Search results

sparo: >The original statement is underspecified and deceptive. >If it were sufficiently precise, the answer would be >obvious. It's like a rorschach blot, everyone sees >something different because there's actually nothing there. Just one more point sparo -- Since seeing (and...

bump (because of references in original thread) JB

sparo: >The original statement is underspecified and deceptive. >If it were sufficiently precise, the answer would be >obvious. It's like a rorschach blot, everyone sees >something different because there's actually nothing there. (author of original statement unknown -- it was emailed...

Hoff: >Ron Paul is merely trying to be as careful as >possible when dealing with a very sensitive >and uncertain issue. And you know this how? One could believe that it is a states right issue for all sorts of reasons other than the above. He may be totally convinced that...

RP: >In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks >to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. Legislating morality will fail every time. >I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would >negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability >of federal courts...

This would be the Ztroll's Longshot imitation. LOL JB

LOL "You'd like to think that wouldn't you" (from one of my favorite movies) JB PS: at least the wheels of *my* car arrive with the rest of it. :-)

LOL. The zTroll attempting to sell a morph. JB

Of course he is, but I am one who believes that the statement of voting for someone who you *actually* respect is the most important thing. The rest are lousy establishment cookie cutter a-holes -- I've never voted for one of those in my life and I'm not gonna start now. At this point, I...

(Han, as a side note, the way you are using the quote feature -- including your comments inside the quote margins, make it difficult to locate your comments, and also make it look like I am the author of your work.) Me >With your concession that the scientifically validated >law of...

Me: >Please produce for me, some evidence to >support you're assertion that you know >what "my way of achieving peace" is. Wael: >No thank you! >I am not going to produce shit for you! Exactly -- and you can't. I've never stated or implied that I have a way of "achieving peace"...

JB3: >Jews and Arabs are literally brothers to each other. >Why so much hatred? My previously stated take: They have treated each other like crap for so long, they feel it's their *right* to treat each other like crap. JB

Ok, switched my vote. JB

Wael: >Even Reverend Tito and Jimmy Carter did not >have the full picture until they went there and >witnessed. Go fucking ask them what they think >of your way of achieving peace. Please produce for me, some evidence to support you're assertion that you know what "my way of achieving...

Me: >Can you state for a fact that you know >what media I do and do not review? Wael: >No I do not! Then by definition, the following statement of yours is a ignorant statement: >I am under occupation, my people are being >ethnically cleansed and my land is being stolen. >You...

H: >The laws of nature are not negotiable and >therefore not pertinent to our choosing (free will). With your concession that the scientifically validated law of gravity impinges not on free will, why believe that any other scientifically validated law/entity would be different? >Our...

bluud: >you implied it by the reason you replied not >your reply itself Me thinks you've been drinking. >and where did I state a specific act is >impossible or possible for God to perform? You (a few posts ago): >you can not prove God scientifically, that is to >say through...

The way it's set up now (assuming it was set up), there are plenty of "laws" in place that arguably limit free will -- gravity for instance. I still find plenty of "free will" options while obeying the law of gravity. I don't see how a scientifically proven god would imply a requirement...

>no it's pretty clear what you said; he could if he >wanted... Yes. >ya but saying that specially the way you said it, >would also mean that there is no reason to accept >him cause he isn't proving himself through science Yes, it would mean that -- that isn't in debate. What IS...

RP