On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:28 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > Mark said to Steve: > Yes, I heard the debate, I thought Coons looked like a complete idiot. > When > > asked what rights are presented in the first amendment he did not have a > > clue. Doesn't that tell you something? They are rights to protect the > > individual from the government. And the laughter from law students was > > indeed telling of the kind of education they are getting there. > Ambulance > > Chaser 101. Use the law to make lots of money, get lots of power, and > > become president of the United Sates. Sad I think, and dangerous. But > then > > again, using science to define morality is no different. However, it all > > depends on what the meaning of the word is is. :-) > > > dmb says: > I've grown increasingly alarmed at your remarks, Mark, but that's the straw > that breaks my camel's proverbial back. > > Why is it that right-wingers always reason like a 10 year-olds? (Actually, > that's unfair to my ten year old.) Watching the parade of idiots they call > the tea party and witnessing the "reasoning" that is used here to support > them is a very strange spectacle. The law students laughed at her ignorance > of the highest law and so THEY are badly educated? The would-be Senator > doesn't know that the first part of the first amendment is known as the > separation clause or that it is the legal basis of the separation of church > and state, but we should be concerned about the laughing law students? > O'Donnell's ignorant comments were funny to them (and to me) because they DO > understand that the principle of separation is derived from the First > Amendment. But all that means nothing because the whole lot of them are > dangerous, power-hungry, money-grubbing ambulance chasers. Is that why they > laughed or is that why their laughter can be dismissed? I suppose the > ignorant candidate ought to wear t > heir informed derision as a badge of honor? It'll show the Tea Baggers how > she can stand up to those elitists with their fancy book-learnin', right? > > Mark, your argument is an evasion, an absurd non-sequitor, an ad hominem > attack and an act of wild, baseless speculation - all at the same time. It's > a meaningless jumble of inarticulate disapproval. It's a tossed salad of > stupid and mean. And you're the same guy who doesn't like the look on > Hawking's face, right? Now I'm convinced. You're a prankster or an idiot. > Either way, I'm not going to waste any more time talking to unreasonable > people. > Yes, don't waste your time. But, if this country is full of idiots, then you are going to have to get used to living with them. I can see that I have struck a nerve here and I apologize for that. The intent was for discussion. If you put your hands over your ears and sing really loudly, that can help. No harm intended, Mark > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
