Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Is the death of a child only wrong when murder is involved? I know you guys are out of ammo, but please try to at least make reasonable arguments.I'm only saying that it does not pertain to the argument at hand. A death can only be blamed on a person should that person have malicious intent. (Or just complete ineptitude, but that isn't ever the case in shootings).
Joining the shitstorm now:Can I just ask some questions?Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are & are making grand claims anyone questioning their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane.No, I'm not running from the truth.This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Do you think that all governments that have ever existed have been corrupt at some level?
Do you think that any governments that exist right now are not corrupt?
Do you think that a government can ever exist without corruption of some kind?
I'm right here!That could be applied to the whole "NO FUCKING ADMINS ON THIS SITE" problem, too.
So, would each side accept that if this experiment was performed:Shit, my internet died when this was being created, and it somehow posted it.
I thought we were all indoctrinated? And anyway, we don't decide that, as the people.In the 1960s, 5% of the USA's money was going to NASA. Now it's 0.4%.
Have you considered that the reason for the budget cuts is because people are tired of our money going to nothing?
I second this request.No, I think they would be the most qualified to know. IF you really wanted to know what it was you would ask them. But you don't really want to know, do you?That's your response to that entire post? Really? Are you trying to look like a troll?Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic?
So, you do not know what is in the pictures. At last...
I answered honestly. Would you prefer I make stuff up like you?
Dear Frenat, I truly appreciate your honesty. What you have so honestly written explains everything. Perhaps, for some reason you simply do not know or are not able to understand what is in the pictures and what does it mean.
Let me explain that to you. Look what you have written:
"Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic? Do you think any of us work with the Hubble?"
So, you apparently suppose that only people who "work with the Hubble" should know what is on the pics.
snip irrelevance...Or another example. What do you see in the following picture? It was recently discussed in this branch: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64959.msg1732829#msg1732829Point out the evidence of rain. edit a pic with marks pointing to it and post it. Can you think of anything else that can cause those marks? Is your theory falsifiable? Why is it YOU can easily spot it but those with years of training in Geology do not? Perhaps we should all go to the "Humble Scientist" school of Geology because apparently you know everything!
What I instantly saw were the obvious traces of a recent rain. A decent rain. Just look at those sandy spots and you see apparent traces left by recent streams of water. What I would say is:
Much like you do not have to work with the Hubble to see that those pictures are fake, -
you do not have to build a "rover" and a "spaceship" and send the "rover" to Mars to see that this NASA picture is fake. It can not be Mars, in RE terms. 'Cause (if I am not mistaken) the last rain on Mars, according to RE theory, happened about a billion years ago or so.
Do you understand that or you are going to defend that (c)NASA "rover" picture, too?
you see, I don't see channels where water has flowed. I don't see the loose soil more gathered in low areas but it appears to be evenly distributed among the picture with lines of pebbles that appear to be exposed by wind. I don't see vegetation or insects either. But I could be wrong and am DESPERATELY waiting for your annotated picture. Unlike some people I don't assume I'm right before I start.
