NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
She commits about 10 logical fallacies per thread.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religious Liberty and the Nation
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
She commits about 10 logical fallacies per thread.
- Thread starter
- #42
6. "Senator Rubio could have talked about, say, George Washington’s farewell address. It is the speech in which Washington declared that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
He could have spoken about how Florida is first soil of refuge for the exiles from Castro’s communist regime, who comprehend the consequences of an officially atheistic state.
7. .... Kasich could have talked about the concept of accommodation. If we can accommodate conscientious objectors with a religious objection to killing, as we do in our selective service system and within our ranks, what is wrong with the civilian world that it finds similar accommodations of religious principle so difficult? In our homes, in our business, in our interpersonal relations, Americans accommodate all sorts of particularities.
8. Our simple point is that there is no need for Republican candidates to attack one another on this head. There is, though, a need to articulate the broad principles and to lament the way in which they have been ignored in the national debate. Particularly in the wake of the death of the justice of the Supreme Court who has been most associated with the first freedom in the Bill of Rights and after whom this freedom could — if America lacks for care — be dimmed."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
He could have spoken about how Florida is first soil of refuge for the exiles from Castro’s communist regime, who comprehend the consequences of an officially atheistic state.
7. .... Kasich could have talked about the concept of accommodation. If we can accommodate conscientious objectors with a religious objection to killing, as we do in our selective service system and within our ranks, what is wrong with the civilian world that it finds similar accommodations of religious principle so difficult? In our homes, in our business, in our interpersonal relations, Americans accommodate all sorts of particularities.
8. Our simple point is that there is no need for Republican candidates to attack one another on this head. There is, though, a need to articulate the broad principles and to lament the way in which they have been ignored in the national debate. Particularly in the wake of the death of the justice of the Supreme Court who has been most associated with the first freedom in the Bill of Rights and after whom this freedom could — if America lacks for care — be dimmed."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
1. In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country. Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.
More horseshit numbers from the queen of horseshit numbers.
Eighteenth Century Death Tolls
The only way you get NEAR 600K is if you throw in the Napoleonic Wars.
The accepted number for the Reign of Terror is about 40,000.
- Thread starter
- #44
1. In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country. Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.
More horseshit numbers from the queen of horseshit numbers.
Eighteenth Century Death Tolls
The only way you get NEAR 600K is if you throw in the Napoleonic Wars.
The accepted number for the Reign of Terror is about 40,000.
Too bad you never studied history.
Napoleon's wars alone would add some 3.5- 6.5 million deaths.
"The total death toll for the French Revolution is over 1,000,000."
Read more: What is the death toll of the French revolution
What is the death toll of the French revolution - ixzz1ejRVb3k8
Good thing you rely on me for your education, huh?
And...a bonus.....just so you never equate the French Revolution and the American Revolution....it is not just the vast difference in slaughter.
The former attempted to replace religion with reasons and science, hence sans morality, while the latter was book-ended with religious folks on both sides.
There's a lesson in that.
Last edited:
ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
- Thread starter
- #46
Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
"Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made?"
Post #13, you barnacle.
Starts with quotation marks, ends with quotation marks, and follows with the link.
The link you followed.
You must envy me so.
Now....I order you: follow every single post of mine!
Closely!!!
Or else!
- Thread starter
- #47
Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
BTW...."[Liberal judicial activism]" is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.
It is correct and accurate.
And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.
ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
So you are saying you provided the link 12 posts AFTER THE OP where the citation was made, but wasn't linked! Does that make any bloody sense to you, Chica? You're lying again to try and cover your ass. damn but you're not only dumb, but a dumb LIAR, too!Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
"Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made?"
Post #13, you barnacle.
Starts with quotation marks, ends with quotation marks, and follows with the link.
The link you followed.
You must envy me so.
Now....I order you: follow every single post of mine!
Closely!!!
Or else!
BTW, take your "order" and stick it where the sun don't shine, Chica!
ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
You tried that bullshit dodge before Chica. You substituted four words that the Chief Justice wrote with three words you inserted to change the meaning from Rehnquist's intent That turd still doesn't fly, Chica so way don't you just stop your lying. You do know you can be booted from this site for violations of the Fair Use Doctrine don't you IDIOT?Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
BTW...."[Liberal judicial activism]" is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.
It is correct and accurate.
And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.
< EDIT >
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
ZackB
Gold Member
- Banned
- #50
BAM!Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
- Thread starter
- #51
So you are saying you provided the link 12 posts AFTER THE OP where the citation was made, but wasn't linked! Does that make any bloody sense to you, Chica? You're lying again to try and cover your ass. damn but you're not only dumb, but a dumb LIAR, too!Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
"Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made?"
Post #13, you barnacle.
Starts with quotation marks, ends with quotation marks, and follows with the link.
The link you followed.
You must envy me so.
Now....I order you: follow every single post of mine!
Closely!!!
Or else!
BTW, take your "order" and stick it where the sun don't shine, Chica!
Learn to read....
....and keep being jealous.
Last edited:
ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
Really weak there, Chica. Nothing at all wrong with my reading skills. There is a definite flaw in your integrity though, Chica! That has been proven over and over again by a good number of folks on this board. You are nothing but a narcissistic, LYING want to be trying to impress others to boost your own self-image, along with this:So you are saying you provided the link 12 posts AFTER THE OP where the citation was made, but wasn't linked! Does that make any bloody sense to you, Chica? You're lying again to try and cover your ass. damn but you're not only dumb, but a dumb LIAR, too!Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun
Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
"Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made?"
Post #13, you barnacle.
Starts with quotation marks, ends with quotation marks, and follows with the link.
The link you followed.
You must envy me so.
Now....I order you: follow every single post of mine!
Closely!!!
Or else!
BTW, take your "order" and stick it where the sun don't shine, Chica!
Learn to read.
pseudointellectual:
noun
1.
a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship.
2.
a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.
adjective
3.
of, relating to, or characterized by fraudulent intellectuality; unscholarly:
the definition of pseudointellectual
Too bad you never studied history.
Napoleon's wars alone would add some 3.5- 6.5 million deaths.
"The total death toll for the French Revolution is over 1,000,000."
That would be putting all the blame on Napoleon and not the monarchies that formed coalition after coalition in attempts to stop those crazy ideas like equality and liberty.
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
^ that PoliticalSpiceAnother Missive from the Moonie Mail Order Bride Manifesto!!!
You do realize that the reason why we have a Southern Baptist Convention was because back in the Oldy Days, the Northern Baptists were for ending slavery and the Southern Baptists weren't, right?
While you can say some admirable things about the Churches that got on the right side of history on race, the fact is, most of them kept out of it or supported the racists.
If you need an imaginary monster in the sky to keep you from going on an orgy of murder and pillage, I'm glad you have those superstitions, but they aren't a requirement.
/end thread
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
I told her about using the NY Sun as a source. Its akin to using The Daily Caller as a source 
She needs her meds upped AGAIN
She needs her meds upped AGAIN
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Amendment #1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Well, to be fair, the Judicial Branch was the one who "made" the law establishing the Church of LGBT as a dominant official national religion...or else!... Congress had nothing to do with that.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,524
- 15,127
- 2,180
The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."
Amendment #1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Well, to be fair, the Judicial Branch was the one who "made" the law establishing the Church of LGBT as a dominant official national religion...or else!... Congress had nothing to do with that.
Except that they didn't. And there's no such 'church'. The court merely found that denying same sex couples marriage violates the constitution.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The population of the US at the time of the Civil War was about 31 million. And at least 600,000 died in that war, possibly a third more than that. That was the cost of not living up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence.
Today's editorial from the NYSun focuses on a topic largely hidden by the main stream media, and corrupted by the judicial system.
1. Prior to our 32nd President evincing his disrespect and disregard for minorities, by making his very first selection for the Supreme Court an official of the KKK, it was accepted that this nation was founded on a religious basis....
....after all, ...
The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
Our revolution included the American Civil War. Are you saying that wasn't violent?
How many slaveowners were 'orthodox Trinitarian Christians'?
1. In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country. Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.
a. "That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equalivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years."
Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.
2. One can hardly count only the massacre at the Bastille...or only the 'Terror'...or omit the fact of the wars that resulted from the other European monarchies attempting to put the cork back in the bottle.
Napoleon's wars alone would add some 3.5- 6.5 million deaths.
"The total death toll for the French Revolution is over 1,000,000."
Read more: What is the death toll of the French revolution
What is the death toll of the French revolution - ixzz1ejRVb3k8
BTW.....that's an example of an erudite post.
Learn from it.
Hardly. Quoting what others have written while adding nothing to the information quoted is not indicative of anything.
Having the intellect to extrapolate the information contained in the post and apply it to similar situations or to use it to propose solutions to problems presented, would be indicative of strong reasoning ability. None of which you have presented within the context is this or any other thread you've posted.
Well, to be fair, the Judicial Branch was the one who "made" the law establishing the Church of LGBT as a dominant official national religion...or else!... Congress had nothing to do with that.
Hey, I bet you are upset you can't burn witches anymore like the bible says to, either.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 130
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 243
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 286
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 144
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 53
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 85
- Replies
- 182
- Views
- 884
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8281
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 476
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-