Science deniers banned on Reddit Science Forum

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 4:37:48 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 2:42:36 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 10:53:58 AM UTC-6, Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
Well, those rules are likely to seem quite obvious to rational people.
But they won't fly in much of the USA or in other countries where
people have a false notion of "exceptionalism." Please see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism.

Chris.B:
The Danes also share the American passion for flag waving. But, the Danes
have a much better flag. ;o) Simple, elegant, as bloody as their history and
straight to the point. Absolutely no frippery! Though both may still be made
in the same sweatshops. [The flags! Not the people. But you never know.]

Tribalism, jingoism, whatever you call it, it is mankind's greatest
curse. If it's in our genes, as many believe蟻 useless relic of the era
when our primate ancestors had to fight off neighboring clans or other
species for survival逆hen it is probably incurable. Ditto the scourge
or religious belief. We may be hard-wired for religion from the origins
of thinking primates when the only explanation for natural phenomena
was magic.

How do flag-burning protesters get their hands on "their sworn enemy's" flags
without being slaughtered by their own? Is there an officially authorized
online dealer in US and Danish flags in the Middle East? Are these flags
approved for burning without releasing nasty toxins? Wouldn't it be awful if
the US or Denmark were reported to the UN for poisoning the locals after a
nice bout of flag burning? Whatever next? ;o))

Is it legal to burn the Danish flag? Burning the U.S. flag in protest
is protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution in
the U.S.A. Of course, the First Amendment has many enemies among
knuckle-draggers, and they would like to either repeal it or gut it
with other amendments.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Trump appeals to knuckle draggers. See Horsey's latest cartoon:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topof...209-story.html

They're calling Trump a Fascist, which in Snell's upside down world means he is a socialist. Sumpin' doesn't jive .. mmmm... what could it be I wonder ....

Trump is not a fascist.

Max Boot, a right-leaning fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations went on Twitter to say that “ Trump is a fascist.� Jeb Bush’s national security advisor, John Noonan, chimed in and characterized Trump’s ideas as fascism. “Nothing else to call it,� he tweeted. Right-wing radio host Steve Deace labeled Trump’s subversion of religious liberty “creeping fascism.�

Your own boys are calling him fascist, sorry you lose. Have a merry

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 04:59:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 6:54:10 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:14:32 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

The First Amendment clearly doesn't equate political donations to free
speech, so there is plenty of room for reasonable interpretation there
(and for that interpretation to change over time).

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm glad to see you agree with me.

I DON'T agree with you. Political donations are citizens' expression of support for a candidate, or his party, or his platform. IOW, free speech, free press.

Well, I don't see anything in your reference that makes that case. So
it comes down to legal interpretation, which can and does change. So
I'm glad you agree with me.

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 4:59:28 AM UTC-8, wrote:

... Political donations are citizens' expression of support for a candidate, or his party, or his platform. IOW, free speech, free press.

So maybe we should just forget about elections altogether and just give the position to the guy who raises the most money. Gee, that would be the most realistic scenario, one in which a candidate buys his was to power...

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:53:50 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 04:59:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 6:54:10 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:14:32 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

The First Amendment clearly doesn't equate political donations to free
speech, so there is plenty of room for reasonable interpretation there
(and for that interpretation to change over time).

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm glad to see you agree with me.

I DON'T agree with you. Political donations are citizens' expression of support for a candidate, or his party, or his platform. IOW, free speech, free press.

Well, I don't see anything in your reference that makes that case. So
it comes down to legal interpretation, which can and does change. So
I'm glad you agree with me.

Snell: empty arguments with a similar blend of immature arrogance and out-of-the-blue, totally unsupported, condescension - liberally spiced with name-calling, of course.

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 1:29:19 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:54:41 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

... As for you, well calling me a liar means absolutely nothing when I thank God every day as I watch the stars come into view each 24 hours without even having to dwell on what is behind that sight.

But Gerald, I can do exactly the same thing, watching those same stars appear every 24 hours... except for the fact, as measured by a watch, that they each show up about 4 minutes earlier each day. You know this, right?

The closest thing to a term 'undead' as no spirit is present.

The dawn Sun or the evening stars as they come into view is a gift of the planet's rotation and today as society reaches intellectual nadir by promising to control planetary temperatures, I can say the opposition and challenge to the most basic fact imaginable for some stupid late 17th mistake take some absorbing as a decent human being.

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 10:42:21 AM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Max Boot, a right-leaning fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations went on Twitter to say that " Trump is a fascist." Jeb Bush's national security advisor, John Noonan, chimed in and characterized Trump's ideas as fascism. "Nothing else to call it," he tweeted. Right-wing radio host Steve Deace labeled Trump's subversion of religious liberty "creeping fascism."

Your own boys are calling him fascist, sorry you lose. Have a merry

(Do try to write complete sentences when attempting the communicate in English.)

Root (who?), Noonan (who?), and Deace (who?) are not "my boys," you leftist tool. No one cares what they say.

Have someone read to you this detailed explanation of why Trump ISN'T a fascist:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...-trump-fascism

Also note that your apparent eagerness to resort to violence marks you as quite the little fascist.

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 10:53:50 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 04:59:25 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 6:54:10 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:14:32 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

The First Amendment clearly doesn't equate political donations to free
speech, so there is plenty of room for reasonable interpretation there
(and for that interpretation to change over time).

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm glad to see you agree with me.

I DON'T agree with you. Political donations are citizens' expression of support for a candidate, or his party, or his platform. IOW, free speech, free press.

Well, I don't see anything in your reference that makes that case. So
it comes down to legal interpretation, which can and does change.

Incorrect. A group of people wish to communicate their displeasure with a particular candidate to the nation, prior to an election, and that candidate would prefer to use the power of government to silence them. That is an abridgement of free speech/press. That is quite easy for all to understand, you being the tragic exception.

So I'm glad you agree with me.

Idiot.

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 2:29:45 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 4:59:28 AM UTC-8, wrote:

... Political donations are citizens' expression of support for a candidate, or his party, or his platform. IOW, free speech, free press.

So maybe we should just forget about elections altogether and just give the position to the guy who raises the most money. Gee, that would be the most realistic scenario, one in which a candidate buys his was to power...

Your comment makes no sense. It is a strawman argument. The candidate who spends the most does not always win:

http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/d...ll-transcript/

Learn some logic, palsing.

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Snell: empty arguments with a similar blend of immature arrogance and out-of-the-blue, totally unsupported, condescension - liberally spiced with name-calling, of course.

Ugharoller: fascist tool, underdeveloped personality, prone to violence.

wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 2:29:45 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 4:59:28 AM UTC-8, wrote:

... Political donations are citizens' expression of support for a
candidate, or his party, or his platform. IOW, free speech, free press.

So maybe we should just forget about elections altogether and just give
the position to the guy who raises the most money. Gee, that would be
the most realistic scenario, one in which a candidate buys his was to power...

Your comment makes no sense. It is a strawman argument. The candidate
who spends the most does not always win:

http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/d...ll-transcript/

Learn some logic, palsing.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a6764396.html