is reasonable. And your interpretation that it HAS been resolved is UNREASONABLE. If anyone is being dishonest here, it's you...as always. Freon That was not our argument, but hey, you do you. Anything to avoid admitting what a dishonest and ignorant person you are. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,345
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 3, 2024 18:46:23 GMT
Yeah, I took a peak at the Constitution and the separation of church and state are no where to be found, but you knew that already, didn't you? If the government dictated that school choice money had to be spent for a religious school of a certain religion, that would inch into the Establishment Clause. But the government steps away and gives parents the choice.
Religious folks pay taxes, too, in case you've forgotten. We don't want to pay for your perverted, woke, secular brainwashing centers known as public schools either. If you want your kids in such a place, why can't YOU pay for it yourself?
And get it straight about Florida....they are denying AP credit for woke, racist indoctrination sessions that are not "advanced" at all.
Concerning these free speech "boundaries" that you speak of....who gets to determine those limits? You? How about me? Since you're all about restrictions, you'd be glad if I determined what you can and cannot say, right? Now do you see where the danger is in any restrictions on free speech?
If your ideology had any real value, you wouldn't be so adamant in wanting to silence those who disagree. Silencing and punishing what is subjectively labelled as "disinformation" is dictatorial and anti-democratic.
Democrats, once the champions of individual rights and liberties, are now the authoritarians
Who gets to determine them? Us. You AND I. Me AND you. That's the problem with you far righties. You won't negotiate. Come to the table and negotiate. We've been waiting for you since the Civil War. Freon The Founders codified free speech rights in the Constitution to protect that right from the "you and I". The passions of the mob can damage the rights of other individuals more quickly than any other danger.
Do you not understand how evil and perverted it is for the majority to be able to tell someone to shut up or else?
Negotiate away my natural rights? That's what authoritarians want.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,345
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 3, 2024 19:09:22 GMT
Freon, I don't care if you change or not. Arguing with you on here about anything is a waste of time. You are not an honest person, you do not engage honestly. All you care about is playing dumb games. I was merely pointing out that, like about many things, you ignorantly tried to assert that it is not constitutional to fund religious schools through vouchers or other school choice funding. It is a simple statement of fact to correct your ignorance. Take it or don't, I don't care, you are too dishonest and ignorant either way. The argument over whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is interpreted as a separation of Church and State is UNRESOLVED. So my interpretation of it is reasonable. And your interpretation that it HAS been resolved is UNREASONABLE. If anyone is being dishonest here, it's you...as always. Freon Of course, it's resolved. Do you have trouble reading what the Constitution actually says or are you in make believe mode again?
Very few of your "interpretations" are reasonable or even factual.
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 3, 2024 19:10:39 GMT
Who gets to determine them? Us. You AND I. Me AND you. That's the problem with you far righties. You won't negotiate. Come to the table and negotiate. We've been waiting for you since the Civil War. Freon
Freon,
You easily are the one of the most honest people on LNF. Don't let the scum tell you otherwise.
Only MM calls me dishonest, and it's ALWAYS because he's losing an argument. So when it happens, I interpret it as his conceding the point. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 3, 2024 19:11:00 GMT
The argument over whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is interpreted as a separation of Church and State is UNRESOLVED. So my interpretation of it is reasonable. And your interpretation that it HAS been resolved is UNREASONABLE. If anyone is being dishonest here, it's you...as always. Freon That was not our argument, but hey, you do you. Anything to avoid admitting what a dishonest and ignorant person you are. Compared to whom? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 3, 2024 19:13:25 GMT
Who gets to determine them? Us. You AND I. Me AND you. That's the problem with you far righties. You won't negotiate. Come to the table and negotiate. We've been waiting for you since the Civil War. Freon The Founders codified free speech rights in the Constitution to protect that right from the "you and I". The passions of the mob can damage the rights of other individuals more quickly than any other danger.
Do you not understand how evil and perverted it is for the majority to be able to tell someone to shut up or else?
Negotiate away my natural rights? That's what authoritarians want.
As I said, you are unwilling to negotiate, and your vague idealistic interpretation of the founding documents ignores the reality that whether a democracy or a republic, the more elected leaders you have on your side, the more the country behaves the way you choose. If that lesson is not obvious to you, then I'm making it clear right here and now. So if you don't negotiate, you are acceding the ability to make change to me. Thank you for doing so! Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 3, 2024 19:15:09 GMT
The argument over whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is interpreted as a separation of Church and State is UNRESOLVED. So my interpretation of it is reasonable. And your interpretation that it HAS been resolved is UNREASONABLE. If anyone is being dishonest here, it's you...as always. Freon Of course, it's resolved. Do you have trouble reading what the Constitution actually says or are you in make believe mode again?
Very few of your "interpretations" are reasonable or even factual.
You are not arguing with me if you think that, you are arguing with the SCOTUS. You will forgive me if I side with the SCOTUS on this one... Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 3, 2024 19:34:50 GMT
LMAO .. You idiot .. You don't have to ask me so politely for an ass kicking.. I'm always happy to oblige .. but since you did..
You're one of the millions of gullible MAGA (<-redundant) half-wits that sucked deep and swallowed the terms "Death Tax", "Compassionate Conservatism", "Death Panels", "Partial-birth Abortion", Alternative Facts.. . You fools actually THINK in those terms ..
Calling you a dumbass is an insult to other dumbasses that are still smarter than you. Luntz in many cases is being more accurate than the watered down propaganda. "Death tax" is actually more descriptive of the brutal reality and unfairness of such a penalty than "estate tax". Partial-birth abortion reflects how the procedure was actually done, rather than the lies of the left to protect their baby killing operations.
Luntz is like you....peddling the "climate change" when global warming lie fell out of favor...that was double speak for your side, not ours, boy. And, like you, Luntz is stupid enough to hate Trump. That alone puts him in the same dumbass category that you infest.
I punted your ignorant ass into orbit last time and still you don't have the decency to thank me..
The notion of a "Death Tax" is idiotic .. you can't tax 'death'.. so we see why you're so attracted to the doublespeak ..
You're stuck on stupid with that partial birth bullshit.. it doesn't happen..
Despite you desperately clinging to your ignorance of science in general .. Climate Change is an older term than Global Warming..
Non-Idiots.. (people who are not you) understand that the two terms describe two different things.. "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" refer to separate aspects of climate science. It's the warming.. globally.. that's forcing climate change..
GW and CC may have been used interchangeably by the talking heads that kept you confused but were never used in that manner by anyone even remotely familiar with climate science.
The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now.
However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).
Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.
The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).
The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:
And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature: So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology.
There ya'go .. And if you had any ass left.. I'd kick it too ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 3, 2024 19:38:31 GMT
Freon,
You easily are the one of the most honest people on LNF. Don't let the scum tell you otherwise.
Only MM calls me dishonest, and it's ALWAYS because he's losing an argument. So when it happens, I interpret it as his conceding the point. Yep .. He does it to me too..
It's his go-to move when cornered.. and he practically lives in the corner ..
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 3, 2024 19:40:40 GMT
Only MM calls me dishonest, and it's ALWAYS because he's losing an argument. So when it happens, I interpret it as his conceding the point. Yep .. He does it to me too..
It's his go-to move when cornered.. and he practically lives in the corner ..
It's ironic, really. The #1 accuser of dishonesty, is perhaps the second or third most dishonest (or ignorant) one in the forum. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 3, 2024 19:52:54 GMT
No. If you need me to dumb it down further, I can try. But you need to ask instead of making terribly foolish assumptions. Notice that question mark in my response. That's called a question. And then you said I need to ask a question. Weird. Freon But then you answered your own question, believing your assumptions were correct. That’s indicative of somebody who isn’t really asking for clarification. This is basic stuff here. Let me demonstrate. Pretend this is how I responded to your post. “So you’re saying you don’t understand anything I write and only desperately attempt to portray high level intellectual capability to feebly mask crippling insecurity? Weird that you would admit all that here. But yet here you are admitting it.” Would the question mark change my post as having been generated in genuine curiosity and in attempt to advance the discussion? Of course not. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 3, 2024 19:56:40 GMT
Yep .. He does it to me too..
It's his go-to move when cornered.. and he practically lives in the corner ..
It's ironic, really. The #1 accuser of dishonesty, is perhaps the second or third most dishonest (or ignorant) one in the forum. Freon It's both.. They actually seem proud of their ignorance as evidenced by their willingness to lie (the dishonesty) to defend it..
Isaac Asimov spotted it in the Reagan influenced 80s ..
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 3, 2024 20:00:25 GMT
Notice that question mark in my response. That's called a question. And then you said I need to ask a question. Weird. Freon But then you answered your own question, believing your assumptions were correct. That’s indicative of somebody who isn’t really asking for clarification. This is basic stuff here. Let me demonstrate. Pretend this is how I responded to your post. “So you’re saying you don’t understand anything I write and only desperately attempt to portray high level intellectual capability to feebly mask crippling insecurity? Weird that you would admit all that here. But yet here you are admitting it.” Would the question mark change my post as having been generated in genuine curiosity and in attempt to advance the discussion? Of course not. Looks like what you are saying is that we would respond differently, and that how we respond says a lot about us. What does your interpretation of my words say about you? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 3, 2024 20:05:12 GMT
It's ironic, really. The #1 accuser of dishonesty, is perhaps the second or third most dishonest (or ignorant) one in the forum. Freon It's both.. They actually seem proud of their ignorance as evidenced by their willingness to lie (the dishonesty) to defend it..
Isaac Asimov spotted it in the Reagan influenced 80s ..
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
Asimov is one my favorite authors. His books sit about four feet from me right at this moment on my bookshelf. I would add one caveat to his statement though. There will ALWAYS be that group of proud ignorant people. They are not something humanity can get rid of, as they make up the left part of the bell shaped intellectual curve. What few will acknowledge, is that our social groups tie more around our intellectual levels, than any other metric, which means our definition of 'normal' tends to equate to our own level of intelligence. We socialize in it, marry in it, raise our children in it, and vote based on it. Which makes it easy to forget that there are huge swaths of people who are NOT part of our 'normal'. This is why I enjoy this forum. I get a chance to interact with those who would NEVER be taken seriously in the 'normal' I usually inhabit. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 3, 2024 20:06:02 GMT
But then you answered your own question, believing your assumptions were correct. That’s indicative of somebody who isn’t really asking for clarification. This is basic stuff here. Let me demonstrate. Pretend this is how I responded to your post. “So you’re saying you don’t understand anything I write and only desperately attempt to portray high level intellectual capability to feebly mask crippling insecurity? Weird that you would admit all that here. But yet here you are admitting it.” Would the question mark change my post as having been generated in genuine curiosity and in attempt to advance the discussion? Of course not. Looks like what you are saying is that we would respond differently, and that how we respond says a lot about us. What does your interpretation of my words say about you? Freon You’re one of the most dishonest people I’ve ever come across? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,345
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 3, 2024 20:06:58 GMT
Calling you a dumbass is an insult to other dumbasses that are still smarter than you. Luntz in many cases is being more accurate than the watered down propaganda. "Death tax" is actually more descriptive of the brutal reality and unfairness of such a penalty than "estate tax". Partial-birth abortion reflects how the procedure was actually done, rather than the lies of the left to protect their baby killing operations.
Luntz is like you....peddling the "climate change" when global warming lie fell out of favor...that was double speak for your side, not ours, boy. And, like you, Luntz is stupid enough to hate Trump. That alone puts him in the same dumbass category that you infest.
I punted your ignorant ass into orbit last time and still you don't have the decency to thank me..
The notion of a "Death Tax" is idiotic .. you can't tax 'death'.. so we see why you're so attracted to the doublespeak ..
You're stuck on stupid with that partial birth bullshit.. it doesn't happen..
Despite you desperately clinging to your ignorance of science in general .. Climate Change is an older term than Global Warming..
Non-Idiots.. (people who are not you) understand that the two terms describe two different things.. "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" refer to separate aspects of climate science. It's the warming.. globally.. that's forcing climate change..
GW and CC may have been used interchangeably by the talking heads that kept you confused but were never used in that manner by anyone even remotely familiar with climate science.
The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now.
However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).
Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.
The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).
The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:
And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature: So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology.
There ya'go .. And if you had any ass left.. I'd kick it too ...
Seriously, boy, how'd you get this stupid? What fiend left you retarded in a puddle of your own urine and shit?
"Death tax" rightly identified WHY the tax was levied and makes clear how disgusting and unfair such a regressive tax is. Death triggers the tax, despite the fact that the dead person has already been taxed to death on the property and assets already. "Death tax" accurately reveals the vile greed and immorality of the federal government and its minions.
Get your head out of your fat greasy scalwag ass once in a while and you might learn something.
And partial birth abortion does happen, so stop lying to cover your abortion loving ass.
And finally, dumbass, it wasn't in the scientific journals where the shift from "global warming" to "climate change" occurred, it was the MSM that was busy gaslighting the public until GW took a 17 year break from increasing. They didn't dare let folks notice that their lies about global warming weren't aligning with the models.
Your ass is sent into orbit so often that it has a better track record than the Boeing Starliner.
Anything else, boy?
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 3, 2024 20:08:52 GMT
Looks like what you are saying is that we would respond differently, and that how we respond says a lot about us. What does your interpretation of my words say about you? Freon You’re one of the most dishonest people I’ve ever come across? Oh, and what makes you say that? Freon |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 3, 2024 20:35:30 GMT
You’re one of the most dishonest people I’ve ever come across? Oh, and what makes you say that? Freon
His conservative dishonesty...
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 3, 2024 20:37:07 GMT
You’re one of the most dishonest people I’ve ever come across? Oh, and what makes you say that? Freon I’m asking. The question mark. Remember? |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 3, 2024 20:42:15 GMT
That was not our argument, but hey, you do you. Anything to avoid admitting what a dishonest and ignorant person you are. Compared to whom? Freon I am glad that you own being dishonest and ignorant. Now you are just trying to see how dishonest and ignorant you are. LOL |
|
