King

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > King > Page 7

Page 7 of 8

03-12-2020 23:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	GasGuzzler wrote:No way nine judges can handle the load. They ARE refusing work within their jurisdiction. Yes? No. To ensure the Supreme can always handle its case load, Congress may ordain and establish from time to time such inferior Courts to help handle the load. Democrats routinely avail themselves of whichever of these courts has an activist Democrat judge. Article III, Section. 1 of the Constitution of the United States The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2020 23:08
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	I read your logic and i ask you - have you noticed that you aren't on the SCOTUS? Why is that?
03-12-2020 23:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	keepit wrote: I read your logic and i ask you - have you noticed that you aren't on the SCOTUS? Why yes, I have noticed, now that you mention it. keepit wrote: Why is that? Frankly it was just a coincidence that I happened to notice. Aren't you going to ask me how I know what the Constitution reads? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2020 23:19
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	What the constitution reads often depends on the eye of the beholder.
03-12-2020 23:29
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: What the constitution reads often depends on the eye of the beholder. No, the Constitution says what it says.

04-12-2020 00:40
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I was wrong.There is shenanigans.I am going to get my broom and come over
04-12-2020 03:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: I read your logic and i ask you - have you noticed that you aren't on the SCOTUS? Why is that? Strawman fallacy. Kettle logic. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2020 03:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: What the constitution reads often depends on the eye of the beholder. No. The Constitution is written in English. You have to know English to understand it. If you only speak Liberal, you are going to have trouble. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2020 03:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: Who says it's going to the SCOTUS. Trump and his lawyers. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2020 03:16
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Wishful thinking is a pattern.
04-12-2020 04:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	duncan61 wrote: I was wrong.There is shenanigans.I am going to get my broom and come over Watch all the dominoes fall. Trump will be sworn in again. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-12-2020 06:14
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: What if MLB didn't agree with your assessment of who won the World Series? Just one question... Were the umpires officiating the game from the parking lot? No. Because Major League Baseball isn't a pathetic joke and neither is The United States of America. Both are well organized. IBdaMann wrote: They are required to hear all cases in Law and Equity that fall within their jurisdiction, which involve public Ministers and Consuls, .... Yet they can decide that they see no case. I hope they'll make an exception and officially tear at least one of these crap cases apart with a 9/0 but I'm not optimistic they'll bother. Trump currenly has no evidence to offer. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: I will have guessed wrong as an entirely unqualified and ill informed man on the street Is this your attempt to finally be honest about your lack of knowledge? And everyone here yes. Not a judge and not qualified. Most importantly we aren't authorized. The courts is where this question is decided and not the streets (as long as our system of government survives that is). gfm7175 wrote:They MUST hear this case They must make the call which includes deciding there is no case. Sadly Trump hasn't offered any evidence in court yet so it's far beneath SCOTUS to pretend a nothing case is something. But I hope they will and soon. gfm7175 wrote:Your denial of said evidence does not make it go away. Such as? Judge Bibas is a better source than you. He said they had nothing. I've looked and can't find anything. Certainly nothing has been presented on this board other than random quotes. I've got one: Over 10,000 Democratic votes were sorted out of a vote dump in North Carolina, stuffed into a rocket and launched into the Atlantic. That evidence? Well a Judge could decide. You can bring all kinds of crap to court but it won't hold up. But hey Trump just made 175 million dollars. So someone is certainly benefitting. Edited on 04-12-2020 06:18
04-12-2020 06:29
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: What if MLB didn't agree with your assessment of who won the World Series? Just one question... Were the umpires officiating the game from the parking lot? No. Because Major League Baseball isn't a pathetic joke and neither is The United States of America. Both are well organized. IBdaMann wrote: They are required to hear all cases in Law and Equity that fall within their jurisdiction, which involve public Ministers and Consuls, .... Yet they can decide that they see no case. I hope they'll make an exception and officially tear at least one of these crap cases apart with a 9/0 but I'm not optimistic they'll bother. Trump currenly has no evidence to offer. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: I will have guessed wrong as an entirely unqualified and ill informed man on the street Is this your attempt to finally be honest about your lack of knowledge? And everyone here yes. Not a judge and not qualified. Most importantly we aren't authorized. The courts is where this question is decided and not the streets (as long as our system of government survives that is). gfm7175 wrote:They MUST hear this case They must make the call which includes deciding there is no case. Sadly Trump hasn't offered any evidence in court yet so it's far beneath SCOTUS to pretend a nothing case is something. But I hope they will and soon. gfm7175 wrote:Your denial of said evidence does not make it go away. Such as? Judge Bibas is a better source than you. He said they had nothing. I've looked and can't find anything. Certainly nothing has been presented on this board other than random quotes. I've got one: Over 10,000 Democratic votes were sorted out of a vote dump in North Carolina, stuffed into a rocket and launched into the Atlantic. That evidence? Well a Judge could decide. You can bring all kinds of crap to court but it won't hold up. But hey Trump just made 175 million dollars. So someone is certainly benefitting. Still claiming no evidence, eh? If you can't see it you ain't looking. Bombshell today is the security camera footage in Georgia. I suspect your favorite news outlet chose to not attend the Georgia hearing? We will see what happens in Nevada tomorrow. All evidence there has been sealed. Pennsylvania? I think IBdaMann is right. They will flip to Trump sooner than later. How does Biden say he will end fracking and win Pennsylvania without cheating??!! Comon man!! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 04-12-2020 06:31
04-12-2020 07:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: Still claiming no evidence, eh? If you can't see it you ain't looking. Bombshell today... I think its fair to say everything you touched on is in the court of public opinion. I mean legal evidence in real court. I will respect the decision of the court even if I don't like it. As far as I know not a single piece of evidence has been accepted by a court. Am I wrong? Was that video part of a lawsuit and if so has a Judge evaluated it yet? Is there anything? In real court, not OOAN. If so please share. GasGuzzler wrote:Nevada tomorrow. All evidence there has been sealed... Where are you getting that? I couldn't find it. Edited on 04-12-2020 07:14
04-12-2020 07:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Yet they can decide that they see no case. I hope they'll make an exception and officially tear at least one of these crap cases apart with a 9/0 but I'm not optimistic they'll bother. Trump currenly has no evidence to offer. OK, I think we all get it. You have already planned your snowflake wailing response when the States assert their ownership of the Constitution and take control of the Presidential election process and reelect Donald Trump. You are going to whine and cry that there was never any evidence. Did I leave anything out? Your blatant denial is just an extension of your incorrigible dishonesty. The evidence is overwhelming and compelling. Pennsylvania has already declared their election a violation of the State Constitution. Georgia is close behind. Then the Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona dominoes will fall. I'm going to enjoy watching you insist that it's not happening all the while it is happening right in front of you. Could you rehearse your denial on us so we can get some practice? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

04-12-2020 07:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Your blatant denial .... of what? Judge Bibas said there is no evidence. I can't find any. No one here has provided any. And no, random statements are not evidence. And no, you and I dont decide what is, a Judge does.
04-12-2020 07:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: Wishful thinking is a pattern. Random statement. No context. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2020 08:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: What if MLB didn't agree with your assessment of who won the World Series? Just one question... Were the umpires officiating the game from the parking lot? No. Because Major League Baseball isn't a pathetic joke and neither is The United States of America. Both are well organized. IBdaMann wrote: They are required to hear all cases in Law and Equity that fall within their jurisdiction, which involve public Ministers and Consuls, .... Yet they can decide that they see no case. Not in this case. They must hear the case. tmiddles wrote: I hope they'll make an exception and officially tear at least one of these crap cases apart with a 9/0 but I'm not optimistic they'll bother. Trump currenly has no evidence to offer. Lie. Denial of direct evidence. Denial of probability math. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: I will have guessed wrong as an entirely unqualified and ill informed man on the street Is this your attempt to finally be honest about your lack of knowledge? And everyone here yes. Not a judge and not qualified. Most importantly we aren't authorized. The courts is where this question is decided and not the streets (as long as our system of government survives that is). WRONG. The State legislatures decide this. The court can order the State legislatures to act. Failure to act results in abstaining. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:They MUST hear this case They must make the call which includes deciding there is no case. They can't. See the Constitution, Article III. tmiddles wrote: Sadly Trump hasn't offered any evidence in court yet Lie. There is direct evidence. Denying it won't make it go away. tmiddles wrote: so it's far beneath SCOTUS to pretend a nothing case is something. But I hope they will and soon. They don't have a choice. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Your denial of said evidence does not make it go away. Such as? Judge Bibas is a better source than you. He said they had nothing. Nope. Judge Bibas is NOT a better source than me. This judge blatantly failed in their duty. Easy appeal. tmiddles wrote: I've looked and can't find anything. Certainly nothing has been presented on this board other than random quotes. I've got one: Over 10,000 Democratic votes were sorted out of a vote dump in North Carolina, stuffed into a rocket and launched into the Atlantic. That evidence? No. That's a statement. Means nothing. tmiddles wrote: Well a Judge could decide. You can bring all kinds of crap to court but it won't hold up. Nope. These witnesses signed an affidavit. Lying puts them under penalty of perjury. Their testimony must be considered. Unless they are shown to be lying, their testimony holds. tmiddles wrote: But hey Trump just made 175 million dollars. So someone is certainly benefitting. Irrelevent. Strawman fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2020 08:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Still claiming no evidence, eh? If you can't see it you ain't looking. Bombshell today... I think its fair to say everything you touched on is in the court of public opinion. I mean legal evidence in real court. I will respect the decision of the court even if I don't like it. As far as I know not a single piece of evidence has been accepted by a court. Am I wrong? Was that video part of a lawsuit and if so has a Judge evaluated it yet? Is there anything? In real court, not OOAN. If so please share. GasGuzzler wrote:Nevada tomorrow. All evidence there has been sealed... Where are you getting that? I couldn't find it. RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2020 08:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Your blatant denial .... of what? Judge Bibas said there is no evidence. I can't find any. No one here has provided any. And no, random statements are not evidence. And no, you and I dont decide what is, a Judge does. RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2020 08:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Yet they can decide that they see no case. Not in this case. They must hear the case. Your interpretation of Article III is not supported by the history of SCOTUS. Maybe you should write them an angry letter. https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-original-supreme-court Government Website so this is from the source. The US Judicial Branch. "The Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted its constitutional grant of original jurisdiction.... Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing." An example is that Article III clearly states: "Section 2 ...In all Cases ...in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." So you might say hey if the State is a party they should be able to demand that the Supreme court take the case. Nope. "... the Supreme Court further limited its original docket by declaring that it would exercise discretion over whether to hear cases even if they were legitimately within the Court's jurisdiction. In a series of cases in 1971, including Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp ., the Court declined to hear environmental pollution claims brought by states against corporations that dealt with complex and technical factual questions. " That text is directly from the Judicial Branch of the US Government. You are wrong ITN. They may "exercise discretion" and they will. I hope they hear it but it's not looking good. To take a moment to how this is relevant to CLIMATE-DEBATE.COM the debates here with ITN/IBD and all degenerated into a discussion of if anything at all can be known. As this subject matter is composed of the writings and statements of humans we can be conclusive about knowing what has been said/written and there is a definitive correct/incorrect. Normally that would not be particularly interesting but here we are dealing with true madness with a couple guys who, like poppa Trump, cannot admit they are wrong about anything. It is also interesting that they now know so many things that are unknown to the rest of the world. Into the Night wrote:Judge Bibas is NOT a better source than me. This judge blatantly failed in their duty. Forget you are pretending Bibas didn't author the opinion? Into the Night wrote: It is not written by Bibas. Into the Night wrote:Unless they are shown to be lying, their testimony holds. Sorry ITN but it's not up to you or me but the Judge. The Judge is not required to accept a mere statement as credible simply because it's not proven to be false. And I'm still waiting for anything at all that a Judge has found persuasive. Anything? Anybody? There's got to be something. Oddly enough only Republican instances of voter fraud seem to be available. Edited on 04-12-2020 08:58
04-12-2020 16:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Judge Bibas said there is no evidence. Apparently, this guy is one of your slavemasters who tells you what to believe and who does your thinking for you. tmiddles wrote:I can't find any. Because you are deliberately not accepting information on the matter. It all goes to your belief that you are omniscienct and that whatever you believe is "what we know." Of course if you believe something besides reality then you are forced to implement denial. The evidence of what you don't want to accept is overwhelming and therefore you insist that "there is absolutely no evidence" ... more for your own benefit, i.e. to help you convince yourself and to reinforce your denial. You are preparing yourself for your inevitable snowflake meltdown when the massive fraud is corrected and you scream "THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE!" tmiddles wrote:No one here has provided any. ... and you know that this is totally irrelevant. No one here is the person with all the evidence. The correct question is "To what hearings in their entirety have you listened?" I'll reiterate that you are not omniscient and that reality does not warp to fit your beliefs and misunderstandings. Your denial does not erase any of the overwhelming and compelling evidence of massive election fraud on the part of the DNC. Again, I wouldn't mind if you'd like to rehearse your snowflake wailing so that I can give you a few pointers on polishing it to perfection ... perhaps so that you can get lucky, perform in front of the right camera and go viral. I'm standing by. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-12-2020 16:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Oddly enough only Republican instances of voter fraud seem to be available. Incorrect. You are confusing your willful ignorance with the reality of what is available. To what hearings in their entirety have you listened? Answer: none. Ask me how I know. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-12-2020 17:55
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: What if MLB didn't agree with your assessment of who won the World Series? Just one question... Were the umpires officiating the game from the parking lot? No. Because Major League Baseball isn't a pathetic joke and neither is The United States of America. MLB is a pathetic joke. It is not a sport. It is merely "entertainment". tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Your denial of said evidence does not make it go away. Such as? Judge Bibas is a better source than you. He said they had nothing. RQAA. Bulverism. tmiddles wrote: I've looked and can't find anything. I don't believe you. tmiddles wrote: Certainly nothing has been presented on this board other than random quotes. LIE. Evidence has been presented here. tmiddles wrote: I've got one: Over 10,000 Democratic votes were sorted out of a vote dump in North Carolina, stuffed into a rocket and launched into the Atlantic. That evidence? That's a statement. Now, do you care to jot down your testimony in the form of a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury? (evidence that is admissible in a court of law) tmiddles wrote: Well a Judge could decide. You can bring all kinds of crap to court but it won't hold up. But hey Trump just made 175 million dollars. So someone is certainly benefitting. How did Trump make $175M? Edited on 04-12-2020 18:54
04-12-2020 18:08
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	GasGuzzler wrote: Still claiming no evidence, eh? If you can't see it you ain't looking. Bombshell today is the security camera footage in Georgia. I suspect your favorite news outlet chose to not attend the Georgia hearing? We will see what happens in Nevada tomorrow. All evidence there has been sealed. Pennsylvania? I think IBdaMann is right. They will flip to Trump sooner than later. How does Biden say he will end fracking and win Pennsylvania without cheating??!! Comon man!! Indeed. I see VERY solid cases in PA, MI, and GA for decertifying their elections (and, at the very least, their legislatures deciding to abstain from sending any electors because of it). That would be enough to bring Biden below the 270 threshold and to trigger the 12th Amendment alternative for electing the President. That doesn't even get into what's happening in NV and AZ. My State of WI, unfortunately, is under the delusion that they have very little fraud issues (nothing that would overturn 20K+ votes). The WI legislature will likely certify the election for Biden and send Biden's slate of electors (unless a court ruling orders them to decertify and to adhere to their own election laws). Even then, a number of our State Republicans seem to be corrupt, ignorant of the Federal/State Constitutions (and State election laws), and/or absolutely spineless. Edited on 04-12-2020 18:13
04-12-2020 18:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Still claiming no evidence, eh? If you can't see it you ain't looking. Bombshell today... I think its fair to say everything you touched on is in the court of public opinion. I mean legal evidence in real court. Denial of evidence does not make it go away, moron. The video evidence that Guzzler is speaking of IS admissible in a court of law. It was only discovered just now, so it has only been presented in the GA meeting at this point. tmiddles wrote: I will respect the decision of the court even if I don't like it. I don't believe you. tmiddles wrote: As far as I know not a single piece of evidence has been accepted by a court. You are wrong. tmiddles wrote: Am I wrong? Yes. tmiddles wrote: Was that video part of a lawsuit and if so has a Judge evaluated it yet? It was JUST discovered JUST now, moron... Obviously you have not watched any of the GA election fraud hearing... There hasn't been time to present it to a court of law as of yet. Trump's people still need time to watch through the whole thing (16ish hours?? I forget the exact number quoted at the hearing) and to see if they can discover anything else that is notable within it besides what was presented in the GA meeting... tmiddles wrote: Is there anything? Yes. tmiddles wrote: In real court, not OOAN. If so please share. WTF is OOAN?? I think you meant OAN (also known as OANN)? They are a news network (and a rather good one at that!!), not a court. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:Nevada tomorrow. All evidence there has been sealed... Where are you getting that? I couldn't find it. You will not find mention of any of that in Demonrat fake news media outlets... You need to turn your attention elsewhere if you wish to become educated on such matters. Obviously, you do not wish to become educated on such matters (or anything, so it seems).
04-12-2020 18:48
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Your blatant denial .... of what? You're now denying your denial?? hahahahahaha this is too funny!! tmiddles wrote: Judge Bibas said there is no evidence. Judge Bibas is not God. tmiddles wrote: I can't find any. You haven't looked, and you have likewise denied the existence of all evidence presented to you thus far. tmiddles wrote: No one here has provided any. To quote the famous words of Joe Wilson (R-SC) to then President Obama, "YOU LIE!" tmiddles wrote: And no, random statements are not evidence. MANY sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury, are not "random statements". Random statements, however, seem to be the basis for Liberal (the language). Maybe that's where you are getting confused?? tmiddles wrote: And no, you and I dont decide what is, a Judge does. PARADOX. In one breath, you decided that "random statements" are not evidence... In the following breath, you claim that "you and I" don't decide what is evidence... You have now reduced yourself to arguing irrationally... Edited on 04-12-2020 18:51
04-12-2020 19:02
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Your blatant denial .... of what? You're now denying your denial?? hahahahahaha this is too funny!! LMAO!!!!!! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
04-12-2020 20:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Yet they can decide that they see no case. Not in this case. They must hear the case. Your interpretation of Article III is not supported by the history of SCOTUS. The supreme court does not have authority to change the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: Maybe you should write them an angry letter. No need. It's in the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: "The Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted its constitutional grant of original jurisdiction.... The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. [b]tmiddles wrote: Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing."[/b] Irrelevance fallacy. tmiddles wrote: An example is that Article III clearly states: "Section 2 ...In all Cases ...in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." So you might say hey if the State is a party they should be able to demand that the Supreme court take the case. Nope. Contextomy fallacy. tmiddles wrote: "... the Supreme Court further limited its original docket by declaring that it would exercise discretion over whether to hear cases even if they were legitimately within the Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. [b]tmiddles wrote: In a series of cases in 1971, including Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp ., the Court declined to hear environmental pollution claims brought by states against corporations that dealt with complex and technical factual questions. "[/b] Irrelevance fallacy. tmiddles wrote: That text is directly from the Judicial Branch of the US Government. That text is not the Constitution. False authority fallacy. tmiddles wrote: You are wrong ITN. No, you are pivoting around again. tmiddles wrote: They may "exercise discretion" and they will. I hope they hear it but it's not looking good. They have no choice in this matter. tmiddles wrote: To take a moment to how this is relevant to CLIMATE-DEBATE.COM the debates here with ITN/IBD and all degenerated into a discussion of if anything at all can be known. Spam. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: As this subject matter is composed of the writings and statements of humans we can be conclusive about knowing what has been said/written and there is a definitive correct/incorrect. The Constitution is the law of the land. tmiddles wrote: Normally that would not be particularly interesting but here we are dealing with true madness with a couple guys who, like poppa Trump, cannot admit they are wrong about anything. Assumption of victory fallacy. Denial of the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: It is also interesting that they now know so many things that are unknown to the rest of the world. The Constitution is public knowledge. It is published for all the world to see. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Judge Bibas is NOT a better source than me. This judge blatantly failed in their duty. Forget you are pretending Bibas didn't author the opinion? Into the Night wrote: It is not written by Bibas. Into the Night wrote:Unless they are shown to be lying, their testimony holds. Sorry ITN but it's not up to you or me but the Judge. Contextomy fallacies. Pivoting. Spam. tmiddles wrote: The Judge is not required to accept a mere statement as credible simply because it's not proven to be false. It has not been proven to be false. You can't just discard witnesses. tmiddles wrote: And I'm still waiting for anything at all that a Judge has found persuasive. Anything? Anybody? There's got to be something. RQAA tmiddles wrote: Oddly enough only Republican instances of voter fraud seem to be available. Inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2020 22:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: "... the Supreme Court further limited its original docket by declaring that it would exercise discretion over whether to hear cases even if they were legitimately within the Court's jurisdiction.: The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. They interpret it which is all that you are trying to do.. You disagree with SCOTUS about what they are required to do. But they have authority and you don't. So you are wrong. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Judge Bibas said there is no evidence. Judge Bibas is not God. He's the judge so actually in this context he sort of is God. You guys seem to struggle understanding the concepts of jurisdiction and authority. Bibas has both. Trump, Biden, you and I have neither. gfm7175 wrote:...have likewise denied the existence of all evidence presented to you thus far. ...sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury, are not "random statements". .. Again they are presented to a Judge to, well, judge and not you or I. But let's run one down anyway. Guiliani's first choice: Convicted child sex offender and New Jersey resident Daryl Brooks with his "evidence" about Pennsylvania: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rudy-giuliani-trump-campaign-philadelphia-press-conference-november-7/amp "Darrell Brooks: (08:50) Darrell Brooks, Philadelphia resident, here for about two years. I came out here to support our President and this is one of the reasons why I wanted to go to the polls, to watch. A lot of us were excited about the President winning a second term and a lot of individuals, African Americans in Philadelphia, especially men were talking about the 401K plan and how they were excited because of their finances. Darrell Brooks: (09:16) So, when I go to the poll, basically they put us at 20 feet away. They said, "No cameras, no phones, you cannot take pictures." I was even harassed by some of the Democratic Party poll watchers, and that is also recorded. And then the next thing you know, it was six feet away and they still would not allow us to see anything that was happening. We saw people working on the ballots, but we didn't know any names, we didn't see anything. We don't know if people voted twice or three times, we didn't know if dead people were voting. But we were there and we were watching and it's such a shame. This is a democracy in Philadelphia and they did not allow us to see anything, and was it corrupt or not? Darrell Brooks: (10:03) ... to see anything and it wasn't a corrupt enough, but give us the opportunity as poll Watchers to view all the documents, all the ballots. And listen, we just want a fair election and we viewed that was not fair at all. It was not fair to allow us to... they could have allowed us to look at the ballots, some ballots, but nothing. It was we were kept away from everything." Unedited statement made at the press conference. I dont believe this was ever in a court. What I notice: ", we didn't see anything. We don't know..." Is that, in your view, evidence of voter fraud?

04-12-2020 22:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: How did Trump make $175M? My bad, 207M https://mobile.reuters.com/video/watch/idPC1U?now=true
04-12-2020 22:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: You disagree with SCOTUS about what they are required to do. Nope. In order to fortify your denial you feel the need to transform your denial of the Constitution into some nonexistent disagreement Into the Night has with SCOTUS. tmiddles wrote: But they have authority and you don't. So you are wrong. Part of your delusion is imagining that you and SCOTUS are on the same team fighting against Into the Night. Wow. Into the Night threatens you that much, eh? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-12-2020 00:11
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: How did Trump make $175M? My bad, 207M https://mobile.reuters.com/video/watch/idPC1U?now=true He didn't make that money, dumbass... Edited on 05-12-2020 00:11
05-12-2020 01:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: "... the Supreme Court further limited its original docket by declaring that it would exercise discretion over whether to hear cases even if they were legitimately within the Court's jurisdiction.: The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. They interpret it which is all that you are trying to do.. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III. tmiddles wrote: You disagree with SCOTUS about what they are required to do. But they have authority and you don't. So you are wrong. They do not have authority over the Constitution. They cannot ignore the Constitution either. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Judge Bibas said there is no evidence. Judge Bibas is not God. He's the judge so actually in this context he sort of is God. You guys seem to struggle understanding the concepts of jurisdiction and authority. Bibas has both. Trump, Biden, you and I have neither. Bibas has no authority. It is out of his hands. He is no longer a judge in this case. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...have likewise denied the existence of all evidence presented to you thus far. ...sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury, are not "random statements". .. Again they are presented to a Judge to, well, judge and not you or I. It is presented to both. tmiddles wrote: But let's run one down anyway. Guiliani's first choice: Convicted child sex offender and New Jersey resident Daryl Brooks with his "evidence" about Pennsylvania: Bulverism fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Darrell Brooks: (09:16) So, when I go to the poll, basically they put us at 20 feet away. They said, "No cameras, no phones, you cannot take pictures." I was even harassed by some of the Democratic Party poll watchers, and that is also recorded. And then the next thing you know, it was six feet away and they still would not allow us to see anything that was happening. We saw people working on the ballots, but we didn't know any names, we didn't see anything. We don't know if people voted twice or three times, we didn't know if dead people were voting. But we were there and we were watching and it's such a shame. This is a democracy in Philadelphia and they did not allow us to see anything, and was it corrupt or not? Darrell Brooks: (10:03) ... to see anything and it wasn't a corrupt enough, but give us the opportunity as poll Watchers to view all the documents, all the ballots. And listen, we just want a fair election and we viewed that was not fair at all. It was not fair to allow us to... they could have allowed us to look at the ballots, some ballots, but nothing. It was we were kept away from everything." Unedited statement made at the press conference. I dont believe this was ever in a court. What I notice: ", we didn't see anything. We don't know..." Is that, in your view, evidence of voter fraud? RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-12-2020 03:14
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	hepiddles quoted: Darrell Brooks: (09:16) So, when I go to the poll, basically they put us at 20 feet away. They said, "No cameras, no phones, you cannot take pictures." I was even harassed by some of the Democratic Party poll watchers, and that is also recorded. And then the next thing you know, it was six feet away and they still would not allow us to see anything that was happening. We saw people working on the ballots, but we didn't know any names, we didn't see anything. We don't know if people voted twice or three times, we didn't know if dead people were voting. But we were there and we were watching and it's such a shame. This is a democracy in Philadelphia and they did not allow us to see anything, and was it corrupt or not? Darrell Brooks: (10:03) ... to see anything and it wasn't a corrupt enough, but give us the opportunity as poll Watchers to view all the documents, all the ballots. And listen, we just want a fair election and we viewed that was not fair at all. It was not fair to allow us to... they could have allowed us to look at the ballots, some ballots, but nothing. It was we were kept away from everything." [b]hepiddles wrote: What I notice: ", we didn't see anything. We don't know..."[/b] Seriously piddle boy? This is what you notice? OK, one time I'll help you out a little with a few quotes. 1) they put us at 20 feet away. 2) No cameras, no phones, you cannot take pictures. 3) six feet away and they still would not allow us to see anything that was happening 4) we didn't see anything (he was there to legally observe) 5) they did not allow us to see anything 6) they could have allowed us to look at the ballots, some ballots, but nothing. 7) we were kept away from everything Yes, these statement are evidence of voter fraud if they are on a signed affidavit, dumbass. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 05-12-2020 03:14
05-12-2020 07:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Judge Bibas said there is no evidence. Apparently, this guy is one of your slavemasters... An election dispute in the US is under the authority of a Judge. So he is the master of the issue. IBdaMann wrote:The correct question is "To what hearings in their entirety have you listened?" Is as relevant as asking how thoroughly INFOWARS has been read. The court of public opinion, rumor and hearsay is not relevant. We have courts and Trump has been trying there and we have ruling there. Bibas is one example. IBdaMann wrote:compelling evidence" compelling to who? Not a judge so far. We don't have lynch mobs as part of our system either. You could watch court TV and make all the armchair verdicts you like. But the court decides what is compelling. IBdaMann wrote:..evidence of massive election fraud on the part of the DNC. Who at the DNC? When do you expect the first endictment? gfm7175 wrote: ...a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury? (evidence that is admissible in a court of law)...I see VERY solid cases All testimony in court risks perjury. A JUDGE will decide the verdict not the people on Twitter, OANN or here. You seem to be struggling with that reality. Show me where anyone has given testimony that puts them at risk? Daryl? gfm7175 wrote:The video evidence that Guzzler is speaking of IS admissible in a court of law and when can we expect a Judge to rule on it? gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: As far as I know not a single piece of evidence has been accepted by a court. You are wrong. Great! This means you know of at least one. Care to share? gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: How did Trump make $175M? My bad, 207M https://mobile.reuters.com/video/watch/idPC1U?now=true He didn't make that money, dumbass... Who did then? Please clarify how you see it. Its a rate of $7,000,000 a day so far. I love this country but that would tempt even me to rip it to shreds. GasGuzzler wrote: [quote]hepiddles quoted: thats a good one actually. GasGuzzler wrote:...they did not allow us to see anything...evidence of voter fraud No it's not. It is a statement, without supporting evidence, that one man was prevented from being as close as 6 feet. This issue had its day in court and: Jerome Marcus, said: "There's a non-zero number of people in the room." Which is one of the weird quotes from this clown show. Voter fraud would be destroying legal votes, voting illegally or attempting to achieve either. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20511# Examples: Lindsey Graham may have asked Raffensperger in Georgia to throw out legal ballots. A man in PA attempted to vote for his dead mother A lawyer in Florida registered to vote in Georgia and made a Facebook post urging others to do so. If proven those are all voter fraud. (Just so happens those are the only 3 I can find and its all fraud for Trump).
05-12-2020 12:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Judge Bibas said there is no evidence. Apparently, this guy is one of your slavemasters... An election dispute in the US is under the authority of a Judge. So he is the master of the issue. No. The State legislatures are the master of the issue. The court is being asked to force the States to follow their own election laws. Since the election has faulted in these States, the legislatures will be forced to either choose the electors themselves, or abstain. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:The correct question is "To what hearings in their entirety have you listened?" Is as relevant as asking how thoroughly INFOWARS has been read. The court of public opinion, rumor and hearsay is not relevant. We have courts and Trump has been trying there and we have ruling there. Bibas is one example. Bibas is not in charge of any of the cases. He is not relevant. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:compelling evidence" compelling to who? Not a judge so far. This isn't Judge Judy. It's actual courts. Courts take time. tmiddles wrote: We don't have lynch mobs as part of our system either. You could watch court TV and make all the armchair verdicts you like. But the court decides what is compelling. No. The jury does. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:..evidence of massive election fraud on the part of the DNC. Who at the DNC? When do you expect the first endictment? Some have already occurred. You really should pay better attention. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: ...a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury? (evidence that is admissible in a court of law)...I see VERY solid cases All testimony in court risks perjury. A JUDGE will decide the verdict not the people on Twitter, OANN or here. You seem to be struggling with that reality. No. A jury will decide. These are jury trials, except for the supreme court. tmiddles wrote: Show me where anyone has given testimony that puts them at risk? Daryl? RQAA gfm7175 wrote:The video evidence that Guzzler is speaking of IS admissible in a court of law and when can we expect a Judge to rule on it? RQAA tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: As far as I know not a single piece of evidence has been accepted by a court. You are wrong. Great! This means you know of at least one. Care to share? RQAA tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: [quote]gfm7175 wrote: How did Trump make $175M? My bad, 207M https://mobile.reuters.com/video/watch/idPC1U?now=true He didn't make that money, dumbass... Who did then? Please clarify how you see it. Its a rate of $7,000,000 a day so far. I love this country but that would tempt even me to rip it to shreds. There it is. You wish to destroy the United States. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: [quote]hepiddles quoted: thats a good one actually. GasGuzzler wrote:...they did not allow us to see anything...evidence of voter fraud No it's not. It is a statement, without supporting evidence, that one man was prevented from being as close as 6 feet. This issue had its day in court and: Jerome Marcus, said: "There's a non-zero number of people in the room." Which is one of the weird quotes from this clown show. Voter fraud would be destroying legal votes, voting illegally or attempting to achieve either. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20511# Contextomy fallacy. This is election fraud, and yes, people were voting illegally, by the hundreds of thousands, for Biden. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 05-12-2020 12:06
05-12-2020 13:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: When do you expect the first endictment? Some have already occurred. Who? I can't find that anywhere. More secret information only you know? Into the Night wrote: people were voting illegally, by the hundreds of thousands, for Biden. Is that something you know? Would you say it is a fact? Also how many hundreds of thousands for Biden and then how many illegal votes for Trump? Like 673,000 for Biden and 13 for Trump?
05-12-2020 18:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Who? I can't find that anywhere. This merely reflects your willful incompetence. If you weren't totally dishonest and had made a modicum of effort to find that information, you'd have hours of information through which to sift. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: people were voting illegally, by the hundreds of thousands, for Biden. Is that something you know? Would you say it is a fact? You know very well that Into the Night is well aware that the word "fact" does not mean what you ignorantly misunderstand it to mean, rendering your question invalid. Referring to my previous point, you are quite capable of independently researching the 220,000 ballots Trump is contesting in his Wisconsin "ultra vires" lawsuit which will ultimately flip Wisconsin for Trump. Once again, 220,000 ballots and you are free to research more information about them. If you are so totally incompetent that you cannot find any information then blame your parents or whoever was responsible for your education. tmiddles wrote:Also how many hundreds of thousands for Biden and then how many illegal votes for Trump? Like 673,000 for Biden and 13 for Trump? You're in the ballpark. It's more like a grand total of one million illegal votes for Biden and a few tens of thousands of votes illegally taken away from Trump, some of those having been forthwith altered to be votes for Biden. Zero illegal votes for Trump but an overwhelming record landslide of legal votes for Trump, none of which are being contested by anyone. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-12-2020 19:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: When do you expect the first endictment? Some have already occurred. Who? I can't find that anywhere. More secret information only you know? Into the Night wrote: people were voting illegally, by the hundreds of thousands, for Biden. Is that something you know? Would you say it is a fact? Also how many hundreds of thousands for Biden and then how many illegal votes for Trump? Like 673,000 for Biden and 13 for Trump? RQAA. It takes a true religious fundamentalist moron to keep asking the same questions that have already been answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 05-12-2020 19:21

Page 7 of 8

Join the debate King:

Threads	Replies	Last post
B-17 and Bell King Cobra collided at Dallas air show today. Story at 11	0	13-11-2022 01:38
LOL the new king of England never learned how pens work. Most inbred people have this very same problem	0	14-09-2022 21:13
How stupid is the new king of england as he is letting a Mercedes drive his mother to the dump	0	12-09-2022 17:19
Coal Is Still King	11	07-04-2019 01:04