info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Darwinism and post-modern word salad
69 views
Skip to first unread message
prawnster
Jun 28, 2012, 5:21:08 PM6/28/12
to
Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
legislation so as to make it constitutional.
Sound familiar?
Let's review!
What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
fail by any traditional definition, it is creating an explanation for
phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
talk.origins's preeminent troll.
See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
terms is so corrosive? I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
Whadda ya think?
proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
legislation so as to make it constitutional.
Sound familiar?
Let's review!
What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
fail by any traditional definition, it is creating an explanation for
phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
talk.origins's preeminent troll.
See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
terms is so corrosive? I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
Whadda ya think?
Mike Painter
Jun 28, 2012, 6:35:55 PM6/28/12
to
Mitchell Coffey
Jun 28, 2012, 8:56:55 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 5:21�ｿｽpm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> Kongress. �ｿｽThis same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> "penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. �ｿｽSo
> the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> legislation so as to make it constitutional.
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> Let's review!
>
> What is science? �ｿｽAccording to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> legislation so as to make it constitutional.
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> Let's review!
>
> fail by any traditional definition, it is creating an explanation for
> phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> Is interpretation the same as observation? �ｿｽYes, according at least to
> phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> terms is so corrosive? �ｿｽI know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
>
> See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> 0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. �ｿｽOh boy.
> 0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
>
> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Whadda ya think?
Oh! I get it: You're drunk!
> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Whadda ya think?
Boikat
Jun 28, 2012, 10:31:54 PM6/28/12
to
pissing in public.
Boikat
A.Carlson
Jun 28, 2012, 10:36:25 PM6/28/12
to
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
>proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
>citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
>Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
>"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
>because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
>the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
>crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
>legislation so as to make it constitutional.
>
>Sound familiar?
Yes, it is not uncommon for a creationist's screed to include one non
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
>proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
>citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
>Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
>"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
>because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
>the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
>crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
>legislation so as to make it constitutional.
>
>Sound familiar?
sequitur after another.
>Let's review!
>
>What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
>fail by any traditional definition,
accepted by the well educated and rejected mainly by uneducated
fundamentalists.
> it is creating an explanation for
>phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
The ToE is well supported by an overwhelming supply of evidence. Funny
you would leave out this crucial point. Is this because of your
dishonesty or your ignorance? With creationists it is sometimes hard
to tell.
>Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
>talk.origins's preeminent troll.
observe. There certainly would at least be a relationship of sorts
there.
>See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
>terms is so corrosive?
redefine terms, as you appear to be doing here.
>I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
>doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
>0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
>doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
outcomes at much lower prices.
Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
Recognizing that you are reality challenged, I suppose that this is
all way over your head.
>So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
>redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>Whadda ya think?
I think you're fucking clueless, but then what's new.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 28, 2012, 11:00:00 PM6/28/12
to
On 06/28/2012 05:21 PM, prawnster wrote:
> Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> "penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> legislation so as to make it constitutional.
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> Let's review!
>
> What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> fail by any traditional definition, it is creating an explanation for
> phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> terms is so corrosive? I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> 0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
You realize Husayn is a name held by people other than the former
> Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> "penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> legislation so as to make it constitutional.
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> Let's review!
>
> What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> fail by any traditional definition, it is creating an explanation for
> phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> terms is so corrosive? I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> 0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
dictator of Iraq right?
I don't see what jollies you guys get out of using Obama's middle name.
He shares the name with a well respected deceased king of Jordan. Husayn
isn't uncommon as an Arabic name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein
Learn something xenophobe!
> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
> Whadda ya think?
>
You guys should be happy as Obama is possibly going to see his own
Iran-Contra scandal, though Iran-Contra benefited greatly for at least
being really clever. I cannot say Fast and Furious was clever or how far
up the food chain it goes, but it ain't pretty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-and-furious-house-plans-vote-on-holding-eric-holder-in-contempt/2012/06/28/gJQAznlG9V_story.html
RAM
Jun 28, 2012, 11:02:50 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 4:21 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
Kruger prototype of cognitive bias which further demonstrates his
limited intellectual skills.
This Dunning-Kruger clown will never understand why he is viewed they
way he is. Thus TO will be the recipients of more empty rhetoric and
bombast. We can only hope he tires and finds more fertile cyber sites.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 28, 2012, 11:28:59 PM6/28/12
to
Obama's health care victory. For balance we should speculate which of
these pending outbreaks erupts first:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-china-southchinasea-idUSBRE85R0J520120628
or:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-turkey-20120629,0,5629347.story
RAM
Jun 29, 2012, 12:41:23 AM6/29/12
to
>
> or:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-turkey-2012...
Very good points. We Americans do tend to be extremely parochial and
egocentric. When China starts asserting territorial rights with armed
militias we will be experiencing the turmoil and hate of how others
view our land grabs. And like Turkey we will begin to reassert our
military might. But it might not have the desired end the US would
like.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 29, 2012, 1:11:52 AM6/29/12
to
falling dominoes?
> And like Turkey we will begin to reassert our
> military might. But it might not have the desired end the US would
> like.
be looking at the globally charged aftermath of Operation "IAF
wink-winks at Saud". That opens another can of worms.
J. J. Lodder
Jun 29, 2012, 9:12:51 AM6/29/12
to
Jan
John Stockwell
Jun 29, 2012, 10:51:59 AM6/29/12
to
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:21:08 PM UTC-6, prawnster wrote:
> Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> "penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> legislation so as to make it constitutional.
Looks to me like Justice Roberts did his job by recognizing the constitutionality of the congressional power to taks, whereas
> Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> "penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> legislation so as to make it constitutional.
the remaining 4 right wing appointees attempted to usurp the power of the
legislative branch through blatant judicial activism.
It is not the job of the court to rate the "quality of legislation",
only whether the legislation is consistent with the US Constitution, which
apparently Obamacare is. Deal with it.
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> Let's review!
>
> What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> fail by any traditional definition, it is creating an explanation for
> phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> terms is so corrosive? I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> 0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
>
> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Whadda ya think?
And, yes, evolutio is science.
And yes, you are an ignoramus.
-John
Rolf
Jun 29, 2012, 12:56:29 PM6/29/12
to
Bob Casanova
Jun 29, 2012, 2:34:48 PM6/29/12
to
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:
<snip familiar-sounding vomitus>
>Sound familiar?
Everything you post sounds like random association. Is that
what you meant?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:
<snip familiar-sounding vomitus>
>Sound familiar?
Everything you post sounds like random association. Is that
what you meant?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 29, 2012, 2:44:48 PM6/29/12
to
On 06/29/2012 02:34 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
> <zweib...@ymail.com>:
>
> <snip familiar-sounding vomitus>
>
>> Sound familiar?
>
> Everything you post sounds like random association. Is that
> what you meant?
>
Do they make a Kaopectate for cases of logorrhea?
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
> <zweib...@ymail.com>:
>
> <snip familiar-sounding vomitus>
>
>> Sound familiar?
>
> Everything you post sounds like random association. Is that
> what you meant?
>
Kermit
Jun 29, 2012, 3:14:44 PM6/29/12
to
for working?
Cause they seem to take a chunk out of my pay. Which is fine, of
course, because I could never pay for private security, road repairs,
fire protection, etc. on my own. Wish I had the cheaper and simpler
universal health care that our Commie friends in Canada, the UK,
Germany, and Sweden, etc. enjoy
Did you know that in 1792 our second congress required all US
households to purchase private products?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Kermit,
futilely offering facts to the determinedly ignorant for over half a
century.
RAM
Jun 29, 2012, 7:45:50 PM6/29/12
to
Mark Isaak
Jun 29, 2012, 10:01:12 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/28/12 10:11 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 06/29/2012 12:41 AM, RAM wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 10:28 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/28/2012 11:02 PM, RAM wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 4:21 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
> On 06/29/2012 12:41 AM, RAM wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 10:28 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/28/2012 11:02 PM, RAM wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 4:21 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
>>>>> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>>>
>>>>> Whadda ya think?
>>>
>>>> Prawnsie engaging in immature trolling that contains the Dunning–
>>>> Kruger prototype of cognitive bias which further demonstrates his
>>>> limited intellectual skills.
>>>> [...]
>>>>> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>>>
>>>>> Whadda ya think?
>>>
>>>> Prawnsie engaging in immature trolling that contains the Dunning–
>>>> Kruger prototype of cognitive bias which further demonstrates his
>>>> limited intellectual skills.
>>>
>>> I think this place suffers from too much focus on US events, like
>>> Obama's health care victory. For balance we should speculate which of
>>> these pending outbreaks erupts first:
>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-china-southchinasea-idUS...
>>>
>>> or:
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-turkey-2012...
>>
>> Very good points. We Americans do tend to be extremely parochial and
>> egocentric. When China starts asserting territorial rights with armed
>> militias we will be experiencing the turmoil and hate of how others
>> view our land grabs.
>
> For me it only underscores the question: Why did the US believe in
> falling dominoes?
Are you kidding? Falling dominoes are *fun*! Of course USians would
>>> I think this place suffers from too much focus on US events, like
>>> Obama's health care victory. For balance we should speculate which of
>>> these pending outbreaks erupts first:
>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-china-southchinasea-idUS...
>>>
>>> or:
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-turkey-2012...
>>
>> Very good points. We Americans do tend to be extremely parochial and
>> egocentric. When China starts asserting territorial rights with armed
>> militias we will be experiencing the turmoil and hate of how others
>> view our land grabs.
>
> For me it only underscores the question: Why did the US believe in
> falling dominoes?
believe in them.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 29, 2012, 10:10:17 PM6/29/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Vietnam_relations
chris thompson
Jun 29, 2012, 10:18:49 PM6/29/12
to
alone preeminence.
Chris
prawnster
Jun 29, 2012, 10:23:53 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 29, 7:51 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
aforementioned august jurist rewrote the law. Writing law is not a
power of the Supreme Kourt. His actions are illegal.
The language of the law nowhere contains the word "tax." The word
"penalty" is used at all points. That it was "a tax all along" is
something you and the august jurist imagine. It's nowhere in the
law. Very much how you imagine that one creature becomes another.
Very much how you confuse "imagination" with "observation."
It's time for you to go take your gummint meds, Mr. Wilkins: go grab
your gummint Medicare tit and suck it dry, 0'bama buttboi.
> [...]
> Looks to me like Justice Roberts did his job by recognizing the constitutionality of the congressional power to taks, whereas
> the remaining 4 right wing appointees attempted to usurp the power of the
> legislative branch through blatant judicial activism.
>
> It is not the job of the court to rate the "quality of legislation",
> only whether the legislation is consistent with the US Constitution, which
> apparently Obamacare is. Deal with it.
>
> [...]
> the remaining 4 right wing appointees attempted to usurp the power of the
> legislative branch through blatant judicial activism.
>
> It is not the job of the court to rate the "quality of legislation",
> only whether the legislation is consistent with the US Constitution, which
> apparently Obamacare is. Deal with it.
>
> They didn't redefine a "penalty as a tax". It was a tax all along.
>
Obamacare only became consistent with the US constitution when the
>
aforementioned august jurist rewrote the law. Writing law is not a
power of the Supreme Kourt. His actions are illegal.
The language of the law nowhere contains the word "tax." The word
"penalty" is used at all points. That it was "a tax all along" is
something you and the august jurist imagine. It's nowhere in the
law. Very much how you imagine that one creature becomes another.
Very much how you confuse "imagination" with "observation."
It's time for you to go take your gummint meds, Mr. Wilkins: go grab
your gummint Medicare tit and suck it dry, 0'bama buttboi.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 29, 2012, 10:37:49 PM6/29/12
to
hasn't chimed in on this thread. Scary.
prawnster
Jun 29, 2012, 10:37:58 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 28, 8:00 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
sound?
If a gummint adminstration starts a gun-running operation that ends up
killing an American and the media never mention it, did it ever
happen?
0'Blamo will be reelected no problem. AmeriKKKa has been guzzling
from the gummint tit for 3 solid years now, and they likes what they
sucks. Plus, Mitt Fraudney is as big a Marxist as 0'Blamo, but he
just acts penitent about it. Between a fake like Fraudney and the
Real Deal like 0'Snobo, the Real Deal wins every time. QED.
> [...]
> You guys should be happy as Obama is possibly going to see his own
> Iran-Contra scandal, though Iran-Contra benefited greatly for at least
> being really clever. I cannot say Fast and Furious was clever or how far
> up the food chain it goes, but it ain't pretty.
>
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a
> Iran-Contra scandal, though Iran-Contra benefited greatly for at least
> being really clever. I cannot say Fast and Furious was clever or how far
> up the food chain it goes, but it ain't pretty.
>
sound?
If a gummint adminstration starts a gun-running operation that ends up
killing an American and the media never mention it, did it ever
happen?
0'Blamo will be reelected no problem. AmeriKKKa has been guzzling
from the gummint tit for 3 solid years now, and they likes what they
sucks. Plus, Mitt Fraudney is as big a Marxist as 0'Blamo, but he
just acts penitent about it. Between a fake like Fraudney and the
Real Deal like 0'Snobo, the Real Deal wins every time. QED.
prawnster
Jun 29, 2012, 10:34:02 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
treatments because you like it high, dry, and tight in your rectum,
but I'm not sure why this is my responsibility. I don't go to the
hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment. Except for
surgeons, all physicians are just know-nothing idiots who stand around
taking credit for the healing powers God wrote into our DNA.
So fatboy grayballs like yourself who enjoy it up the ass and, as a
consequence, get sick all the time and, thus, need chronic treatment
for your diabetes and various venereal diseases should just pay for
your own sins, and stop employing government force to take money away
from people like me to pay for your weakness, cowardice, and
debauchery.
You're just a loser, Mr. Carlson. That's why you love it when the
government, with all of its violent power, takes things away from
winners and gives it to you.
> [...]
> I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
I know, Mr. Carlson, that you want me to pay for your weekly HIV
> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
treatments because you like it high, dry, and tight in your rectum,
but I'm not sure why this is my responsibility. I don't go to the
hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment. Except for
surgeons, all physicians are just know-nothing idiots who stand around
taking credit for the healing powers God wrote into our DNA.
So fatboy grayballs like yourself who enjoy it up the ass and, as a
consequence, get sick all the time and, thus, need chronic treatment
for your diabetes and various venereal diseases should just pay for
your own sins, and stop employing government force to take money away
from people like me to pay for your weakness, cowardice, and
debauchery.
You're just a loser, Mr. Carlson. That's why you love it when the
government, with all of its violent power, takes things away from
winners and gives it to you.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 29, 2012, 10:44:00 PM6/29/12
to
Longer than three years.
prawnster
Jun 29, 2012, 10:48:05 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 29, 7:18 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
maybe you can medicate yourself into oblivion for your PTSD from
9/11. Then, once your meds have you in a stupor, you can go on
welfare, foodstamps, Section 8 housing, and then post to lusernet all
day long.
My heart swells with joy that I get to pay for you to be doped up on
meds, on welfare and foodstamps, and paying your rent so that you can
post on lusernet all day long. O America! What a wonderful Marxist
utopia we have now, thanks to Brock Hussein Kardashian.
You're a real man, Mr. Thompson. I know a lot of people probably
think, because of your cowardice and effeminacy and your fantasies of
0'bama shoving his pole up your rectum, that you are homosexual, but I
know you're just suffering from PTSD. Enjoy your all-you-can-eat
meds, there, fagboi.
wrote:
>
> I think it's sad that you have delusions of trolldom adequacy, let
> alone preeminence.
>
Poor Mr. Thompson. Now that you have free free free medical care,
> I think it's sad that you have delusions of trolldom adequacy, let
> alone preeminence.
>
maybe you can medicate yourself into oblivion for your PTSD from
9/11. Then, once your meds have you in a stupor, you can go on
welfare, foodstamps, Section 8 housing, and then post to lusernet all
day long.
My heart swells with joy that I get to pay for you to be doped up on
meds, on welfare and foodstamps, and paying your rent so that you can
post on lusernet all day long. O America! What a wonderful Marxist
utopia we have now, thanks to Brock Hussein Kardashian.
You're a real man, Mr. Thompson. I know a lot of people probably
think, because of your cowardice and effeminacy and your fantasies of
0'bama shoving his pole up your rectum, that you are homosexual, but I
know you're just suffering from PTSD. Enjoy your all-you-can-eat
meds, there, fagboi.
prawnster
Jun 29, 2012, 10:50:36 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 29, 7:37 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Talk about needing meds. You think you're replying to Wilkins, who
> hasn't chimed in on this thread. Scary.
Good point.
>
> Talk about needing meds. You think you're replying to Wilkins, who
> hasn't chimed in on this thread. Scary.
Yeah, the various and assorted atheo-Marxist buttbois around here are
almost indistinguishable. My error is understandable.
Thanks anyway.
John S. Wilkins
Jun 30, 2012, 12:55:35 AM6/30/12
to
have our own socialist commie gummint, thanks very much.
By the way, I do have socialised medical protections...
Also by the way, isn't it the basic principle of common law (stari
decisis, if memory servies) that judges do interpret laws and so create
legal precedents and interpretation? "Activist judges" are a basic
principle of our, and your, legal system.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Michael Siemon
Jun 30, 2012, 1:39:00 AM6/30/12
to
In article <1kmh0rz.ye1w1616htqpsN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
Prawnster seems to be of a mind with some of the more seriously
disgruntled troglodytes/^H"conservatives" here, who expected Chief
Justice Roberts to go along with the reactionary cabal of Scalia,
Alito and whatsisname [the intellectual null of the lot] in derailing
the incredible Rube Goldberg machine of a "health care" system that
came out of our sausage-making process a few years ago.
I don't know, at this point, what motivated Roberts [I seriously
doubt I would be happy with whatever it was... :-)], but of course
the result is about as far away from "socialized medicine" as it is
possible to imagine. There is a jury-rigged "system" that tries to
rein in the [inevitable] excesses of for-profit "health care" by
orchestrating it with some minor traces of social responsibility.
Why the wing-nuts are so totally crazed by all of this is really
beyond rational explanation. It's of a piece with the "Obama is a
Muslim born in Kenya" disjunction from reality. It is sadly likely
the that whole mess is a displacement of American racial bias that
does not dare speak its real mind.
_Stare decisis_ doesn't mean that judges do not interpret laws. It
means ("let the [prior] decision stand") that later courts do not
overturn earlier decisions without significant justification. That
the SCOTUS may indeed throw monkey-wrenches into executive/legislative
actions is well established in the USA [cf. "Marbury vs. Madison"].
The current court is NOT all that likely to give a damn about this
principle if it offends its political priorities. They would, in all
likelihood be _delighted_ to undercut most of the jurisprudence of
the mid-20th century, if they think they can get away with it.
What everyone here is scrambling to understand in THIS case is just
WHY Roberts did what he did. One hesitates to give him the benefit of
acting honestly/honorably. Given all that has happened under his watch
as Chief Justice so far...
disgruntled troglodytes/^H"conservatives" here, who expected Chief
Justice Roberts to go along with the reactionary cabal of Scalia,
Alito and whatsisname [the intellectual null of the lot] in derailing
the incredible Rube Goldberg machine of a "health care" system that
came out of our sausage-making process a few years ago.
I don't know, at this point, what motivated Roberts [I seriously
doubt I would be happy with whatever it was... :-)], but of course
the result is about as far away from "socialized medicine" as it is
possible to imagine. There is a jury-rigged "system" that tries to
rein in the [inevitable] excesses of for-profit "health care" by
orchestrating it with some minor traces of social responsibility.
Why the wing-nuts are so totally crazed by all of this is really
beyond rational explanation. It's of a piece with the "Obama is a
Muslim born in Kenya" disjunction from reality. It is sadly likely
the that whole mess is a displacement of American racial bias that
does not dare speak its real mind.
_Stare decisis_ doesn't mean that judges do not interpret laws. It
means ("let the [prior] decision stand") that later courts do not
overturn earlier decisions without significant justification. That
the SCOTUS may indeed throw monkey-wrenches into executive/legislative
actions is well established in the USA [cf. "Marbury vs. Madison"].
The current court is NOT all that likely to give a damn about this
principle if it offends its political priorities. They would, in all
likelihood be _delighted_ to undercut most of the jurisprudence of
the mid-20th century, if they think they can get away with it.
What everyone here is scrambling to understand in THIS case is just
WHY Roberts did what he did. One hesitates to give him the benefit of
acting honestly/honorably. Given all that has happened under his watch
as Chief Justice so far...
Burkhard
Jun 30, 2012, 5:50:14 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 3:34 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
> > creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> > developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> > outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> > Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> > developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> I know, Mr. Carlson, that you want me to pay for your weekly HIV
> treatments because you like it high, dry, and tight in your rectum,
> but I'm not sure why this is my responsibility. I don't go to the
> hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment.
Yes, we surmised that much. Thing is, it's equally obvious that you
> On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
> > creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> > developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> > outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> > Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> > developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> I know, Mr. Carlson, that you want me to pay for your weekly HIV
> treatments because you like it high, dry, and tight in your rectum,
> but I'm not sure why this is my responsibility. I don't go to the
> hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment.
really, really should.
Frank J
Jun 30, 2012, 7:53:17 AM6/30/12
to
Frank J
Jun 30, 2012, 8:07:41 AM6/30/12
to
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:36:25 PM UTC-4, A.Carlson wrote:
> sequitur after another.
> accepted by the well educated and rejected mainly by uneducated
> fundamentalists.
I wish that were true, but the sad fact is that about half of the people who have doubts of evolution (they choose the "humans were created in their present form in the last 10K years" in polls) are *not* hopeless fundamentalists. Nor is another 20-30% that says "I guess something like evolution is true, but it's only fair to teach both sides."
Togethter they constatute a *majority*. They are mostly not "uneducated" (at least in non-science subjestc), but what little biology they learned in school is quickly replaced by many common misleading sound bites, often repeated by scientists who know better but are just careless with words (e.g, the "birds and animals" that I heard recently).
I could be wrong, but the only way to know for sure is to *test* it. But I'm convinced that we must stop obsessing over the fundamentalists (& trolls, some of whom are Lokis) who will not admit evolution under any circumstances, and reach out to those who can and do change their minds when shown how they have been mislead. Most are nominally religious, so statements like "lying for Jesus" will only chase them into the clutches of the scam artists.
>
> > it is creating an explanation for
> >phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> You left out the part where the explanation is supported by evidence.
> The ToE is well supported by an overwhelming supply of evidence. Funny
> you would leave out this crucial point. Is this because of your
> dishonesty or your ignorance? With creationists it is sometimes hard
> to tell.
> observe. There certainly would at least be a relationship of sorts
> there.
> redefine terms, as you appear to be doing here.
> all way over your head.
>
> >Whadda ya think?
>
> I think you're fucking clueless, but then what's new.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:36:25 PM UTC-4, A.Carlson wrote:
> sequitur after another.
> accepted by the well educated and rejected mainly by uneducated
> fundamentalists.
> The ToE is well supported by an overwhelming supply of evidence. Funny
> you would leave out this crucial point. Is this because of your
> dishonesty or your ignorance? With creationists it is sometimes hard
> to tell.
> observe. There certainly would at least be a relationship of sorts
> there.
> redefine terms, as you appear to be doing here.
> all way over your head.
>
> >Whadda ya think?
>
> I think you're fucking clueless, but then what's new.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:36:25 PM UTC-4, A.Carlson wrote:
> sequitur after another.
> accepted by the well educated and rejected mainly by uneducated
> fundamentalists.
> The ToE is well supported by an overwhelming supply of evidence. Funny
> you would leave out this crucial point. Is this because of your
> dishonesty or your ignorance? With creationists it is sometimes hard
> to tell.
> observe. There certainly would at least be a relationship of sorts
> there.
> redefine terms, as you appear to be doing here.
> all way over your head.
>
> >Whadda ya think?
>
> I think you're fucking clueless, but then what's new.
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
> <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> >proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> >citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> >Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> >"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> >because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> >the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> >crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> >legislation so as to make it constitutional.
> >
> >Sound familiar?
>
> Yes, it is not uncommon for a creationist's screed to include one non
> <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> >proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> >citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> >Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> >"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> >because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> >the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> >crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> >legislation so as to make it constitutional.
> >
> >Sound familiar?
>
> sequitur after another.
>
> >Let's review!
> >
> >What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> >fail by any traditional definition,
>
> Which is clearly reflected in the fact that it is almost universally
> >Let's review!
> >
> >What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> >fail by any traditional definition,
>
> accepted by the well educated and rejected mainly by uneducated
> fundamentalists.
I wish that were true, but the sad fact is that about half of the people who have doubts of evolution (they choose the "humans were created in their present form in the last 10K years" in polls) are *not* hopeless fundamentalists. Nor is another 20-30% that says "I guess something like evolution is true, but it's only fair to teach both sides."
Togethter they constatute a *majority*. They are mostly not "uneducated" (at least in non-science subjestc), but what little biology they learned in school is quickly replaced by many common misleading sound bites, often repeated by scientists who know better but are just careless with words (e.g, the "birds and animals" that I heard recently).
I could be wrong, but the only way to know for sure is to *test* it. But I'm convinced that we must stop obsessing over the fundamentalists (& trolls, some of whom are Lokis) who will not admit evolution under any circumstances, and reach out to those who can and do change their minds when shown how they have been mislead. Most are nominally religious, so statements like "lying for Jesus" will only chase them into the clutches of the scam artists.
>
> > it is creating an explanation for
> >phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> The ToE is well supported by an overwhelming supply of evidence. Funny
> you would leave out this crucial point. Is this because of your
> dishonesty or your ignorance? With creationists it is sometimes hard
> to tell.
>
> >Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> >talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> I suppose it could be claimed that to interpret you must first
> >Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> >talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> observe. There certainly would at least be a relationship of sorts
> there.
>
> >See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> >terms is so corrosive?
>
> Except for the fact that it is the creationist who so often must
> >See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> >terms is so corrosive?
>
> redefine terms, as you appear to be doing here.
>
> >I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> >doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> >0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> >doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
>
> >I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> >doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> >0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> >doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
>
> I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> Recognizing that you are reality challenged, I suppose that this is
> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> all way over your head.
>
> >So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> >redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Yet another baseless non sequitur
> >So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> >redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
>
> >Whadda ya think?
>
> I think you're fucking clueless, but then what's new.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:36:25 PM UTC-4, A.Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
> <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> >proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> >citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> >Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> >"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> >because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> >the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> >crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> >legislation so as to make it constitutional.
> >
> >Sound familiar?
>
> Yes, it is not uncommon for a creationist's screed to include one non
> <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> >proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> >citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> >Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> >"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> >because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> >the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> >crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> >legislation so as to make it constitutional.
> >
> >Sound familiar?
>
> sequitur after another.
>
> >Let's review!
> >
> >What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> >fail by any traditional definition,
>
> Which is clearly reflected in the fact that it is almost universally
> >Let's review!
> >
> >What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> >fail by any traditional definition,
>
> accepted by the well educated and rejected mainly by uneducated
> fundamentalists.
>
> > it is creating an explanation for
> >phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> You left out the part where the explanation is supported by evidence.
> > it is creating an explanation for
> >phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> The ToE is well supported by an overwhelming supply of evidence. Funny
> you would leave out this crucial point. Is this because of your
> dishonesty or your ignorance? With creationists it is sometimes hard
> to tell.
>
> >Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> >talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> I suppose it could be claimed that to interpret you must first
> >Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> >talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> observe. There certainly would at least be a relationship of sorts
> there.
>
> >See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> >terms is so corrosive?
>
> Except for the fact that it is the creationist who so often must
> >See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> >terms is so corrosive?
>
> redefine terms, as you appear to be doing here.
>
> >I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> >doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> >0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> >doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
>
> >I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> >doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> >0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> >doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
>
> I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> Recognizing that you are reality challenged, I suppose that this is
> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> all way over your head.
>
> >So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> >redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Yet another baseless non sequitur
> >So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> >redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
>
> >Whadda ya think?
>
> I think you're fucking clueless, but then what's new.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:36:25 PM UTC-4, A.Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
> <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> >proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> >citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> >Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> >"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> >because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> >the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> >crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> >legislation so as to make it constitutional.
> >
> >Sound familiar?
>
> Yes, it is not uncommon for a creationist's screed to include one non
> <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> >proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> >citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> >Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> >"penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> >because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> >the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> >crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> >legislation so as to make it constitutional.
> >
> >Sound familiar?
>
> sequitur after another.
>
> >Let's review!
> >
> >What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> >fail by any traditional definition,
>
> Which is clearly reflected in the fact that it is almost universally
> >Let's review!
> >
> >What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> >fail by any traditional definition,
>
> accepted by the well educated and rejected mainly by uneducated
> fundamentalists.
>
> > it is creating an explanation for
> >phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> You left out the part where the explanation is supported by evidence.
> > it is creating an explanation for
> >phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
>
> The ToE is well supported by an overwhelming supply of evidence. Funny
> you would leave out this crucial point. Is this because of your
> dishonesty or your ignorance? With creationists it is sometimes hard
> to tell.
>
> >Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> >talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> I suppose it could be claimed that to interpret you must first
> >Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> >talk.origins's preeminent troll.
>
> observe. There certainly would at least be a relationship of sorts
> there.
>
> >See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> >terms is so corrosive?
>
> Except for the fact that it is the creationist who so often must
> >See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> >terms is so corrosive?
>
> redefine terms, as you appear to be doing here.
>
> >I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> >doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> >0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> >doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
>
> >I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> >doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> >0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> >doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
>
> I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> Recognizing that you are reality challenged, I suppose that this is
> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> all way over your head.
>
> >So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> >redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Yet another baseless non sequitur
> >So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> >redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
>
> >Whadda ya think?
>
> I think you're fucking clueless, but then what's new.
Frank J
Jun 30, 2012, 8:17:51 AM6/30/12
to
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:02:50 PM UTC-4, RAM wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:21 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> > proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> > citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> > Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> > "penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> > because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> > the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> > crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> > legislation so as to make it constitutional.
> >
> > Sound familiar?
> >
> > Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> > proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> > citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> > Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> > "penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> > because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes. So
> > the august jurist is saying that he's not there to protect us from
> > crappy legislation, but he is there to unilaterally rewrite
> > legislation so as to make it constitutional.
> >
> > Sound familiar?
> >
> > Let's review!
> >
> > What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> > fail by any traditional definition, it is creating an explanation for
> >
> > What is science? According to Darwinists, whose pet hypothesis would
> > phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
> >
> >
> > Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> > talk.origins's preeminent troll.
> >
> > talk.origins's preeminent troll.
> >
> > See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> > terms is so corrosive? I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> > doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> > 0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> > doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
> >
> > 0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> > doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
> >
> > So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> > redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
> >
> > redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
> >
> > Whadda ya think?
>
> Prawnsie engaging in immature trolling that contains the Dunning–
> Kruger prototype of cognitive bias which further demonstrates his
> limited intellectual skills.
>
>
> Prawnsie engaging in immature trolling that contains the Dunning–
> Kruger prototype of cognitive bias which further demonstrates his
> limited intellectual skills.
>
> This Dunning-Kruger clown will never understand why he is viewed they
> way he is. Thus TO will be the recipients of more empty rhetoric and
> bombast. We can only hope he tires and finds more fertile cyber sites.
Alt.talk.creationism is certainly more his speed. But why *hope* when we can take action by keeping the feeding to a minimum?
> way he is. Thus TO will be the recipients of more empty rhetoric and
> bombast. We can only hope he tires and finds more fertile cyber sites.
Frank J
Jun 30, 2012, 8:12:35 AM6/30/12
to
> pissing in public.
>
> Boikat
Actually it's Ray's dictionary. So is the troll paying Ray a tax or a penalty for using it?
Frank J
Jun 30, 2012, 10:00:07 AM6/30/12
to
Attila
Jun 30, 2012, 11:55:28 AM6/30/12
to
but maybe you've had a bad day. I am relieved to learn that you will
never seek medical treatment. I hope you encourage all your like-minded
friends to make the same choice. You are certainly contributing to make
the world a better place. Praise Darwin! :)
Attila
Jun 30, 2012, 12:00:40 PM6/30/12
to
I believe the figures you cite refer to the United States. Is that
correct? My impression is that the percentage of evolution doubters is
considerably smaller in other countries.
Attila
Jun 30, 2012, 12:19:56 PM6/30/12
to
Rolf wrote:
<snip>
a conference in Tromsø using skype and sitting at my desk in Gorizia. It
was not as much fun as being there but it worked quite well.
<snip>
>> Whadda ya think?
>
> I don't think. Don't have to. Retired, 82, and living in Norway.
I'm 70 retired and living in Italy. I just gave a paper electronically at
>
> I don't think. Don't have to. Retired, 82, and living in Norway.
a conference in Tromsø using skype and sitting at my desk in Gorizia. It
was not as much fun as being there but it worked quite well.
RAM
Jun 30, 2012, 12:22:44 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 11:55 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
Droid. No communication is possible; his anal cavity blocks his
communication.
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
You are replying to the archetype of a Dunning-Kruger Tea Party
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Droid. No communication is possible; his anal cavity blocks his
communication.
Mark Isaak
Jun 30, 2012, 1:15:35 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/29/12 7:10 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 06/29/2012 10:01 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 10:11 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> On 06/29/2012 12:41 AM, RAM wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 10:28 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 06/28/2012 11:02 PM, RAM wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 28, 4:21 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
>>>>>>> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whadda ya think?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Prawnsie engaging in immature trolling that contains the Dunning–
>>>>>> Kruger prototype of cognitive bias which further demonstrates his
>>>>>> limited intellectual skills.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this place suffers from too much focus on US events, like
>>>>> Obama's health care victory. For balance we should speculate which of
>>>>> these pending outbreaks erupts first:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-china-southchinasea-...
> On 06/29/2012 10:01 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 10:11 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> On 06/29/2012 12:41 AM, RAM wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 10:28 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 06/28/2012 11:02 PM, RAM wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 28, 4:21 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
>>>>>>> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whadda ya think?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Prawnsie engaging in immature trolling that contains the Dunning–
>>>>>> Kruger prototype of cognitive bias which further demonstrates his
>>>>>> limited intellectual skills.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this place suffers from too much focus on US events, like
>>>>> Obama's health care victory. For balance we should speculate which of
>>>>> these pending outbreaks erupts first:
>>>>>
>>>>> or:
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-turkey-...
>>>>
>>>> Very good points. We Americans do tend to be extremely parochial and
>>>> egocentric. When China starts asserting territorial rights with armed
>>>> militias we will be experiencing the turmoil and hate of how others
>>>> view our land grabs.
>>>
>>> For me it only underscores the question: Why did the US believe in
>>> falling dominoes?
>>
>> Are you kidding? Falling dominoes are *fun*! Of course USians would
>> believe in them.
>
> But are nations just dominoes?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Vietnam
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Vietnam_relations
Doesn't matter. The name is cool, and THAT is what matters.
>>>> Very good points. We Americans do tend to be extremely parochial and
>>>> egocentric. When China starts asserting territorial rights with armed
>>>> militias we will be experiencing the turmoil and hate of how others
>>>> view our land grabs.
>>>
>>> For me it only underscores the question: Why did the US believe in
>>> falling dominoes?
>>
>> Are you kidding? Falling dominoes are *fun*! Of course USians would
>> believe in them.
>
> But are nations just dominoes?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Vietnam
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Vietnam_relations
chris thompson
Jun 30, 2012, 12:30:45 PM6/30/12
to
Chris
Bob Casanova
Jun 30, 2012, 1:57:09 PM6/30/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:34:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:
>I know essentially nothing at all, like most bigots.
There; fixed it for ya.
You're welcome.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:
>I know essentially nothing at all, like most bigots.
There; fixed it for ya.
You're welcome.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
prawnster
Jun 30, 2012, 7:28:42 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 4:53 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [...]
constitutional, there is no greater activism. He did something that
it is utterly unconstitutional: he acted as a legislator, not as a
jurist.
I have heard Mr. Medved's radio program, and he's a twinkletoes. If
Brock Hussein Kardashian told him to spread his cheeks upon penalty of
$5 extra taxation, Mr. Medved would do so with glee, saying "As it
were, so to speak, if you will, per se" as Hussein gave him the pole
up dry, up high, and to the right.
The aforementioned august jurist, Oye Oye, basically concluded that
the government may force anyone to do anything as long as they tax
everyone for not doing that thing. The aforementioned august jurist
thus granted AmeriKKKa's federal government unlimited powers. I'm
sure you're a flaming leftwing queerbait, but tell me why you would
support something like this. Why do you want to grant the federal
government unlimited powers? Do you desire that men control you
utterly? Tell me all about your desire to be dictated to by other
men, Frankie.
> [...]
> Anti-evolution activist and DI fellow Michael Medved praised Justice Roberts for not being an "activist" judge. What do *you* think about that?
When an august jurist unilaterally rewrites a law so as to make it
constitutional, there is no greater activism. He did something that
it is utterly unconstitutional: he acted as a legislator, not as a
jurist.
I have heard Mr. Medved's radio program, and he's a twinkletoes. If
Brock Hussein Kardashian told him to spread his cheeks upon penalty of
$5 extra taxation, Mr. Medved would do so with glee, saying "As it
were, so to speak, if you will, per se" as Hussein gave him the pole
up dry, up high, and to the right.
The aforementioned august jurist, Oye Oye, basically concluded that
the government may force anyone to do anything as long as they tax
everyone for not doing that thing. The aforementioned august jurist
thus granted AmeriKKKa's federal government unlimited powers. I'm
sure you're a flaming leftwing queerbait, but tell me why you would
support something like this. Why do you want to grant the federal
government unlimited powers? Do you desire that men control you
utterly? Tell me all about your desire to be dictated to by other
men, Frankie.
Free Lunch
Jun 30, 2012, 8:36:02 PM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:28:42 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jun 30, 4:53 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Anti-evolution activist and DI fellow Michael Medved praised Justice
>> Roberts for not being an "activist" judge. What do *you* think about that?
>
>When an august jurist unilaterally rewrites a law so as to make it
>constitutional, there is no greater activism. He did something that
>it is utterly unconstitutional: he acted as a legislator, not as a
>jurist.
He did not rewrite anything.
>I have heard Mr. Medved's radio program, and he's a twinkletoes. If
>Brock Hussein Kardashian told him to spread his cheeks upon penalty of
>$5 extra taxation, Mr. Medved would do so with glee, saying "As it
>were, so to speak, if you will, per se" as Hussein gave him the pole
>up dry, up high, and to the right.
You are really an evil racist. Medved is a disgusting reactionary, but
you are far worse than that evil fool.
>The aforementioned august jurist, Oye Oye, basically concluded that
>the government may force anyone to do anything as long as they tax
>everyone for not doing that thing. The aforementioned august jurist
>thus granted AmeriKKKa's federal government unlimited powers. I'm
>sure you're a flaming leftwing queerbait, but tell me why you would
>support something like this. Why do you want to grant the federal
>government unlimited powers? Do you desire that men control you
>utterly? Tell me all about your desire to be dictated to by other
>men, Frankie.
Your ignorance of the law is noted. Whoever wrote your talking points
appears to hate the United States.
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jun 30, 4:53 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Anti-evolution activist and DI fellow Michael Medved praised Justice
>> Roberts for not being an "activist" judge. What do *you* think about that?
>
>When an august jurist unilaterally rewrites a law so as to make it
>constitutional, there is no greater activism. He did something that
>it is utterly unconstitutional: he acted as a legislator, not as a
>jurist.
>I have heard Mr. Medved's radio program, and he's a twinkletoes. If
>Brock Hussein Kardashian told him to spread his cheeks upon penalty of
>$5 extra taxation, Mr. Medved would do so with glee, saying "As it
>were, so to speak, if you will, per se" as Hussein gave him the pole
>up dry, up high, and to the right.
you are far worse than that evil fool.
>The aforementioned august jurist, Oye Oye, basically concluded that
>the government may force anyone to do anything as long as they tax
>everyone for not doing that thing. The aforementioned august jurist
>thus granted AmeriKKKa's federal government unlimited powers. I'm
>sure you're a flaming leftwing queerbait, but tell me why you would
>support something like this. Why do you want to grant the federal
>government unlimited powers? Do you desire that men control you
>utterly? Tell me all about your desire to be dictated to by other
>men, Frankie.
appears to hate the United States.
Frank J
Jul 1, 2012, 10:12:55 AM7/1/12
to
But thanks for a rare criticism of one of the leaders of the "big tent" strategy that is your only long-range hope for keeping the "masses" fooled about evolution.
A.Carlson
Jul 1, 2012, 10:27:28 PM7/1/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:34:02 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
>> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
>> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
>> outcomes at much lower prices.
>>
>> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
>> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>>
>
>I know, Mr. Carlson, that you want me to pay for your weekly HIV
>treatments because you like it high, dry, and tight in your rectum,
>but I'm not sure why this is my responsibility.
Not surprisingly you've got it wrong on multiple points. I presently
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
>> creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
>> developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
>> outcomes at much lower prices.
>>
>> Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
>> developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>>
>
>I know, Mr. Carlson, that you want me to pay for your weekly HIV
>treatments because you like it high, dry, and tight in your rectum,
>but I'm not sure why this is my responsibility.
have no pressing need for medical treatment although preventative
diagnostics, such as an occasional colonoscopy, may be a good idea at
my age. In this regard I certainly would not like it "high, dry, and
tight"!
Also, I have been covered by one type of medical plan or another for
my entire life and have even had to utilize it on occasion so you
would not have to pay for anything on any schedule with regard to me.
Because I am covered neither will I. This is good for everyone
because otherwise others (including yourself) would have ended up
covering my costs one way or another if I were to have sought remedy
in an emergency room without coverage.
>I don't go to the
>hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment.
others drive up the cost for everyone else to the point where the cost
of goods and services from businesses and individuals that you may
very well buy from are adversely affected. Or do you also avoid
dealing with anyone who has ever gone to the hospital themselves?
>Except for
>surgeons, all physicians are just know-nothing idiots who stand around
>taking credit for the healing powers God wrote into our DNA.
infectious diseases, remove cancerous tumors, somehow magically rid us
of kidney stones and gallstones, treat a gunshot wound or any other
type of serious wound for that matter, reattach a severed appendage...
>So fatboy grayballs like yourself who enjoy it up the ass and, as a
>consequence, get sick all the time and, thus, need chronic treatment
>for your diabetes and various venereal diseases should just pay for
>your own sins, and stop employing government force to take money away
>from people like me to pay for your weakness, cowardice, and
>debauchery.
should be of concern to all. When someone is infectious and does not
seek proper medical attention it puts us all in jeopardy. Or are you
also so naive to actually believe that this invisible sky fairy of
yours somehow magically shields you from infections of others?
>You're just a loser, Mr. Carlson. That's why you love it when the
>government, with all of its violent power, takes things away from
>winners and gives it to you.
Among the developed nations we have one of the most costly and least
effective medical systems in the world. Those countries that have a
non-profit single payer system have better outcomes at lower costs.
Even though the up-front costs may be a bit high and may even be paid
through taxes, the overall medical costs, taxes included, ends up
being lower and the quality of life for such a society (are you
familiar with this term?) is increased.
Kermit
Jul 2, 2012, 5:55:11 PM7/2/12
to
On Jun 29, 7:34 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
> > creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> > developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> > outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> > Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> > developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> I know, Mr. Carlson, that you want me to pay for your weekly HIV
> treatments because you like it high, dry, and tight in your rectum,
> but I'm not sure why this is my responsibility.
Why do you want to pay more for less reliable care? US wingnuts are
> On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > I would certainly hope that rational people (this probably leaves most
> > creationists out) recognize the fact that the vast majority of
> > developed countries rely on socialized medicine and have better
> > outcomes at much lower prices.
>
> > Are you even vaguely aware of how we compare to the rest of the
> > developed world regarding health care costs and comparative outcomes?
>
> I know, Mr. Carlson, that you want me to pay for your weekly HIV
> treatments because you like it high, dry, and tight in your rectum,
> but I'm not sure why this is my responsibility.
notorious for cutting their own throats rather than "paying for"
imaginary beneficiaries of their taxes.
> I don't go to the
> hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment.
taxes (or insurance premiums) will subsidize your medical ignorance
and personal issues. It is cheaper to treat treatable diseases and
other medical issues while they are still minor
< Except for
> surgeons, all physicians are just know-nothing idiots who stand around
> taking credit for the healing powers God wrote into our DNA.
curing about 50% of childhood leukemia, reattaching severed limbs, and
welding detached retinas? And why on Earth does he only fix people who
have access to modern medicine? And don't get me started on why he
waited so long to miraculously wiping out his creation smallpox...
>
> So fatboy grayballs like yourself who enjoy it up the ass and, as a
> consequence, get sick all the time and, thus, need chronic treatment
> for your diabetes and various venereal diseases should just pay for
> your own sins, and stop employing government force to take money away
> from people like me to pay for your weakness, cowardice, and
> debauchery.
version of gay sex?
Poverty and low education are the strongest markers for lifestyle-
induced chronic illnesses.
>
> You're just a loser, Mr. Carlson. That's why you love it when the
> government, with all of its violent power, takes things away from
> winners and gives it to you.
You do not use the public roads, enjoy the protection of police and
fire departments, use highly regulated utilities, buy food at the
supermarket knowing that it is reasonably safe, depend on the list of
ingredients on medicine labels, and check weather forecasts? At least
you are true to your principles regarding education; you clearly have
not used the resources in schools, libraries, museums, and such. But
I'm not sure your ignorance saves us money on the whole.
BTW, what do you think of the Militia Act of 1792?
Kermit
Ceorl Jones
Jul 2, 2012, 8:32:45 PM7/2/12
to
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:27:28 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
My topical response is minor; my major reason for responding
is to acknowledge your incredibly reasonable response to such
outrageous troll attack. A big tip 'o the hat.
>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:34:02 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
><zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>I don't go to the
>>hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment.
>
>First, I seriously doubt it.
Indeed. I cannot imagine that prawnster would refuse going to
the hospital emergency ward, were he to be involved in a motor vehicle
accident and as a result was suffering from several broken ribs and a
ruptured spleen.
--
Ceorl Jones
snorefoot @ Alpha Alpha Tango dot November Echo Tango
wrote:
My topical response is minor; my major reason for responding
is to acknowledge your incredibly reasonable response to such
outrageous troll attack. A big tip 'o the hat.
>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:34:02 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
><zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>I don't go to the
>>hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment.
>
>First, I seriously doubt it.
the hospital emergency ward, were he to be involved in a motor vehicle
accident and as a result was suffering from several broken ribs and a
ruptured spleen.
--
Ceorl Jones
snorefoot @ Alpha Alpha Tango dot November Echo Tango
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 3, 2012, 9:54:08 AM7/3/12
to
On Jun 29, 10:34 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I don't go to the hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment.
> Except for surgeons, all physicians are just know-nothing idiots who
> stand around taking credit for the healing powers God wrote into our DNA.
[snip]
You really should get that head injury treated.
[snip]
> I don't go to the hospital, ever. I will never seek medical treatment.
> Except for surgeons, all physicians are just know-nothing idiots who
> stand around taking credit for the healing powers God wrote into our DNA.
You really should get that head injury treated.
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 3, 2012, 10:11:30 AM7/3/12
to
On Jun 29, 10:23 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 7:51 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Looks to me like Justice Roberts did his job by recognizing the constitutionality of the congressional power to taks, whereas
> > the remaining 4 right wing appointees attempted to usurp the power of the
> > legislative branch through blatant judicial activism.
>
> > It is not the job of the court to rate the "quality of legislation",
> > only whether the legislation is consistent with the US Constitution, which
> > apparently Obamacare is. Deal with it.
>
> > [...]
> > They didn't redefine a "penalty as a tax". It was a tax all along.
>
> Obamacare only became consistent with the US constitution when the
> aforementioned august jurist rewrote the law. Writing law is not a
> power of the Supreme Kourt. His actions are illegal.
His actions are legal by definition. I would have thought you'd at
> On Jun 29, 7:51 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Looks to me like Justice Roberts did his job by recognizing the constitutionality of the congressional power to taks, whereas
> > the remaining 4 right wing appointees attempted to usurp the power of the
> > legislative branch through blatant judicial activism.
>
> > It is not the job of the court to rate the "quality of legislation",
> > only whether the legislation is consistent with the US Constitution, which
> > apparently Obamacare is. Deal with it.
>
> > [...]
> > They didn't redefine a "penalty as a tax". It was a tax all along.
>
> Obamacare only became consistent with the US constitution when the
> aforementioned august jurist rewrote the law. Writing law is not a
> power of the Supreme Kourt. His actions are illegal.
least know what "supreme" means.
> The language of the law nowhere contains the word "tax." The word
> "penalty" is used at all points. That it was "a tax all along" is
> something you and the august jurist imagine. It's nowhere in the
> law. Very much how you imagine that one creature becomes another.
> Very much how you confuse "imagination" with "observation."
Constitution; doesn't matter what the bill called it. Your unsurpising
ignorance of constitutional law is not a basis for an argument.
> It's time for you to go take your gummint meds, Mr. Wilkins: go grab
> your gummint Medicare tit and suck it dry, 0'bama buttboi.
writing.
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
Jul 3, 2012, 10:38:15 AM7/3/12
to
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:21:08 PM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
> Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
could you post in standard english. It makes your posts easier toread.
> Today one of AmeriKKKa's most august jurists -- Oye! Oye! --
> proclaimed that it is not the job of the Supreme Kourt to protect
> citizens from the consequences of crappy legislation passed by
> Kongress. This same jurist then went on to redefine the word
> "penalty" to mean "tax," and declared 0'bamacare constitutional
> because the federal gummint does have the power to collect taxes.
<snip repeat>
> Let's review!
>
> What is science?
> According to Darwinists,
(ie. evolutionary biologists)
> whose pet hypothesis would
> fail by any traditional definition,
> it is creating an explanation for
> phenomena and then convincing others that that explanation is true.
> Is interpretation the same as observation? Yes, according at least to
> talk.origins's preeminent troll.
> See how the need to have evolution regarded as science by redefining
> terms is so corrosive? I know that the atheo-Darwinists here are all
> doing a victory shuffle right now because their lord and savior Hussen
> 0'Bumster got his way, and now everyone in AmeriKKKa can go to the
> doctor for free free free every time they have the sniffles. Oh boy.
> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Whadda ya think?
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 3, 2012, 10:19:17 AM7/3/12
to
On Jun 30, 12:30 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
You notice that too? He isn't very good: when in trouble he's
incapable of anything creative and just spews out insults that would
bother him, not realizing they only amuse men secure in their
masculinity.
Mitchell
incapable of anything creative and just spews out insults that would
bother him, not realizing they only amuse men secure in their
masculinity.
Mitchell
gdgu...@gmail.com
Jul 3, 2012, 10:51:56 AM7/3/12
to
On Jun 28, 5:21 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Whadda ya think?
I think Backspace has been whispering to you while you sleep.
> So I will declare that the Supreme Kourt's unilateral decision to
> redefine "penalty" as "tax" is a consequence of Darwinism.
>
> Whadda ya think?
0 new messages