Search results

I don't know about Zell Miller (whether he's truthful or not) but I know for a fact that Lieberman is a liar.

If calling a liar a liar is personal attack, then let it be. You claim to be a democrat but never pass on an opportunity to attack democrats, and never agree with any democrats on issues. I'll keep pointing that out until you stop claiming yourself as a democrat.

I find your argument very disingenuous. First, dismissing the USA's in the middle of a term is unprecedented (ie never been done before). Second, the WH lied about the reason. Now, if it were perfectly ok to do so, why did they lie about it before anyone asked quesions? And for you, when the...

In other words, the congress should relinquish their role of oversight and allow the president to do whatever he pleases. You might as well ask for a king.

Not much. If he can play a good president, then he can be a good one.:)

The Pope is out of his mind. Vindictive justice is not compatible with the God of love and compassion revealed in the New Testament. An eternal Hell also contradicts the Christian assertion of the final victory of God over evil.

You didn't even have a point. You don't know why you're pathetic? For a self-proclaimed libertarian to defend a bunch of liars based on the reasoning that the president needs more power, is truly pathetic.

This is the kind of pathetic response from the wingnuts I was talking about. They blame everyone else except themselves for their lies. This one even lies about his party affiliation.

At least you're making progress. This is the first post that you didn't make a single spelling error. Hooray! Your misrepresentation of others is well documented in this thread. I was merely reminding you that fact, not trying to prove it here. Calling others names is not an effective defense.

I'm amazed that you can pretend that the thousands of posts in this thread just didn't happen. I guess that's one of the surviving skills of the ID proponents. This post below summarized it pretty well:

Is this mistake of yours deliberate or you have problem understanding English?

Are false profits incurred only in paper trading? :D

You know you're losing an argument when you resort to swearing...:D I don't have time to refute the same discredited claims you made again. Just a simple thing. If you say that "these scientists" made an inference of design based on overwhelming evidence, show us the evidence. After...

This is rather disingenuous. For some one claiming to be in the Beltway he doesn't know that Webb opposes gun control. Where is his brain?

This is totally groundless. Fifth amendment cannot be invoked simply because one might perjure oneself. "Self-incrimination" only applies to testimony of past actions, not the testimony itself.

What, you didn't even read z10's post? Here's the link again (copied from z10): http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/308/308lect01.htm A PRIMER ON INFERENCE "In the end, there are usually more correlates than causes, and one cannot control everything. Causality is always an inference. This...

Not all proofs are direct. When evidence is direct you have a direct proof. This post by z10 answers your question pretty well: A scientific inference must be based on overwhelming evidence, because we never know everything. Only when the sample size is large enough, we can reduce the...

It's not the lying that's pathetic, it's defending the lies by saying that Clinton lied too. That's really pathetic. I don't recall anyone defending Clinton by saying that Reagan did it too.

You're still parading around as a fake democrat? Nobody even voted for that option except yourself in your poll. Stop pretending and get real. You're a real loser.

The price is your soul. :D