Mitt Romney backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation

[Phys251]

People die all the time to all sorts of diseases. When they are deliberately killed, like those in nursing homes under Cupmo and Whitmer, certainly that is an outrage.

You didn't answer my question. Do 200,000 dead Americans mean nothing to you? Are they just statistics?

 

[99percenter]

*shrug* That's on you. I already did my due diligence to support my argument. I can lead a moron to water but cannot force him to drink.

Is it possible that even you didn't read the bias blog you referenced?

 

[Phys251]

First off, I dont need to do anything, so let's get that out of the way right away, sparky. You are not in control of me.

Keep failing with more argumenta ad hominem! This is hilarious now!

 

[tres borrachos]

First off, I dont need to do anything, so let's get that out of the way right away, sparky. You are not in control of me. Secondly, I already posted a link to an article which directly cited the relevant parts of the constitution. If you cannot grasp what was said I suggest talking to your grade school teacher about how she failed you in teaching reading comprehension

*shrug* That's on you. I already did my due diligence to support my argument. I can lead a moron to water but cannot force him to drink.

Yes, you did your Trumpian Due Diligence, and lied. Trump will send you a cookie later. He can also lead you to water and make you drink.

 

[Gondwanaland]

You didn't answer my question. Do 200,000 dead Americans mean nothing to you? Are they just statistics?

No, people that die of natural causes do not particularly bother me. That's life. It's when people deliberately end the lives of others, violating their rights, that there is an issue. So some of those do indeed mean something given they are dead due solely to the policies of Whitmer and Cuomo to place sick people into nursing homes where the most vulnerable to the disease are. Does that help you grasp the answer?.

 

[GDViking]

There should be but democrats are logical and realize the election has already begun ...

 

[bomberfox]

You are flagrantly antiscience then. Any embryologist will tell you that the life of a human being begins at conception. It's literally in their textbooks. That you want to deny their being a himan being is something else entirely and smacks of those who considered blacks less than human, andthose who denied the personhood of Jews.

But I agree, women do have the right to decide when and if they have a child. There are numerous ways to do so including insisting on contraception, getting an IUD, getting tubes tied, or just simply closing their legs. They dont have, however, the right to murder another living being just because they were irresponsible and got knocked up.

life as pretty vaguely described. A cell is alive, a plant is alive. What is irresponsible is calling a just implanted egg a person.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Keep failing with more argumenta ad hominem! This is hilarious now!

Nice lack of understanding of what an ad hominem argument is.

 

[Phys251]

Nice lack of understanding of what an ad hominem argument is.

Gondwa stamping his feet and insisting that he knows what a term means does not make it so.

 

[Gondwanaland]

life as pretty vaguely described. A cell is alive, a plant is alive. What is irresponsible is calling a just implanted egg a person.

The professionals in the field of embryology disagree.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Gondwa stamping his feet and insisting that he knows what a term means does not make it so.

You seem to confuse calling someone a name with the argumentum Ad hominum, which is an attack on a person's character rather than their argument.

 

[Phys251]

You seem to confuse calling someone a name with the argumentum Ad hominum, which is an attack on a person's character rather than their argument.

Just gonna let your post speak for itself. Keep it up, I always love some good comedy.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Just gonna let your post speak for itself. Keep it up, I always love some good comedy.

I mean you're welcome to continue to displaying you dont know what an argumentum ad hominem is. It is indeed some good comedy.

 

[Phys251]

I mean you're welcome to continue to displaying you dont know what an argumentum ad hominem is. It is indeed some good comedy.

Either you can't even remember what you wrote, or you are in full projection mode. Not a good position for you to be able to say which one it is.

Let me provide you the help that you obviously need. This is what you said:

First off, I dont need to do anything, so let's get that out of the way right away, sparky. You are not in control of me.

"Sparky."

A personal insult is by definition argumentum ad hominem, which means attacking the person and not the point made.

Now are you going to accept this or are you going to do more projecting? Oh, and I notice you're not even trying to defend your president's 200,000 dead any more.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Either you can't even remember what you wrote, or you are in full projection mode. Not a good position for you to be able to say which one it is.

Let me provide you the help that you obviously need. This is what you said:



"Sparky."

A personal insult is by definition argumentum ad hominem, which means attacking the person and not the point made.

Now are you going to accept this or are you going to do more projecting? Oh, and I notice you're not even trying to defend your president's 200,000 dead any more.

He didnt make an argument where I replied. He simply demanded I do something. That's not an argument. Nor is calling him a name an ad hominem. That's a common misconception. Don't worry, many make the same mistake.

 

[Phys251]

He didnt make an argument where I replied. He simply demanded I do something.

She. Yeah, you definitely aren't very good at this whole reading thing.

That's not an argument. Nor is calling him a name an ad hominem.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Is it possible that even you didn't read the bias blog you referenced?

I read the article I referenced. It is clear you did not.

 

[Gondwanaland]

She. Yeah, you definitely aren't very good at this whole reading thing.

I understand, it's hard to admit your lack of understanding of what constitutes an ad hominem.. That's fine I will not hold it against you.

 

[Taylor]

I don’t think Republicans have principles. Saying you’re anti neocon today, means about as much as you saying you were for free trade and low deficits before Trump. The republican base simply follows whatever dogma their leader sells them.

Did you respond to the right person? My post was about Puerto Rico.

 

[Rexedgar]

He didnt make an argument where I replied. He simply demanded I do something. That's not an argument. Nor is calling him a name an ad hominem. That's a common misconception. Don't worry, many make the same mistake.

Here is Article III, how does this support your DC statehood argument?

Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Here is Article III, how does this support your DC statehood argument?

Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

I already provided a link explaining DC statehood (and its unconstitutionality without an amendment) in detail. I suggest you read it and them ask any questions about it if you have trouble understanding

 

[Rexedgar]

171 posts in this thread; if you cannot post the Constitutional precedent re DC statehood, I understand..........

 

[99percenter]

I already provided a link explaining DC statehood (and its unconstitutionality without an amendment) in detail. I suggest you read it and them ask any questions about it if you have trouble understanding

So you should have no problem regurgitating that guys opinion here. Or is it possible that there is nothing in the constitution about DC statehood so now you are trying to dodge?

 

[Gondwanaland]

171 posts in this thread; if you cannot post the Constitutional precedent re DC statehood, I understand..........

Yet another article that goesinto detail why a constitutional amendment would be needed for DC statehood:

The Constitution says no to DC statehood - The Boston Globe

It’s not an oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: the Founding Fathers designed it that way.

www.bostonglobe.com

If you are not able to click on the articles and read whilst using your grey matter, I understand.......

 

[Gondwanaland]

So you should have no problem regurgitating that guys opinion here. Or is it possible that there is nothing in the constitution about DC statehood so now you are trying to dodge?

The Constitution says no to DC statehood - The Boston Globe

It’s not an oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: the Founding Fathers designed it that way.

www.bostonglobe.com

Why would i waste my time reiterating what is already there for anyone to read? Especially when you and some of comrades refuse to read it? Why would I waste that effort on someone who won't read? No, my dear, I led you to water but cannot force you to drink. That is up to you on whether to wallow in intellectual thirst or sate yourself with the knowledge you clearly fear.