Remember me
▼ Content

One reason for social distancing/isolation



Page 13 of 20<<<1112131415>>>
11-06-2020 01:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Read through the Constitution sometime...
Awe ducking out so soon GFM?

I looked and Article VIII on identity theft seems to be missing.

[/quote]
Contract law, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
So why is it that the crimes of disorderly conduct, criminal endangerment, inducing panic, that yelling fire in a theater make a speaker guilty of are somehow erased by the first amendment?

It is legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. It is not legal to loot, riot, or burn buildings and cars you don't own. See the state constitution of your State (if you are in a State of the United States).
tmiddles wrote:
And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?

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
11-06-2020 01:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Correct. "Calls to action" are actions themselves and are illegal if the call to action is for something illegal.


But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?


It is legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.


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
11-06-2020 01:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?

What is it you are saying?

.
That it's not unconstitutional for all types of weapons to be illegal for US citizens. Nuclear weapons among them.

Was that in doubt?


Yes it is. The 2nd amendment does not specify any weapon by type, design, or brand name. The 2nd amendment is also binding up on the States.


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
Edited on 11-06-2020 01:31
11-06-2020 01:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote:But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?

No, I do not. It is very rude. It is not criminal.

It is legal to be rude; that is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment

.


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
11-06-2020 02:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?

No, I do not. It is very rude. It is not criminal.
It is legal to be rude; that is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment
Curious you don't consider yelling "Fire" a call to action.
11-06-2020 04:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?

No, I do not. It is very rude. It is not criminal.
It is legal to be rude; that is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment
Curious you don't consider yelling "Fire" a call to action.


I think someone is going to have to decide in a lot of cases is the constitution is being upheld and when an amendment protects something and when it doesn't.

That party will have to "interpret" the constitution along with the enacted laws to make a judgement.

And they are called judges.
11-06-2020 04:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote:Curious you don't consider yelling "Fire" a call to action.

At worst it is lying (which is protected by the 1st Amendment) otherwise it is informative.

What action is being forthwith called? None.

Now if the call were "Put out the fire!" then you'd have a case.
If it were "Everyone run for your lives in a wild panic!" you'd have a point.
If it were "Get chocolate, marshmallows and graham crackers!" you'd make sense.

The call "Fire!" does not call for any action." Note the lack of any verb.

.


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
11-06-2020 06:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
At worst it is ...otherwise it is ...What action is being forthwith called?...Now if ...Note the...
Guess what you're doing right now? Judging : )

What courts are for.

Interpret that constitution IBD!
11-06-2020 06:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
At worst it is ...otherwise it is ...What action is being forthwith called?...Now if ...Note the...
Guess what you're doing right now? Judging : )

What courts are for.

Interpret that constitution IBD!


You are jumping around incoherently.

How can my judgement be what the courts are for? How does my understanding of our legal system imply an interpretation of the Constitution?


.


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
11-06-2020 10:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?

No, I do not. It is very rude. It is not criminal.
It is legal to be rude; that is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment
Curious you don't consider yelling "Fire" a call to action.


Yelling "Fire" is legal.


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
11-06-2020 10:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?

No, I do not. It is very rude. It is not criminal.
It is legal to be rude; that is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment
Curious you don't consider yelling "Fire" a call to action.


I think someone is going to have to decide in a lot of cases is the constitution is being upheld and when an amendment protects something and when it doesn't.

That party will have to "interpret" the constitution along with the enacted laws to make a judgement.

And they are called judges.

The States are the only ones that have the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.


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
11-06-2020 10:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
At worst it is ...otherwise it is ...What action is being forthwith called?...Now if ...Note the...
Guess what you're doing right now? Judging : )

What courts are for.

Interpret that constitution IBD!

No court has any authority to interpret or change the Constitution.


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
11-06-2020 16:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
IBdaMann wrote:...selective seed eating graphic...

Indeed I AM quite selective... I only eat the white seeds. I hate the black ones.
11-06-2020 16:59
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Read through the Constitution sometime...
Awe ducking out so soon GFM?

No.

tmiddles wrote:
I looked and Article VIII on identity theft seems to be missing.

You have never read the document.

tmiddles wrote:
So why is it that the crimes of disorderly conduct, criminal endangerment, inducing panic, that yelling fire in a theater make a speaker guilty of are somehow erased by the first amendment?

They aren't. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?

You now keep sneaking these underlined words into your question that weren't present in your original version of this question. Why is this?

RQAA.
11-06-2020 17:00
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Correct. "Calls to action" are actions themselves and are illegal if the call to action is for something illegal.


But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?

There is nothing criminal about yelling fire in a crowded theater.

RQAA.
11-06-2020 17:09
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?

What is it you are saying?

.
That it's not unconstitutional for all types of weapons to be illegal for US citizens. Nuclear weapons among them.

Was that in doubt?

Read the 2nd Amendment, dummy.

Why did you suddenly remove the words "convicted felon" and switch over to using the words "US citizens" in your response? Why do you keep playing these word games??
11-06-2020 17:21
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?

No, I do not. It is very rude. It is not criminal.
It is legal to be rude; that is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment
Curious you don't consider yelling "Fire" a call to action.

Are you now attempting to equivocate "fire" (noun) with "fire" (verb)? We've been talking about "fire" (noun), dummy.

Regardless, there is nothing illegal about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
11-06-2020 17:23
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
At worst it is ...otherwise it is ...What action is being forthwith called?...Now if ...Note the...
Guess what you're doing right now? Judging : )

What courts are for.

Interpret that constitution IBD!

Judging is not interpreting.
11-06-2020 17:28
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
At worst it is ...otherwise it is ...What action is being forthwith called?...Now if ...Note the...
Guess what you're doing right now? Judging : )

What courts are for.

Interpret that constitution IBD!


You are jumping around incoherently.

How can my judgement be what the courts are for? How does my understanding of our legal system imply an interpretation of the Constitution?


.


This is what liars do.

One of my uncles (who loves to lie and stretch the truth) regularly does this whenever you try to discuss a particular topic with him. One can try to address a particular comment he made and he'll bounce around all over the place, ranting on and on about anything BUT what you are trying to discuss with him.
11-06-2020 17:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
gfm7175 wrote:This is what liars do.

... and MSM journaliars.

.
Attached image:

11-06-2020 21:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
... at least he is truthful (on his press pass, anyway) about his "sponsors", but that seems to be where the truth ends.
12-06-2020 05:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
How can my judgement be what the courts are for?
I found your interpretation of the 1st amendment interesting IBD. As you weighed how the competing goods of existing laws governing fraud, manslaughter and other crimes with the importance of free speech. If you were a member of the judiciary you might even be in a position to make case law with your perspective as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was when he determined yelling fire in a crowded theater was potentially a criminal act not protected.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?

You now keep sneaking these underlined words into your question that weren't present in your original version of this question. Why is this?
RQAA.
Hey ITN is it legal for a convicted felon to own a nuclear warhead?
12-06-2020 06:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote: as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was when he determined yelling fire in a crowded theater was potentially a criminal act not protected.

You are WRONG! Obviously acts can be prohibited. The speech "Fire!" can never be illegal.


tmiddles wrote: Hey ITN is it legal for a convicted felon to own a nuclear warhead?

You are WRONG! You have a penchant for making chit up. Your assertion that the Constitution states that convicted felons cannot own nuclear weapons is absurd.

.


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
12-06-2020 16:28
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
"THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!"

Is it illegal to yell the above quote in a crowded theater, ipiddlemyself?

I'll wait until you're done with your Google search...
12-06-2020 16:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
gfm7175 wrote:
"THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!"
Is it illegal to yell the above quote in a crowded theater, ipiddlemyself?
I'll wait until you're done with your Google search...

Is it legal to not need no wadda'?


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
12-06-2020 17:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
"THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!"
Is it illegal to yell the above quote in a crowded theater, ipiddlemyself?
I'll wait until you're done with your Google search...

Is it legal to not need no wadda'?

Is it legal for clouds to block cold?
12-06-2020 17:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
"THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!"
Is it illegal to yell the above quote in a crowded theater, ipiddlemyself?
I'll wait until you're done with your Google search...

Is it legal to not need no wadda'?

Is it legal for clouds to block cold?

Are different parts of the ocean allowed to change sea level willie-nillie?


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
12-06-2020 18:34
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
"THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!"
Is it illegal to yell the above quote in a crowded theater, ipiddlemyself?
I'll wait until you're done with your Google search...

Is it legal to not need no wadda'?

Is it legal for clouds to block cold?

Are different parts of the ocean allowed to change sea level willie-nillie?

YOU'RE WRONG! It's not willie-nillie, it's haphazardly. indisputable proof


IBD/ITN fraud exposed... 13 days without a response... I piddled myself... blah blah blah
12-06-2020 19:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
"THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!"
Is it illegal to yell the above quote in a crowded theater, ipiddlemyself?
I'll wait until you're done with your Google search...

Is it legal to not need no wadda'?

Is it legal for clouds to block cold?

Are different parts of the ocean allowed to change sea level willie-nillie?

YOU'RE WRONG! It's not willie-nillie, it's haphazardly. indisputable proof


IBD/ITN fraud exposed... 13 days without a response... I piddled myself... blah blah blah

Definitely a winner.

.
Attached image:

12-06-2020 22:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
How can my judgement be what the courts are for?
I found your interpretation of the 1st amendment interesting IBD. As you weighed how the competing goods of existing laws governing fraud, manslaughter and other crimes with the importance of free speech. If you were a member of the judiciary you might even be in a position to make case law with your perspective as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was when he determined yelling fire in a crowded theater was potentially a criminal act not protected.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?

You now keep sneaking these underlined words into your question that weren't present in your original version of this question. Why is this?
RQAA.
Hey ITN is it legal for a convicted felon to own a nuclear warhead?


No. Convicted felons are no longer citizens with the rights of citizens.


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
12-06-2020 22:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was when he determined yelling fire in a crowded theater was potentially a criminal act not protected.

You are WRONG! Obviously acts can be prohibited. The speech "Fire!" can never be illegal.
Are you saying I'm wrong about the historical event taking place with the interpretation of the 1st amendment by Justice Holmes? Speech is an act of speaking but "act" was my word choice. Here is what he said:
"falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic", see he's even got that oldy time spelling of theatre because it was 1919

IBdaMann wrote:Your assertion that the Constitution states that convicted felons cannot own nuclear weapons is absurd.
Hmmm, apparently not. You just said they can and ITN said they can't.
Into the Night wrote:
No. Convicted felons are no longer citizens with the rights of citizens.

But it wasn't a question about the actual application of the constitution, we have a judiciary for that, it was a question about your personal opinions. Which are clearly in conflict on that one.
12-06-2020 22:46
keepit
★★★★☆
(1620)
N
Edited on 12-06-2020 23:16
12-06-2020 22:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was when he determined yelling fire in a crowded theater was potentially a criminal act not protected.

You are WRONG! Obviously acts can be prohibited. The speech "Fire!" can never be illegal.
Are you saying I'm wrong about the historical event taking place with the interpretation of the 1st amendment by Justice Holmes? Speech is an act of speaking but "act" was my word choice. Here is what he said:
"falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic", see he's even got that oldy time spelling of theatre because it was 1919

Are you saying that SCOTUS supersedes the Constitution?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Your assertion that the Constitution states that convicted felons cannot own nuclear weapons is absurd.
Hmmm, apparently not. You just said they can and ITN said they can't.
Into the Night wrote:
No. Convicted felons are no longer citizens with the rights of citizens.

But it wasn't a question about the actual application of the constitution, we have a judiciary for that, it was a question about your personal opinions. Which are clearly in conflict on that one.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I was waiting for you to respond in this very manner ever since IBD made that post of his HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are TOO predictable.....

You've been exceptionally hilarious today...
12-06-2020 22:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
keepit wrote:
No more economic lockdowns??

Hopefully not. There shouldn't've been any in the first place.
13-06-2020 01:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
gfm7175 wrote:
Are you saying that SCOTUS supersedes the Constitution?
That question introduces an assumption: That to interpret something is to have the power to change it based on your will.

I reject that definition of "interpret" or that view of the judicial act of "interpreting" if that is what you are saying.

Just as IBD, and you have been interpreting the constitution in this thread the judiciary is tasked with this in any legally binding case.

You do not have the power to change something simply because you have the power to interpret it.
13-06-2020 05:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote: Just as IBD, and you have been interpreting the constitution in this thread the judiciary is tasked with this in any legally binding case.

You are WRONG again! I have merely expressed the intentions of the Founding Fathers. I always defer to the States as to the meaning of the Constitution.

tmiddles wrote:You do not have the power to change something simply because you have the power to interpret it.

You are WRONG! The power to "interpret" is the full power of that particular law ... which belongs in the legislature and which is why we even have the problem of radical judges illegally legislating from the bench in the first place. If judges could "interpret" the laws then it wouldn't be illegal legislating from the bench now would it?

You like to get hung up on words, to twist words and to generally undermine communication. Just come out and admit that because you are a Marxist who does not believe in the rule of law that you need for dictators to be ruling by fiat. You are probably a BLM terrorist. You are, aren't you?

.


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
Edited on 13-06-2020 05:04
13-06-2020 05:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Just as IBD, and you have been interpreting...
...I have merely expressed the intentions of the Founding Fathers....
Exactly, interpreting. That's what interpreting is you see, to figure out the intent and meaning of what it being interpreted. For this and more goodies I would like to recommend the Dictionary to you.

It is simply not possible to apply a law without interpreting it.

IBdaMann wrote:You are probably a BLM terrorist.
Where did that come from? There are not "BLM terrorist"s that I'm aware of. I am absolutely a BLM supporter along with most decent people worldwide.
13-06-2020 06:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Back on to the topic this is too cool:
https://app.flourish.studio/visualisation/2562261/
It's a tally of deaths this year from several causes. It doesn't include heart disease or a few major ones but in any case it's very interesting. Couple screen shots, Jan 1:
and Today:

Really puts things in perspective! I didn't realize so many people committed suicide.
13-06-2020 06:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote: Exactly, interpreting.

... but not of the Constitution you moron. You are WRONG! tmiddles fraud exposed.

tmiddles wrote:That's what interpreting is you see,

I know what "interpreting" means in its various contexts. The topic is interpreting the Constitution ... or "was" because you can't stay on topic for more than half a post.

tmiddles wrote: There are not "BLM terrorist"s that I'm aware of.

That's what I thought. You ARE a BLM terrorist.

All BLM'ers are terrorists. They push a political agenda through violence and fear. Terrorism.

Which brings us to the question of whether you are an ANTIFA terrorist as well ... and I can already guess that the answer to that is "yes" also.

The fact that you support terrorism comes as absolutely no surprise. That's why you so desperately NEED for citizens to be disarmed.

tmiddles watches videos like this and rejoices that at least the victim wasn't armed with one of those "firearms" and able to thwart the crime being perpetrated.


The tmiddles utopia

... and this.

.


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
Edited on 13-06-2020 06:39
13-06-2020 07:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
All BLM'ers are terrorists. They push a political agenda through violence.
what violence exactly?

I consider myself to be a supporter of BLM. I am not violent.

Again:
tmiddles wrote:
It is simply not possible to apply a law without interpreting it.

Edited on 13-06-2020 07:23
Page 13 of 20<<<1112131415>>>





Join the debate One reason for social distancing/isolation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Safe Distancing Video004-04-2020 06:28
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1321-02-2020 20:12
Reason why companies are not converting to 100% electric, focusing on Porsche1806-12-2019 23:29
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact