Respect for Liz Chaney and Kizinger

[7djengo7]

I see why you seek to silence him.

LOL

I've silenced both you and your proud rival for the title, "greatest poser ever," aka @User Name, simply by asking you questions about stuff you have posted on TOL.

For example, User Name had written this in a pathetic attempt to fight against bad publicity garnered by your beloved COVID19 shots:

I've already researched many of those claims and found them to be lies. Most were in fact unvaccinated and a number of them occurred prior to 2020--before the vaccines and COVID itself had even hit.

So, I asked him why he troubles himself with what he calls "researching" claims leveled against your beloved COVID19 shots:

Why bother? You've already taken the shots, right? What benefit can you possibly derive from now researching a product you've already bought and cannot return, even if you want to return it? Are you just doing whatever you can in hope of consoling yourself against buyer's remorse?

User Name has thus far not said a word to me since I asked him these questions, preferring instead to remain silent against them. Why is that?

Also, in my post, #197, I asked User Name some questions about a false claim he had made, against which questions, also, your shameless, lying comrade has thus far chosen to silently stonewall. Why won't he answer the questions I've asked him, Skeeter?

 

[Skeeter]

Then according to your definition people that believe in life after death are more scientifically minded.

I do not see that at all.

Why? How are scientists better equipped to evaluate whether there is a deity or not relative to any other scientifically minded person? They aren't.

They understand science more thoroughly, and recognizes that empiricism leads to vastly more predictability in the biological and physical world than religion ever has.

But we do know a couple things. First, philosophically, a deity is more likely. You can't even argue against this without having to justify the origin of logic and reason - something outside science.

Actually that is very weak sauce. An understanding of abstract concepts is the interaction of the regular predictable physical world and our pretty little notions.

But even further, study of the natural world disproves the idea of common descent, which is consistent with the bible.

Not!

That is not what a theocracy is. See? It wasn't blatant drivel - you learned something.

I learned something when others said the only theocracy they support would be when when Jesus returns. That makes some sense.

Your definition of theocracy is flawed as there are no deities so a theocracy cannot actually exist. A better definition includes a society that believes that the people in charge are divinely informed and thus have authoritym.

Firstly , your definition doesn't make sense since voting changes the structure of government.

No, it doesn't. Anything voted on that violates the Constitution is void. You define structure too broadly.

Do you see where the two sets of people in your definition are not exclusive in the US? To make it even clearer, there are no religious people calling for the US to no longer be a republic.

Market and JR live in the United States.

Secondly, people that want the church to have a say in government could very well be proposing freedom, not theocracy. It's a very muddy subject since it's hard to be sure of intentions and what exactly constitutes a church or where a state begins or ends. To say "the government cannot dictate what religion people are supposed to be" is worlds different from saying "religious people are allowed to implement their opinion on governmental policy as much as non-religious/differently-religious people". Framing the topic as "the separation of church and state" should be avoided because of its ambiguity.

Maybe.

But that is not what religious people in the US are doing today. The vast majority of religious people don't claim to speak for God at all. The vast majority of Christians take the bible as history and attempt to learn from it to implement political policy along with any other aspect of life.

Perhaps we can get a clearer idea of your theocracy fears if we get an example of what governmental structure you think Christians are trying to change to make a theocracy.

People are substituting evident truth with what they wish to be true in election results. Trump actively tried to continue his presidency even though he lost.

 

[7djengo7]

Your definition of theocracy is flawed as there are no deities so a theocracy cannot actually exist.

Is God not a deity?

 

[Gary K]

Is God not a deity?

Since he's an atheist of course he says God doesn't exist. He doesn't believe in any divine creatures. That's why he's so screwed up.

 

[ok doser]

Since he's an atheist of course he says God doesn't exist. He doesn't believe in any divine creatures. That's why he's so screwed up.

Didn't realize he was an atheist. That's a special kind of stupid.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Gateway Pundit reports on a different young, vaccinated healthy athlete dropping on the field from a sudden heart condition all the time. It used to make national headlines if a young athlete dropped on the field. Today, it's so common the mainstream media doesn't even report it, or refuses to (until they can figure out a way to blame it on Trump). Then it will suddenly become a national crisis.

The Gateway Pundit doesn't "report" on anything. It prints a whole load of unsustainable bunk to a select audience that are too gullible/brainwashed/thick to question the veracity of anything it claims - namely the North American far right...

 

[Right Divider]

The Gateway Pundit doesn't "report" on anything. It prints a whole load of unsustainable bunk to a select audience that are too gullible/brainwashed/thick to question the veracity of anything it claims - namely the North American far right...

Again you make a claim with no argument to support it.
Prove it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again you make a claim with no argument to support it.
Prove it.

The onus isn't on me to disprove a claim made from a discredited rag that plies its stock in trade with conspiracy rubbish. It's on those who are dumb enough to buy into it to corroborate it. Care to give it a whirl?

 

[Right Divider]

The onus isn't on me to disprove a claim made from a discredited rag that plies its stock in trade with conspiracy rubbish.

You claimed that they are posting things that are not true. So YES, it is up to you to prove that claim.

It's on those who are dumb enough to buy into it to corroborate it. Care to give it a whirl?

You are as dumb as a box of rocks.

If YOU make a CLAIM.... YOU need to support it. It's just that simple.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You claimed that they are posting things that are not true. So YES, it is up to you to prove that claim.

You are as dumb as a box of rocks.

If YOU make a CLAIM.... YOU need to support it. It's just that simple.

The Gateway Pundit is well established for posting unsubstantiated nonsense. I'm not in the habit of giving credence to discredited rags that promote complete bunk. If you're one of those who buy into any given site sans verifiable corroboration then you can take your oh so predictable third grade insult and apply it directly to yourself. You can also shout a bit more while you're at it. Some of us get our news from non bat crazy sources thanks.

 

[Right Divider]

The Gateway Pundit is well established for posting unsubstantiated nonsense.

Again, a CLAIM WITHOUT SUPPORT.

I'm not in the habit of giving credence to discredited rags that promote complete bunk.

Again, a CLAIM WITHOUT SUPPORT.

If you're one of those who buy into any given site sans verifiable corroboration then you can take your oh so predictable third grade insult and apply it directly to yourself. You can also shout a bit more while you're at it. Some of us get our news from non bat crazy sources thanks.

You are a LOSER that makes CLAIMS without SUPPORT.

Put up or shut up.

 

[7djengo7]

The Gateway Pundit is well established for posting unsubstantiated nonsense. I'm not in the habit of giving credence to discredited rags that promote complete bunk. If you're one of those who buy into any given site sans verifiable corroboration then you can take your oh so predictable third grade insult and apply it directly to yourself. You can also shout a bit more while you're at it. Some of us get our news from non bat crazy sources thanks.

All you are doing, here, is reasserting the claim you asserted before, which you admitted you cannot prove. Also, I see you're still shouting. You really should tone it down, Arthur Brain.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again, a CLAIM WITHOUT SUPPORT.

Again, a CLAIM WITHOUT SUPPORT.

You are a LOSER that makes CLAIMS without SUPPORT.

Put up or shut up.

Of course it's supported. Not that anyone grounded in reality should need a link after seeing their joke of a website but here ya go:

The Gateway Pundit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

May as tell me that the onus is on me to disprove any given claim by anyone out in la-la land. Hey, my next door neighbour claims to have seen a unicorn on his shed. The guy down the street claims to have invented a computer made out of jelly etc...Get real.

Oh, and you're such a winner is that it, or given how childish you're being maybe just change that to whiner.

The onus is not on the person criticizing outlandish claims but on those who make or support them, ya know, a bit like Alex Jones & Sandy Hook by way of example.

 

[Arthur Brain]

All you are doing, here, is reasserting the claim you asserted before, which you admitted you cannot prove. Also, I see you're still shouting. You really should tone it down, Arthur Brain.

Oh dear, are you a TGP reader?

 

[7djengo7]

Oh dear, are you a TGP reader?

Calm down, Arthur Brain. No need for you to keep shouting.

Do you mean have I ever read anything by TGP?

And why are you trying to change the subject? Because you've been asked by @Right Divider and me to prove your claim about TGP, and, since you know you cannot do so, you want to try to shift attention away from your glaring failure and inability to do so. Sorry, Arthur Brain, but your over and over repetition of your claim has not proved, and never shall prove your claim.

 

[Right Divider]

Of course it's supported. Not that anyone grounded in reality should need a link after seeing their joke of a website but here ya go:

The Gateway Pundit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, Wikipedia ... the gold standard for fact finding and integrity.

May as tell me that the onus is on me to disprove any given claim by anyone out in la-la land. Hey, my next door neighbour claims to have seen a unicorn on his shed. The guy down the street claims to have invented a computer made out of jelly etc...Get real.

Dude... if THEY are making the CLAIM... then THEY need to back it up. You are such a moron.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Calm down, Arthur Brain. No need for you to keep shouting.

Do you mean have I ever read anything by TGP?

And why are you trying to change the subject? Because you've been asked by @Right Divider and me to prove your claim about TGP, and, since you know you cannot do so, you want to try to shift attention away from your glaring failure and inability to do so. Sorry, Arthur Brain, but your over and over repetition of your claim has not proved, and never shall prove your claim.

Hmm. TGP's a joke, much like you, and, grammar.

Kind regards anyhoo...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, Wikipedia ... the gold standard for fact finding and integrity.

Dude... if THEY are making the CLAIM... then THEY need to back it up. You are such a moron.

Hardly just Wikipedia but hey, you buy into stuff like TGP all ya want if you're that gullible.

Uh huh. Those promoting wholesale bunk won't be able to back it up as with TGP - Infowars etc.

You are such a pompous pillock to return the kindergarten stuff as that's where you seem to want to reside but hey, can't we just get along anyway?

 

[7djengo7]

Hmm. TGP's a joke, much like your, and, grammar.

Kind regards anyhoo...

Still waiting for your "proof" for your claim which you have just now, once again reasserted about TGP. Why can't you prove your claim? You should stop shouting and try to prove your claim, instead.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Still waiting for your "proof" for your claim which you have just now, once again reasserted about TGP. Why can't you prove your claim? You should stop shouting and try to prove your claim, instead.

Hey dude. You buy into their stuff if ya like. Maybe all of their reports are true and maybe the same goes for 'Q' and Infowars. Wow, wouldn't that be something?