or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by BR

It's actually up to you.  This feels similar to the reasoning that homosexual marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage, when in fact two women or two men pairing up do absolutely nothing to any existing heterosexual married couples.  The agency of one's marriage belongs to those parties involved--placing it anywhere else is absurd. Look, SDW, there's just a lot wrong with what you posted.  I don't mean wrong in the moral sense, but rather in the factually incorrect...
Stoking racial division my ass.  Confederate flag waving southern jackasses are doing that just fine all by themselves:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/black-churches-targeted-arsonists/
#LoveWins  
It's over.  Welcome to the 21st century.  You had up until today to get on the right side of history before same sex marriage was officially recognized.  Those who waited too long now just need to come to terms with it.  And you know what?  You're still welcome to join us on the right side of history by recognizing the beauty of Justice Kennedy's writing below:  Will you accept that society has progressed or will you grow old to be the new version of the embarrassingly...
It's the same sort of racism that prompted these sale stats on confederate flags.  Those who would deny that what happened in South Carolina was racial terrorism are part of the problem.  Clearly we have too many racist sympathizers already. 
Exactly.  In fact, President Obama didn't go far enough by avoiding calling this tragedy what it truly was--domestic terrorism.  Any time someone says "oh, don't talk about that problem now...that's not polite to the victims," it sure seems like that someone just doesn't like what those solutions might entail.   Interestingly, the same people who hate the gun talk after gun-related tragedies were the people after 9/11 that wanted to stifle discussion against going to...
SDW won't see this because he's demonstrated his level of maturity by blocking me, but for everyone else, here is an article that thoroughly debunks SDW's notion that climate scientists are in it for the money.  He keeps repeating that lie again and again.  Enough already. http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/ Here's the summation:
Not everyone's dogma blinds them from the science of climate change, however. 
He's just displaying his true colors.  His dogma is stronger than his honesty.
How do you post one of the most blatant examples of cherry picking (that ridiculous image from the other day) yet then say others are ignoring data? That cherry picking image destroys your credibility. You can't seriously post that and then talk like you think you are smarter than 99% of climate scientists who had years of training and devote their lives to the discipline. Absurd. Utterly absurd.
New Posts  All Forums: