Science deniers banned on Reddit Science Forum

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:20:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:39:33 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:19:33 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Hillary not only wants to try to violate the Constitution she wants to CHANGE the Bill of Rights for the worse! Dangerous.

The Bill of Rights could use some updating and revision.

Definitely NOT the sort that Clinton is proposing! Nor the sort which you probably favor either.

It's not a sacred document.

You moral relativism is showing, peterson.

You think that the Bill of Rights is sacred and unchangeable, not even
something which can be debated and discussed?

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:56:46 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:


Demagogues appealed directly to the emotions of the poor and uninformed,

Sounds like the Democrat debate a few weeks ago.

pursuing power,

Sounds like Clinton.

telling lies to stir up hysteria, exploiting crises to intensify
popular support for their calls to immediate action and increased authority,

Such as using Supreme Court rulings such as Citizens United vs FEC as a reason to gut the First Amendment, as Clinton wishes to do.

and
accusing moderate opponents of weakness or disloyalty to the nation.

Clinton has no moderate opponents, the Dems are all far left. Surely she will attack moderate Republicans (RINOs) for being weak.

It's a shame that you wasted so many words to say nothing, ugharoller. They just had to be deleted.

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 1:15:01 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:20:56 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:39:33 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:19:33 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Hillary not only wants to try to violate the Constitution she wants to CHANGE the Bill of Rights for the worse! Dangerous.

The Bill of Rights could use some updating and revision.

Definitely NOT the sort that Clinton is proposing! Nor the sort which you probably favor either.

It's not a sacred document.

You moral relativism is showing, peterson.

You think that the Bill of Rights is sacred and unchangeable, not even
something which can be debated and discussed?

Your fascism is showing too, peterson.

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:52:27 AM UTC-8, 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.

Learn to recognize sarcastic comments, Snell...

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:27:25 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:52:27 AM UTC-8, 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.

Learn to recognize sarcastic comments, Snell...

I did recognize some sarcasm in your reply to my comment, and I provided a reasonable response to it. Strawman arguments such as yours are commonly sarcastic.

Learn to use: "/begin sarcasm ..... /end sarcasm "

Also learn that free speech isn't simply about speaking and that free press isn't just about printed matter. Learn that restricting political expression, especially prior to an election, is a very dangerous thing.

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:56:46 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:


Demagogues appealed directly to the emotions of the poor and uninformed,

Sounds like the Democrat debate a few weeks ago.

pursuing power,

Sounds like Clinton.

telling lies to stir up hysteria, exploiting crises to intensify
popular support for their calls to immediate action and increased authority,

Such as using Supreme Court rulings such as Citizens United vs FEC as a reason to gut the First Amendment, as Clinton wishes to do.

and
accusing moderate opponents of weakness or disloyalty to the nation.

Clinton has no moderate opponents, the Dems are all far left. Surely she will attack moderate Republicans (RINOs) for being weak.

It's a shame that you wasted so many words to say nothing, ugharoller. They just had to be deleted.

Most intelligent people recognize what and who the demagogues are. They may enjoy them for the circus atmosphere that they bring and may be appalled by the lies, but in the end the voters of America do the right thing and reject them.
"Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population." Wiki - the above sure sounds like Trump, certainly not Clinton. She has advocated moderation, Trump wants to blast them to kingdom come. I have read many a Trump supporter advocating that we use Nukes to turn the Middle East desert, where DAESH rules, to glass.

"The Greek historian Polybius thought that democracies are inevitably undone by demagogues. He said that every democracy eventually decays into "a government of violence and the strong hand," leading to "tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments."" Wiki

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:13:45 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:56:46 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:


Demagogues appealed directly to the emotions of the poor and uninformed,

Sounds like the Democrat debate a few weeks ago.

pursuing power,

Sounds like Clinton.

telling lies to stir up hysteria, exploiting crises to intensify
popular support for their calls to immediate action and increased authority,

Such as using Supreme Court rulings such as Citizens United vs FEC as a reason to gut the First Amendment, as Clinton wishes to do.

and
accusing moderate opponents of weakness or disloyalty to the nation.

Clinton has no moderate opponents, the Dems are all far left. Surely she will attack moderate Republicans (RINOs) for being weak.

It's a shame that you wasted so many words to say nothing, ugharoller. They just had to be deleted.

Most intelligent people recognize what and who the demagogues are. They may enjoy them for the circus atmosphere that they bring and may be appalled by the lies, but in the end the voters of America do the right thing and reject them.
"Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population." Wiki - the above sure sounds like Trump, certainly not Clinton. She has advocated moderation, Trump wants to blast them to kingdom come. I have read many a Trump supporter advocating that we use Nukes to turn the Middle East desert, where DAESH rules, to glass.

"The Greek historian Polybius thought that democracies are inevitably undone by demagogues. He said that every democracy eventually decays into "a government of violence and the strong hand," leading to "tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments."" Wiki

Thoughtful people are endorsing Hillary:

"Billionaire Warren Buffett has long resisted calls to throw his massive wealth behind a campaign and even eschewed public rallies that would lend his vaunted reputation to a candidate. "He's always considered elections important," said Paul Landow, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, who has worked as a U.S. congressional aide, a state party leader and as chief of staff to the city's mayor. "But this year he really wants Hillary to win."

"Buffett started shifting his allegiance to Democrats decades ago. He has become more active as the Republican Party moved further to the right, according to a person familiar with his thinking"

"She has a vision for America that's very similar to mine in terms of everybody being included in the prosperity we enjoy."
Warren Buffett

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:58:12 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:27:25 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:52:27 AM UTC-8, 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.

Learn to recognize sarcastic comments, Snell...

I did recognize some sarcasm in your reply to my comment, and I provided a reasonable response to it. Strawman arguments such as yours are commonly sarcastic.

Learn to use: "/begin sarcasm ..... /end sarcasm "

Also learn that free speech isn't simply about speaking and that free press isn't just about printed matter. Learn that restricting political expression, especially prior to an election, is a very dangerous thing.

I made no argument, I clearly started with "so maybe..."

I must add, however, that I think these super PACs are essentially criminal...

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:13:45 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:

garbage deleted again

You were repeating yourself, ugharoller.

If you say a lie often enough it becomes the truth, eh?

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:20:58 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Thoughtful people are endorsing Hillary:

Thoughtless, selfish people are endorsing Hillary. (Fixed that for you.)


"Billionaire Warren Buffett has long resisted calls to throw his massive
wealth behind a campaign "But this year he really wants Hillary to win."

"She has a vision for America that's very similar to mine in terms of everybody being included in the prosperity we enjoy."
Warren Buffett

So, let's get this straight.... Hillary wants to muzzle Citizens United's messages against her by gutting the First Amendment, but her campaign benefiting from Buffett's money...that's somehow OK??

What a hypocrite!