We need to look at who is third in command. Cause if Trump is ever taken out, all this vile hatred reserved for Trump will be aimed squarely at Pence. It'll be (literally) the same rhetoric/schtick and constant calls for him to be removed from office. So, who's third in command? I don't think...
I see it as twisting MLK's words to arrive at the generalization. His words were within context of, "It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that...
I don't see how approve of it matters.
But to answer your question directly, because I lean Right, I would not approve of Obama doing it (since he's a Dem) but am accepting of it from Trump's perspective given my understanding of how science currently works in America.
Yet "accepting of it"...
I believe Gorsuch was perhaps the best possible choice from Pub perspective that Trump could have gone with.
If somehow, magically, the LW didn't resist the nomination I would wonder if I were dreaming and in some alternate political reality.
There's some truth to that, of course, but also is part of political manipulation going on. Or what would be example of technology from last 10 years that from scientific perspective the jury is in and we know all the long term (read as 30 years of longer) effects? Would you then recommend that...
If it is "natural," then what possible difference could we make? How is that irrelevant to the discussion? If man is not the source of the problem (solely), then man obviously cannot be the source of the solution. Moreover, if this were something that is localized and only occurring in a small...
From my perspective, Obama did do this, just not as publicly. It is one of many reasons why I see enormous bias from MSM. In many ways the media was part of the silencing that I routinely experienced in the last 3 years. Hence, why my first post in this thread says, "Given my understanding of...
From philosophy 101, or perhaps even science 101, the so called facts in the science arena would not lead us directly to truth. For science, I'm not sure if that's even the goal. For philosophy, I know it is. For science, I think it is an ideal, but the principle of finding evidence to support...
(Bears repeating I guess)
But it wasn't a rebuttal. More like a rant by changing the topic from what I asserted. What from the article are you relating to a) this thread and b) what I wrote?
Perhaps there is a discussion to be had yet, or perhaps you'll just stay up on your soapbox ranting...
But it wasn't a rebuttal. More like a rant by changing the topic from what I asserted. What from the article are you relating to a) this thread and b) what I wrote?
Perhaps there is a discussion to be had yet, or perhaps you'll just stay up on your soapbox ranting. Your move.
Then you are clearly dismissing science.
I'm quite certain I've read whatever study you are not referencing directly. Pretty sure I've seen it debunked as well. Based on science that exists.
Then IMO, you are not looking at reason and are only filtering it through propaganda. Were this the...
Good for you for changing the topic. Feel free to rant on this topic you've brought up all you may desire. I still rejoice at the news in this thread and if you espouse things I find questionable and debatable, I'll be sure to note that.
I think I disagree with everything written here, and yet still, I rejoice at the news presented in this thread. Even while the linked article is laced with said propaganda.
I'm speaking to treatment where it seeks to rule out things in a methodological way. Healing cuts to the chase and fully knows / understands the actual problem/error occurring. Don't need "treatment" for that to occur.
I don't. I find your pseudo intellectualism and spin hilarious. Undeniably...