Leftist Ambassador’s Show Ryan Leftist Tolerance

 

 

It’s so heart warming that the U.S. can engage in the arena of ideas and still be unified in the common cause of the country.

Well, okay, that would be true if we weren’t stuck with a bunch of intolerant ignorant criminal leftists.  But, I’m being very redundant. 

Paul Ryan speaks in Iowa; protesters grow violent

In this case, it was a group of leftist females and one male demonstrating their grace and dignity for all of America to witness.

There’s a video of the male nutter and some idiot female trying to rush the stage here.

One protester struck a woman in crowd in the face, and there was a report that state Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Red Oak, was getting pushed down.

Stay classy ladies!  I love it when leftists show their true form and colors.

h/t Gator

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

402 Responses to Leftist Ambassador’s Show Ryan Leftist Tolerance

  1. This is a clear revelation of what a certain percentage of the population thinks of decent, every day people. I am sure the secret service has changed their method of protecting him after this. This had to have been an eye opener for them. I know this is just the beginning of emotionally charged people going after him. But they are not just showing their true colors in regards to him. Most people in America are like Ryan, just regular folk. You can see what these activists think of regular people. They do not want decent Americans to get back in the drivers seat in America.

  2. miked1947 says:

    Here is a new ad for you:

  3. President Barack Obama wears blue, checkered shirt, to a corn field trying to look like he fits in in fly over country.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187684/Department-Agriculture-Barack-Obama-announce-plan-buy-170m-food-support-drought-hit-farmers.html

    What’s worse is there are people that will buy it.

  4. A Marxist to the end:

    “A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared”

    He should have just said “Same me.”

    video

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/13/obama_a_new_vision_of_an_america_which_prosperity_is_shared.html

  5. philjourdan says:

    The same scene being played out every election cycle. The left’s intolerance of free speech.

  6. ThePhDScientist says:

    Now where are those videos of all the crazy things the tea baggers do? Oh wait this blog is just a right wing propaganda machine! Are you being sponsored by Fox News?

    Oh here’s one particularly fine specimen. Is this Suyts or PhilJourdan? LoL

    • DirkH says:

      PhD, who explained to you how to paste a youtube link into that box down there?

      How many trials did you need?

      • kim2ooo says:

        Ha ha ha ha…had PhD read the “more information” ….It undercuts his ObamaTax statements about care for uninsured – poor and under insured.

        Seems like we already provide those with health care via government funding

    • kim2ooo says:

      ThePhDScientist says:
      August 14, 2012 at 10:24 am

      Now where are those videos of all the crazy things the tea baggers do? Oh wait this blog is just a right wing propaganda machine! Are you being sponsored by Fox News?

      xxxxxxxxxxxxx
      Are you sucking Government teat?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Hahaha! Just the kind of comments I had expected!

        • kim2ooo says:

          Well, you finally figured it out?

          Rude, crude and abusive comments left by you….promote comments like mine.

          So I ask again: Are you on the Government teat?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha! Oh Kim that’s rich! My comments simply provide a balance to the one-way, right wing, idolizing that goes on here all day, every day! How is my video and comment any different than the title of this post “Leftist Ambassador Show Ryan Leftist Tolerance”.

          It’s so funny, you people cannot handle anyone disagreeing with you or pointing out to you that no it’s just the left that has it’s crazies, the baggers have more than their fare share as well!

          Get a grip Kim!

        • DirkH says:

          PhD would LOVE to be paid more than the 10 cents per comment.

        • kim2ooo says:

          It’s so funny, you people cannot handle anyone disagreeing with you ”

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Ha ha ha ha…Read your posts, in various threads here: You’ve been “handled” by a kid – many times, here. 🙂

          You mistake rude, crude and abusive posts of yours, for honest debate.

          Asking again, since you brought up the accusation fallacy first.

          Are you on the Government teat?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          “you’ve been handled many times by a kid….” Oh Kim I love you! LOL! Now tell me would that be your objective scientific conclusion similar to any of your posts about global warming?

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 12:17 pm

          LOL! Now tell me would that be your objective scientific conclusion similar to any of your posts about global warming?

          xxxxxxxxxx
          Does your mommy let you out of the basement long enough to learn how to write a comprehensive – coherent idea / statement?

          Why won’t you honestly answer the Question?

          Are you on the Governments teat?

        • philjourdan says:

          Just the kind of juvenile statement I expected. I will had it to you. At least you can spell haha correctly – oh wait! Nope, another phd fail. Got one too many has in there.

      • kim2ooo says:

        Objectively:

        Since you are bent to evade the simple question:

        “Are you on the Governments teat”

        One can safely, logically, conclude – you are embarrassed or fear the question and your honest answer of the question.

        Are you on the Governments teat?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I AM THE GOVERNMENT KIM! AND I’M COMING FOR YOU AND YOUR LITTLE TEA PARTYING DOG TOO……MUAHAHAHAHAHA. MUAHAHAHA.

          (see Kim stupid questions get stupid answers….)

        • DirkH says:

          Well , you sure hope you might someday rise above intern status.

          But don’t worry. Obama will win by a landslide in November and there will be social justice for all. Nobody will ever lose his job because that will be made illegal. All failing businesses will be bailed out. He actually announced that.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And that affects you in Germany how? Or you just want to add your two cents to the rest of the chorus in the room?

          I’m curious though…I actually have fun talking with you people, whom I completely disagree with on most issues. But, do any of you ever venture outside of this candy store, somewhere that you’re not protected by 10 people who think just like you and praise you with pats on the back and thumbs up for every word you utter?

        • kim2ooo says:

          (see Kim stupid questions get stupid answers….)

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Why, yes, they do! 🙂
          AND THAT IS THE LESSON You’ve been taught here, for this….
          Illogical stupid bloviating ramble –

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 10:24 am

          Now where are those videos of all the crazy things the tea baggers do? Oh wait this blog is just a right wing propaganda machine! Are you being sponsored by Fox News?

          Oh here’s one particularly fine specimen. Is this Suyts or PhilJourdan? LoL

          You’ve been schooled and spanked.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          What is it with you Kim? You claim to have the same degree as Mann, except you apparently don’t work in science and dont publish any science? Chip in your shoulder? No one would give you a job despite your supposed PhD?

        • suyts says:

          Ph, she’s having a bit of fun with you. You need to see how she’s wording her statements.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm

          What is it with you Kim? You claim to have the same degree as Mann, except you apparently don’t work in science and dont publish any science? Chip in your shoulder? No one would give you a job despite your supposed PhD?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Reading comprehension is an acquired skill – and you just proved it. 🙂

          I will repeat my post with bolded helpers for you.

          I have the VERY same degree in Climatology as Mr Hansen…Mr Mann…Mr Jones…Mr Gore………………

          Here’s the hint for you short bus scientists:
          They don’t have a degree in Climatology.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh ok now I get it! Mann only as a PhD in physics and postdoctoral fellowship training in paleo-climatology. This clearly Kim2ooo is the authority on climate science among that group!

          LOL. Said it before and I’ll say it again. I really do love you Kim – I never laugh as much as I do when you show me how the bagger mind works!

          BTW So you’re saying you have absolutely no “real” scientific credentials beyond the self and blogosphere appointed ones?

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm

          Oh ok now I get it! Mann only as a PhD in physics and postdoctoral fellowship training in paleo-climatology.

          Once again, you argue from logical fallacy.
          Once again, I invite you to learn why it is a fallacy.

          Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a special type of inductive-reasoning argument.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

          To argue Mr Mann – You would have to provide observational empirical evidence…. That his Hockey Stick – Tree Ring [ paleo-climatology ] data doesn’t show divergences from the AGW CAGW hypothesis.

          He Mr Mann. has readily admitted his Tree Rings diverge . This is why he grafted Tree Rings with Tiljander proxies….and those proxies were used upside down.

          [“You can see that the data was used upside down by comparing Mann’s own graph with the orientation of the original article, as we did last year. In the case of the Tiljander proxies, Tiljander asserted that “a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds” – the only problem is that their sign was opposite to the one used by Mann. “] http://climateaudit.org/2009/02/26/upside-down-tiljander-in-japan/

          This clearly Kim2ooo is the authority on climate science among that group!
          Another fallacy in your logic.

          http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

          LOL. Said it before and I’ll say it again. I really do love you Kim – I never laugh as much as I do when you show me how the bagger mind works!

          Known as an ad hominem.
          WHY?
          Prove me to be a Tea Partier.
          Prove what I said was wrong.

          ALL ANYONE HAS TO DO IS SHOW THE DIVERGENCE FROM THE HYPOTHESIS

          BTW So you’re saying you have absolutely no “real” scientific credentials beyond the self and blogosphere appointed ones?

          Wrong assumptions once again.
          I have proved …. I have the same Credentials in Climatology as your heroes.

          In debate – It’s dangerous to assume.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm

          Oh ok now I get it! Mann only as a PhD in physics and postdoctoral fellowship training in paleo-climatology.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Once again, you argue from logical fallacy.
          Once again, I invite you to learn why it is a fallacy.

          Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a special type of inductive-reasoning argument.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority.

          If we applied this fallacy in logic – to your life,

          Religions have 4000 years of authority…………I’ll here your prayers now,………. Hey! If it works one way – it works all ways.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha and you really believe that, huh? Then try this, next time you go in for heart surgery ask the pharmacy technician to do take the lead with the scalpel! I mean you have no need to appeal to authority right?

        • kim2ooo says:

          Hear…sorry typo

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          BTW Kim – when you have a really bad argument it doesn’t matter how many latin words you throw in. Trust me it doesn’t make you sound any smarter or make the argument any better. Just ask PhilJourdan. Ok! 😀

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm

          Haha and you really believe that, huh? Then try this, next time you go in for heart surgery ask the pharmacy technician to do take the lead with the scalpel! I mean you have no need to appeal to authority right?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Surely, you aren’t this illogical?

          The surgeon doesn’t practice pseudoscience – Post-normal Science….He practices Normal Science.

          AGW CAGW is Post-normal Science

          http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

          I keep thinking you are intelligent.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And to support your argument you reference another blog! LOL

          Not to mention a blog that bags on Stephen Hawking and promotes intelligent design as science! (Great reference Kim2ooo – showing of those science credentials again, huh?)

          When will you people learn? Honestly, it’s like talking to one great big ideological wall!

        • suyts says:

          Ph, the problem with the appeal to authority in this case is the fact that they’ve been shown to be wrong over and over again. If we want to discuss Mann, then we have to talk about his shortcomings in the biological processes. That is, he doesn’t understand what, how, and why tree rings form as they do. Read this….http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol34_21-45.pdf

          If we want to talk about Hansen, then all we have to do is look at his latest foray into the U.S. drought causation meme. This is Dr. Michaels global temps to U.S. drought index http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/michaels_pdsi-vs-gistemp_scatterplot.png?w=948&h=1008

        • kim2ooo says:

          Ha ha ha ha.,….
          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm

          And to support your argument you reference another blog! LOL “]

          You deny Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios, and reviewer for UKCP09), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC,

          Said this:?

          We need to reveal the creative psychological, spiritual and ethical work that climate change can do and is doing for us…we open up a way of resituating culture and the human spirit…As a resource of the imagination, the idea of climate change can be deployed around our geographical, social and virtual worlds in creative ways…it can inspire new artistic creations in visual, written and dramatised media. The idea of climate change can provoke new ethical and theological thinking about our relationship with the future”

          AND
          :”The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow…exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.”

          AND
          “It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus…on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity.
          AND
          “Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along.”

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahahaha – oh now we have appeals to authority, huh? So happy to have some with actual credentials as part of the denialist movement? LOL WISH-WASH WISH-WASH….

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          BTW KIM you don’t get to say climate science is a post-normal science because that guy on that blog said so….

          A bit childish, no?

          But I guess you need to frame it that way right? Because if it’s post-normal science then none of the traditional rules of science apply? No experiments need be conducted. No hypotheses put forward. Blogosphere comments are taken as scientific fact (even though they’ve never gone through peer-review or looked at by anyone who might have a less friendly eye). And all yo u have to do is try to find some anomalies in the published literature then you declare victory.

          I’ll give you one thing, the denialists know how to play a smart game. The problem is, no one is buying it.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm

          When will you people learn? Honestly, it’s like talking to one great big ideological wall!

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Actually, It’s you who is not seeking Scientific truth.

          Let’s make this easy on you:

          Provide observational empirical evidence [ truth ] that doesn’t show a Divergence, from the AGW CAGW hypothesis.

          NO ONE CAN.

          Provide an honest answer to this question: What happens in Normal Science when a divergence from the hypothesis happens?

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm

          Hahahaha – oh now we have appeals to authority, huh? So happy to have some with actual credentials as part of the denialist movement? LOL WISH-WASH WISH-WASH….

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Actually, you are once again WRONG:

          I provided FACTS:

          You provide appeal to authority – NO FACTS…..READ Logic help links I provided for your education, to see the difference.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No you didn’t provide anything. You copy/pasted some denialist talking points.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 4:27 pm

          BTW KIM you don’t get to say climate science is a post-normal science because that guy on that blog said so…”

          XXXXXXXXXXXX

          You truly are ignorant…… 🙂

          For the Scientists on the short bus:

          If it diverges from the hypothesis and you don’t scrap the unworkable UN-verifiable hypothesis…it IS NOT ME that calls it pseudoscience – post-normal science>

          IT’s MR Poppers Law http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          So again because you call it a post-normal science you don’t have to go through normal scientific channels? You have now disproven all climate science is incorrect, but because of the global climate change conspiracy you simply cannot get your work out and published the way scientists have done for centuries? Is that the story we’re sticking with?

        • suyts says:

          published the way scientists have done for centuries?
          ========================
          OVerstating?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          ??? Just because your team refuses to participate in the scientific process and has now invented a new term as to why they don’t actually have to participate in it, does not mean it hasn’t been going on for centuries.

          (and this is just in the United States) much longer if we include Europe…

          http://ajs.library.cmu.edu/

        • suyts says:

          Ph, though the journals have existed, the peer reviewed, refereed system which exists today didn’t in 1818.

          Further, I’m not sure which term you’re referring to, “post normal” or “null hypothesis“, but I can assure you neither were inventions of skeptics.

          Without trying to sound insulting, I’d be happy to explain the background of both. Reading your comments throughout your engagement tells me you’re not familiar with one or the other. It’s basically a traditional science method verses a nuevo science method. Climate science seems to embrace the latter. (post normal science) Jerome Ravetz….. It’s worth a read. He’s a nice guy, but, certainly not a person embraced by skeptics. … “Null hypothesis” assumes if you can’t prove your hypothesis, then it defaults back to common convention. Applied to climate science, if it isn’t proven that man emitted ghg is causing warming then it’s just climate cycles to which there hasn’t been sufficient explanation or that it is just “nature”.

          Of course, this leads to many questions, such as “is the recent warming outside the norm?” Are we really seeing warming? What is the “norm”? etc… Most skeptics hold that these questions have not been adequately answered. It isn’t that we’ve proven anything, rather, no one has proven anything. But, if it ever was proven, then we have to prove that warming is harmful….. and so it goes.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 4:46 pm

          So again because you call it a post-normal science you don’t have to go through normal scientific channels?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Hmmmmmm….. It is not me that won’t seek Normal Science validation.

          For the scientists on the short bus.

          When you refuse to use Normal Science procedures …you are practicing post-normal science – You throw the null hypothesis out the window.

          You have now disproven all climate science is incorrect,

          Once again wrong…It proves the AGW CAGW hypothesis doesn’t standup to Normal Science – Can you not see the difference?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh Kim you don’t even know what post-normal science is (Sorry brief intermission – I had some work to do and had to leave the computer). But where were we? I remember I suggested that if you need no authority than have the pharmacy technician perform your next heart surgery? You were going to agree to that right, because after all surgery is considered a post-normal science (or may it’s not in the kim2ooo definition) Because we know kim2ooo gets to define the facts in whatever best works to advance his/her ideologic agenda! Right!?!

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 4:46 pm

          get your work out and published the way scientists have done for centuries?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Again appeal to authority.

          Mr Mann has many published papers……… How have they held up?

          Can you prove them correct? [ He can’t ].
          Are you aware of their faults?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Yes I am aware of their faults. Apparently you’re not aware that after probably more intense scrutiny than any other scientist in the history of entire world (and certainly worlds more scrutiny than anything a denier has ever said) all the major conclusions of Mann’s work have been deemed true. The deniers tried there hardest and when more scientists validated his major findings – they simply cried louder. “It’s all a big conspiracy”.

          There are no appeals to authority you fool. There is the scientific process that has led to virtually every major discovery you see around you. And yes, it has worked for centuries! Now one unique group of deniers is claiming it doesn’t work, they refuse to participate in it, but “trust them” they’re right?!?

        • suyts says:

          Really Ph, you should read the links I’ve offered. It’s fairly straight forward and any rational person can come to the conclusion Mann was wrong.

          I’ve offered this to blogs much busier than mine… which have their share of “alarmists” and I’ve not seen a refutation. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/why-are-dendro-shafts-so-straight/

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm

          No you didn’t provide anything. You copy/pasted some denialist talking points.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Actually, WRONG again.

          I provided direct quotes of Mr Hulme – an AGW CAGW’er.

          If you have a problem….The logical response would be to support that he didn’t say those things.

          BUT then again logic isn’t your strong point – You argue from emotion not FACTS. Quite unworthy of a self proclaimed Scientist.

      • kim2ooo says:

        ThePhDScientist says:
        August 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm

        BTW Kim – when you have a really bad argument it doesn’t matter how many latin words you throw in. Trust me it doesn’t make you sound any smarter or make the argument any better. Just ask PhilJourdan. Ok!

        xxxxxxxxxxxxx

        REPOST for you: PROVE ME WRONG! Or at least open your mind intellectually and try to make a point.

        kim2ooo says:
        August 14, 2012 at 3:06 pm

        ThePhDScientist says:
        August 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm

        Oh ok now I get it! Mann only as a PhD in physics and postdoctoral fellowship training in paleo-climatology.

        Once again, you argue from logical fallacy.
        Once again, I invite you to learn why it is a fallacy.

        Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a special type of inductive-reasoning argument.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

        To argue Mr Mann – You would have to provide observational empirical evidence…. That his Hockey Stick – Tree Ring [ paleo-climatology ] data doesn’t show divergences from the AGW CAGW hypothesis.

        He Mr Mann. has readily admitted his Tree Rings diverge . This is why he grafted Tree Rings with Tiljander proxies….and those proxies were used upside down.

        [“You can see that the data was used upside down by comparing Mann’s own graph with the orientation of the original article, as we did last year. In the case of the Tiljander proxies, Tiljander asserted that “a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds” – the only problem is that their sign was opposite to the one used by Mann. “] http://climateaudit.org/2009/02/26/upside-down-tiljander-in-japan/

        This clearly Kim2ooo is the authority on climate science among that group!
        Another fallacy in your logic.

        http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

        LOL. Said it before and I’ll say it again. I really do love you Kim – I never laugh as much as I do when you show me how the bagger mind works!

        Known as an ad hominem.
        WHY?
        Prove me to be a Tea Partier.
        Prove what I said was wrong.

        ALL ANYONE HAS TO DO IS SHOW THE DIVERGENCE FROM THE HYPOTHESIS

        BTW So you’re saying you have absolutely no “real” scientific credentials beyond the self and blogosphere appointed ones?

        Wrong assumptions once again.
        I have proved …. I have the same Credentials in Climatology as your heroes.

        In debate – It’s dangerous to assume.

    • suyts says:

      Lol, Ph, I’ll have to listen later, but you know what I didn’t see? I didn’t see any actual violence. Yes, it seemed he was yelling and perhaps not very stable, but the fact is, he didn’t attack anybody. How do you equate that with physical violence like punching a lady at a Ryan speech?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Now Suyts, I have to ask…Are you really being genuine in this reply to me? You think it would take me more than 5 seconds to show some tea bagger violence? Now when I show you this I expect a written admission, posted here, that tea baggers are just as crazy as “leftists” – or at least that they both have their crazy minority….OK, FAIR DEAL!?!

        • suyts says:

          Uhm… Ph… can we have a little bit more than that? You can’t attribute this to a TEA party member! For all we know that’s a hapless leftist pissed because Guantanamo wasn’t closed. Or some pothead pissed because Obama hasn’t called off his DEA dogs.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          HAHAHAHA! Don’t tell me Suyts. You’re now DENYING my video? Honestly man – to some extent I can understand we’re on different ends of the political spectrum and I can accept that. BUT are you fu$king serious with that last post? No, really I mean it?

          That last post really just put you in the nutter bag. Do you also believe Obama wasn’t born here and is secretly worshipping the Quran?

          And even still, who in their right mind is so completely STUPID that they wouldn’t believe nutty violent individuals exist on both sides of the political spectrum. Honestly, I had earlier given you the benefit of the doubt, but this is just enforcing my opinion that you’re nothing but a blind ideologue. The evidence is in front of your face and you’re denying it! Now I should believe you on global warming?

        • suyts says:

          Heck that could be a Rosanne Barr supporter!

        • suyts says:

          At 1:50 the lady with the vid claims she was hit because she has lipstick on her? The police are right there! Are you alleging that the police witnessed assault and didn’t do anything? 3:45… “I got lipstick all over my camera!”. She’s alleging assault to her camera by lips. A minute later its “she hit me in the face”…. with her lips? At 5:30 the lady lies stating that the lady ran away. She did not.

          Yes, that’s a lot like having a bunch of people attack Ryan supporters and rushing the stage while he’s trying to speak.

          Do you not see what’s consistent with this video and the Ryan speech? There are people willing to and acting upon interfering with the people’s right to free speech and assembly. In both cases the leftists were there to interfere with the free political process of this country. Zoning laws are a horrible thing to hide behind when people are engaged in the political process. There are “rights” which the gentleman was engaged in. Then there’s is “doing the right thing” which he was not. That some people came up to him and his camera person and voiced their displeasure certainly wasn’t a surprise to him, that was his purpose. That the idiot lady alleged assault by lipstick is laughable. That’s a lot like going through a crowd at a political rally and punching some lady.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Ok Suyts I was trying to be nice and just show you some of the more “light-hearted” craziness that takes place at rallies. But since you insist on this line of questioning and perhaps more disturbingly actually believe that the “leftists” are always to blame (though I hope it ain’t so, I had honestly hoped YOU were at least capable of reasoned thought).

          Here’s your fellow “libertarian” (and don’t even think of denying it, he has multiple associations with libertarians and no he is not more appropriately labeled an anarchist, and no to whatever else you’re going to say to try and distance this guy from political beliefs of those on the right)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pentagon_shooting

        • suyts says:

          That’s enlightening….. never heard of the guy. Ph, don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge there are crazies all over the world. Many are right here in the U.S. These nuts will act for any given reason/cause. I’ll accept what Wiki says, though you and I know they can be a bit off from time to time. Here’s what your link gave me….

          Bedell was a registered Democrat[14] who was critical of the U.S. government.[15]

          A blog on Blogspot named Rothbardix (a probable reference to anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard), that appears to be authored by Bedell,[16] subscribes to many libertarian beliefs, including, “The most basic principle of economic justice is the protection of private property and the protection of the right to freely exchange that property. Modern governments, however, consistently and routinely violate the rights of property owners…”[17] Bedell also complained about the size of the United States government, organized theft by the government of citizen’s personal property, government control of the economy including “[T]he constantly expanding regulation of business.”

          When I’m discussing violence, I’m talking about things of the nature the post above and perhaps even the videos you’ve offered. The maniacs who commit atrocities, even though most are registered Dems, (Gifford shooter among many others) I don’t project that onto the Democratic party. I would expect over a couple of centuries or so, it would almost even out between leftist crazies, libertarian crazies, and conservative crazies. Still, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pot all do have some very disturbing commonalities.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols
          Charles Ray Polk
          Willie Ray Lampley
          Peter Kevin Langan

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          BTW – I haven’t seen any proof that any lady was punched. Likely fabricated and probably just a right winger pretending to be a victim. We know Romney/Ryan need to take the media off of Romney’s tax records and Bain capital right?

          How’s my denialism coming along? See I am learning something from all this interaction with your crew, no?!? 😀

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Yes they do. Foremost being none of them were leftists or liberals as we think of in the United States. Don’t be stupid.

        • suyts says:

          Again, I hope you don’t get me wrong. I’m the warning bell. I’ve firm faith in the American people and the basis of our nation. It has endured much more difficult times and will continue to do so. It is through our greater dialogue that we are stronger.

          You should read Walter Williams. http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/08/08/liberals_progressives_and_socialists/page/full/

          “Today’s leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from those of Nazi, Soviet and Maoist mass murderers. One does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one has to believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Ok now you’re just being an ideological a$$hole. Why even waste both our times by citing Walter E Williams? Why not just cite PhilJourdan? or Kim2ooo? Are you drinking again?

          Let’s remember it was George W Bush’s very own Homeland Security Department that has warned of Right Wing Terrorism right here at home in the good old USA. But don’t get me wrong, I’m just the warning bell.

        • suyts says:

          You don’t like Walter Williams? It’s a pity. I don’t think you’re going to bother Phil or Kim by putting them in his company. AS far as GWB’s Homeland Security goes, we see that concern didn’t pan out.

          The point is, while acknowledging the crazies which are all around, we don’t let them take hold in the U.S. That we discourage them from kissing cameras and rushing stages of vice presidential candidates, or going in amongst other parts of the political processes and punching people there because they support another candidate other than the one we want to win. That we ensure they’re not representative of our respective parties and that our advocacy isn’t similar to what Walter Williams and I are warning against.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh but it did pan out…And they’ve been stock piling weapons ever since!

          Again still no proof woman was punched! But i’ll agree with that last part of your post – the part that wasn’t partisan BS 😉

        • suyts says:

          Lol, yes, we cling to our guns and Bibles every time a Dem gets elected. Weird, I know.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And almost always end up shooting yourself, your wife, or the dog and virtually never the bad guy! – Go figure!?! http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

        • suyts says:

          Lol, Ph, you just don’t get the “rights” thing, do you? I find it very odd that killing one’s self with a gun is so much more objectionable than assisted suicide. Is that a jobs program the left has their eye on?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh how wrong you are. I certainly understand the idea of rights. It’s just odd that I need a much more extensive background check to put some cells into an irradiator than I would to purchase a semiautomatic weapons. Well I guess the theory is I could sneak in one night, dismantle a ton of lead to get at a very small piece of radioactive material, carry it out and do something with it (show it off to my friends/skip down the neighborhood with it?) all before the lethal effects of acute radiation poisoning set in. Far far more dangerous than a semi-automatic!

          But what’s truly funny is the gun lobby doesn’t even want any money going into research as to the role of gun availability in things like the Aurora CO tragedy. Don’t even think about trying to control our guns!

        • suyts says:

          This is the problem I have with this current rationale. We don’t secure our borders. Even if we outlawed guns, we would not rid ourselves of guns. Even if we wanted to. Of course, there’s Norway’s example gun control, but then there’s this…. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/a-reasoned-response-to-gun-control-in-the-u-s/

          Is it better to be stabbed to death than shot? Wouldn’t it be something if one of them had a gun to stop him from killing all of those people?

          The lie is that if we just outlawed guns that our murder rate would go down. Crazies are crazies, murderers are murderers. Criminals are criminals. I’ll protect me and mine from all of the above. You can choose to do what you will. It’s your right.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Cute anecdotes still dont explain away the overwhelming data showing that all these guns in the US contribute to all of the gun violence in the US. We are definitely an outlier in the amount of gun violence we have here! And the research shows more guns = more gun violence and murders. Poke around that Harvard page a bit more.

        • suyts says:

          While I could, and perhaps should, demonstrate how more guns do not equal more deaths. I’ll put it differently. Because to me, that point is moot.
          Ph, it is about rights. It is about self determination. It is about walking about this earth as a free man.

          This is a mind set I truly don’t understand. We should not have some liberties because they may not be safe. Okay, but, everything we do may not be safe. Driving, walking, lighting pilot lights, riding on jets, ….. all of these have caused many deaths.

          Ph, I don’t want to simply exist, I want to live! And, if living cuts my existence a bit short, then that’s the way it went.

          I walk as a free man and encourage all others to do the same.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          So much hyperbole from you… There is a difference between unabated citizen gun trafficking and strict documentation of who’s buying guns, how many and of what kind they can purchase. I’m sure the founders didn’t intend on the former. The United States has a serious problem with gun violence and only the very foolish can look at that and say “well it has NOTHING to do with the ease and accessibility of obtaining guns in this country.”

          There are certainly ways that an individual’s right to gun ownership can be protected while some headway can be made toward reducing gun violence. However we know that the deeply entrenched gun lobby will block every effort to even investigate such a thing.

          And we will continue to watch innocent people die in movie theatres. As gun lobbyists fantasize “well hey if more people were packing they would of shot him dead.” Wonder if that’s there scientific opinion, one you believe/trust?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And most people aren’t worried about you killing yourself with your gun, more like you taking out 1/2 a movie theatre, classroom, restaurant, bus etc.

        • philjourdan says:

          Hmmm….They call him a Tea Bagger – but he does not show any homosexual tendencies. In other words, it was a nut case. But no party affiliation. Maybe he was just jealous of the bumper sticker.

          Major fail phd – but expected from you. So far, Tea Party Violence 0, Left Violence – Legion.

      • suyts says:

        I’ll give it a listen as soon as I can. But, yes, I’ll denounce unproved violence in our political process when ever and by whom ever.

    • philjourdan says:

      I see phd is still suffering from lack of reading comprehension. The topic du jour was “Freedom of Speech”. As in allowing it. The gentleman in this video was very excited. But he never prevented ANYONE from speaking, nor did he threaten ANYONE when they spoke.

      So how is this relevant? He was surely animated. He was surely passionate. He was not violent. Nor did he prevent anyone from speaking.

      I guess this is just another case of phd not knowing how to read, or comprehend what he read, or understand the issue. As it does contain multisyllable words, I can see why he is so confused, befuddled and totally clueless.

      Just a friendly suggestion for phd – next time you want to try a snarky comment, watch your own video for the content so you know what the hell you are talking about.

  7. SOYLENT GREEN says:

    Suyts, I had a thought on Mr. Ryan…so I composed some art to clarify it.

    http://sonofsoylentgreen.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-awesome/

  8. kim2ooo says:

    Please check bin 🙂
    I have a post with three links in it.

  9. ThePhDScientist

    You need to change your name to TheMindlessBombThrower

  10. kim2ooo says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Oh Kim you don’t even know what post-normal science is (Sorry brief intermission – I had some work to do and had to leave the computer). But where were we? I remember I suggested that if you need no authority than have the pharmacy technician perform your next heart surgery? You were going to agree to that right, because after all surgery is considered a post-normal science (or may it’s not in the kim2ooo definition) Because we know kim2ooo gets to define the facts in whatever best works to advance his/her ideologic agenda! Right!?!

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Oh Kim you don’t even know what post-normal science is “

    Ha ha ha ha….WHAT DO YOU CALL IT: When your ideologies and politics interfere with Normal Science?

    xxxxxxxxxxxx

    But where were we? I remember I suggested that if you need no authority than have the pharmacy technician perform your next heart surgery?

    I’ve showed you where you were illogical in presenting this fallacy.

    Does the Pharmacy Technician and Surgeon adhere to scientific standards?
    Do you think mixing apples and oranges is a logical stance?

    Can you provide the Normal Scientific Standards of the AGW CAGW hypothesis?

    Do you suffer from more than an emotional block of logical thought and debate?

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      See there you go again Kim2ooo. You really don’t even know what post-normal science is do you? Do you know who came up with the concept? Believe it or not it wasn’t the climate change deniers like yourself and therefore you actually don’t get to define the concept.

      First try checking out the Journal Futures (circa 1993). I can get you a copy if you don’t have access to actual scientific articles published outside of the blogosphere.

      “Facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” – actually that describes the situations surgeons face every day. Any surgeon will tell you surgery is as much an art as it is a science.

      • MindlessClone,

        Please find a more applicable name for yourself.

      • kim2ooo says:

        You will need more powder than what you have –

        In 1991 a Marxist philosopher called Jerome R. Ravetz had helped to invent a seductive and dangerous new concept called ‘post-normal science’ (PNS). No longer was it considered essential that scientists strive after objectivity.

        Their new duty, Ravetz held, was not to ‘truth’ but to what he called ‘quality’. And by ‘quality’ he meant something more akin to rhetoric — the ability to manipulate evidence and present it in such a way as to achieve particular political ends.

        Post-normal science and the AGW movement were made for one another.

        No need for any of that tedious objectivity; no need for careful observation or the risk of frustration through falsification. All that mattered now was the quality of the ‘narrative’, the scariness of the future scenarios cooked up by computer models which — as the hockey stick curve demonstrated — could predict for you whatever you wanted them to predict.

      • kim2ooo says:

        Any surgeon will tell you surgery is as much an art as it is a science.”

        xxxxxxxxxxxx

        Why, yes they will.

        Can you show us the skill / art of Mr Mann?
        Processed Chesseses man…he got his own evidence upside down.

        I don’t go to surgeons with a track record of putting things upside down – do you?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh and now that we know surgery is a fine example of post-normal science the argument goes to attack Mann’s work again. Work which has largely stood up to scrutiny.. And this by someone who has apparently never contributed anything to science outside of the blogosphere.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Let’s make this easy on you:

          Provide observational empirical evidence [ truth ] that doesn’t show a Divergence, from the AGW CAGW hypothesis.

          NO ONE CAN.

          Provide an honest answer to this question: What happens in Normal Science when a divergence from the hypothesis happens?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Provide observational empirical evidence that evolution happened! What you can’t? That means it was CREATIONISM! It’s called scientific theory – try it out some time!

        • suyts says:

          Apples and Oranges…. but, you get points for hand-waving. There’s several things wrong with your analogy, but the prime one being, the skeptics don’t nor should they come up with an alternative theory as to why weather is weather.

          A more apt analogy would be, “I’m not a pitcher, but I know a strike when I see one.”

          Evolution doesn’t preclude creation, but that’s for another post.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          The skeptics don’t nor should they come up with an alternative theory as to why weather is weather. LMFAO – really? That’s the best you got?

        • suyts says:

          Do you think more is required? I don’t know why weather is weather. Nor, does anyone else. Were I to assert otherwise would be to practice the same malfeasance of the alarmists.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahahaha OK guys. It’s been a lot of fun (not really educational, but fun nonetheless). However, now I have to get back to actually thinking about science, planning out and executing some experiments. You know those things that “real” scientists do. Unfortunately, in science I can’t get funded by just looking at a publication in Nature, picking 2 things out that I disagree with, and then bantering on about them for years on a blog. They actually require that I have my own experiments and data to show…

          So on that note, I’ll leave the crazy talk to go unabated without ANY dissenting voice!

          Night!

        • suyts says:

          Always a pleasure Ph, I was hoping you’d ask about the over 1000 peered reviewed accepted papers questioning the consensus, but maybe that’s for another day.

          If you find something notable, you’d share with us, no? I would happily post something about progress in the cancer arena.

          Night

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Glady ‘d share some cancer research breakthroughs with you (quite honestly I find them more fun than climate change), but then you might be forced to admit some government spending is actually a good thing! 😉

          Night!

        • kim2ooo says:

          Work which has largely stood up to scrutiny..”

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Don’t load your gun with ignorant blanks.

          Does Mr Mann admit to a divergence problem?
          It’s an easy question:
          If not …..why splice tree ring and Tiljander?

        • kim2ooo says:

          Again you argue from emotion:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm

          goes to attack Mann’s work again. Work which has largely stood up to scrutiny..

          xxxxxxxxxxx
          In the Climategate emails…EVEN HIS TEAM SPANKS HIM

          #4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.

          what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.

          [and later]

          Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And again you put forth no scientific evidence to back up your claims.

          And tell me again all of the reconstructions of the hockey stick graph (which essentially confirmed it’s major finding – warming) using proxies like corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. BTW those studies got published, but go ahead tell me how everyone of those proxies has problems.

          But amazingly denier science is ALWAYS 100% correct. Oh wait deniers don’t actually have any science. Such a convenient position to be in, eh?

        • suyts says:

          Ph, hypothetically, if you made an assertion, which was refuted by science already accepted and the application of data to that already accepted data, do you believe that falsifies the assertion?

          And, you’re wrong, there’s over 1000 peer reviewed papers written by skeptics challenging the imaginary “consensus” view.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm

          Provide observational empirical evidence that evolution happened! What you can’t? That means it was CREATIONISM! It’s called scientific theory – try it out some time!

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Well now, Snicker

          You walked right into that.

          Exactly…you can’t 🙂

          Correct it is a theory – why?
          Because it is a working hypothesis….

          Now, what did it take to get from a hypothesis to a theory?

          What’s missing in the AGW CAGW hypothesis?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Actually nothing’s missing. The only thing missing is the sanity of a few right-wing, ideologues who spend way too much time blogging !?!

        • suyts says:

          The question then begs if you understand the hypothesis put forward?

        • kim2ooo says:

          For the Scientists on the short bus.
          Theory

          A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Yup I’m glad you understand the basics of science. Still not seeing what the problem is. There’s a couple crazies that say HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (including one nobel laureate). Still doesn’t mean the the theory or hypothesis is wrong or not accepted by the “scientific” community.

          Night!

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 14, 2012 at 7:49 pm

          Actually nothing’s missing.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Actually, WRONG again!

          The AGW CAGW hypothesis has known divergences – You can NOT build any further….using Normal Science. It can NOT proceed to a working hypothesis or theory.

          Come back when there are no divergences in the AGW CAGW hypothesis.

          I thought you were a practicing scientist?

  11. kim2ooo says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Yes I am aware of their faults.

    Sorry, I don’t believe you are being truthful.

    Why not share his papers faults?

    and certainly worlds more scrutiny than anything a denier has ever said

    Ha ha ha ha Just what Am I a denier of?

    all the major conclusions of Mann’s work have been deemed true.

    Ha ha ha ha…. You mean he got Tilanjer data [ RIGHT SIDE UP? ] ….. How can it be “deemed true” …when, if you read the links I gave you, that International Scientists agree he got it upside down?

    . “It’s all a big conspiracy”. Actually no, The “Conspiracy” is theattempt by AGW – CAGW’ers to pass off Post normal …pseudoscience [ religion ] as Normal Science.

    There are no appeals to authority you fool. The only fool…is the one who refuses to learn….AND you refuse to listen or even explore for the truth.

  12. kim2ooo says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    And again you put forth no scientific evidence to back up your claims.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Sorry, again it takes logic.
    You are the one trying to sell AGW CAGW as Normal Science – The logical onus is on you.

    As for anything I’ve stated…I’ve referenced 🙂

    I can’t help it if a lazy scientist won’t investigate.

    If a scientist…can’t sell his ideologies to a kid – how do you intend to sell it to grownups?

  13. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Haha! Oh Kim that’s rich! My comments simply provide a balance to the one-way, right wing, idolizing that goes on here all day, every day! How is my video and comment any different than the title of this post “Leftist Ambassador Show Ryan Leftist Tolerance”.

    It’s so funny, you people cannot handle anyone disagreeing with you or pointing out to you that no it’s just the left that has it’s crazies, the baggers have more than their fare share as well!

    Get a grip Kim!

    So let me get this straight. Your idea of balance is senseless ad hominems, ignorant opinion, hysterical rantings, and lies?

    Yep! That about sums up your contributions. Suyts, can you find a coherent liberal to validate phd? I am just curious since he is claiming the left consists of ignorant people whose only debate tactics are insults, school yard taunts, and lies.

  14. philjourdan says:

    DirkH says:
    August 14, 2012 at 12:08pm

    PhD would LOVE to be paid more than the 10 cents per comment.

    Even the Huffpo would not pay him for his comments. Worthless is worthless.

  15. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    “you’ve been handled many times by a kid….” Oh Kim I love you! LOL! Now tell me would that be your objective scientific conclusion similar to any of your posts about global warming?

    So to homophobe, racist and bigot, we can now add pedophelia? The left is truly sick.

    Besides the list that Kim made, do you HAVE ANY scientific background? You have already proven you are a complete incompetent in Economics, Accounting, Finance, Business, and basic scientific principal. What do you know? besides the banal insults, ad hominems, lies and hate?

  16. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    I AM THE GOVERNMENT KIM! AND I’M COMING FOR YOU AND YOUR LITTLE TEA PARTYING DOG TOO……MUAHAHAHAHAHA. MUAHAHAHA.

    (see Kim stupid questions get stupid answers….)

    You are half right. It was a stupid answer. It is a legitimate question. But I guess you would have to understand the question to know that.

    You just got pwned by a child again!

  17. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    What is it with you Kim? You claim to have the same degree as Mann, except you apparently don’t work in science and dont publish any science? Chip in your shoulder? No one would give you a job despite your supposed PhD?

    Without googling, what degree does Mann have? I will tell you now that MILLIONS have his degree and at a much higher competency than he does. And I will also tell you he has NO degree in climatology. And anyone can get a paper published based upon the old boys club as revealed in CG I.

    But I guess you missed those facts. Yea, they are too complicated for your simple mind.

  18. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Oh ok now I get it! Mann only as a PhD in physics and postdoctoral fellowship training in paleo-climatology. This clearly Kim2ooo is the authority on climate science among that group!

    OWNED again! NOPE! Mann has NO PHD in Physics! He does have a Phd in Geology and GeoPhysics – a TOTALLY different field.

    You really are amusing! Please! continue posting your ignorance. And guess what? Kim got you again. You are just a sucker for being owned (I guess that is why you suckle at the government teat).

  19. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    BTW Kim – when you have a really bad argument it doesn’t matter how many latin words you throw in. Trust me it doesn’t make you sound any smarter or make the argument any better. Just ask PhilJourdan. Ok!

    Yes, Kim, you can only use single syllable words with phd. He does not understand multi syllable words or common latin phrases. He is reading impaired, and if you use either long words or common latin phrases that is “unfair”.

    And phd – I am glad I inhabit your head. I leave a thread for a day, and all you can talk about is me. I get no honor from it. My dog is the same way.

  20. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Hahahaha – oh now we have appeals to authority, huh? So happy to have some with actual credentials as part of the denialist movement? LOL WISH-WASH WISH-WASH….

    When you have nothing to say, just say nothing – so that is your tactic now? Kim just challenged you. A valid challenge, and you evade. The mockery is you. Try answering the questions.

  21. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    BTW KIM you don’t get to say climate science is a post-normal science because that guy on that blog said so….

    A bit childish, no?

    No, not childish. Ever heard of Trenberth? Perhaps not. However, he has stated Climatology is a Post Normal Science. So should we disregard Trenberth’s statement? If we disregard that one, I guess we have to disregard ALL of them?

  22. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Yes I am aware of their faults. Apparently you’re not aware that after probably more intense scrutiny than any other scientist in the history of entire world (and certainly worlds more scrutiny than anything a denier has ever said) all the major conclusions of Mann’s work have been deemed true

    LOL! He has not stood up to even a fraction of the scrutiny that most scientists do! The team has made sure of that. And M&M destroyed his Hoakey stick! Which was his sole contribution (other than frivilous law suits and useless ad hominems) to the cause!

    You are no longer satisified to just be wrong – you have to make stuff up on the fly! And then accuse the team (the deniers as you call them) of even more sins!

    That Mann is a denier of the scientific method is a given. That you call him a denier is your problem.

  23. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Provide observational empirical evidence that evolution happened! What you can’t? That means it was CREATIONISM! It’s called scientific theory – try it out some time!

    Guess phd has never heard of fruit flies. Guess phd has not heard of fossils. Guess phd has not heard or knows very much.

    Now, in addition to being a racist homophobic pedophile bigot, he is also a creationist. The list gets longer and longer.

  24. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    But amazingly denier science is ALWAYS 100% correct. Oh wait deniers don’t actually have any science. Such a convenient position to be in, eh?

    Skeptic science is all about science. AGW is all about denying science. And so far, you have been the only one denying it here. Add Denier to your long list of attributes.

  25. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    Actually nothing’s missing. The only thing missing is the sanity of a few right-wing, ideologues who spend way too much time blogging !?!

    Seems the only one going off the deep end is you. Avoiding questions, casting aspersions, lying, insulting. Yea, seems you are the one that has lost the marbles.

    Calm down and try to think rationally – you can think, can’t you?

  26. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Hahahaha OK guys. It’s been a lot of fun (not really educational, but fun nonetheless).

    Nothing is educational to a closed or simple mind.

  27. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Ok now you’re just being an ideological a$$hole. Why even waste both our times by citing Walter E Williams? Why not just cite PhilJourdan? or Kim2ooo? Are you drinking again?

    Let’s remember it was George W Bush’s very own Homeland Security Department that has warned of Right Wing Terrorism right here at home in the good old USA. But don’t get me wrong, I’m just the warning bell.

    Still occupying your head. YOu and my dog have a lot in common.

    Dr. Walter E. Williams is a true scientist. Indeed, he has more peer reviewed works than Michael mann even can concieve of. And he knows science. Not PNS. Not AGW – real science. I would expect any normal person to understand that. That leaves you out as well.

    Do you dream of me? What do I tell you in your dreams? This is better than live theater! I get to be a participant in your head and an observer watching you degenerate into a quivering mass of hysteria.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      LOL Or a right wing ideologue with a faculty position and a whole lot of opinion pieces. But what would you know about science? Eh? 😉

      • philjourdan says:

        We know that you think any science that does not agree with your false science is merely opinion. However Dr. Walter E. Williams is actually a REAL scientist that has produced REAL work. Unlike you and your heros.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And yet you know nothing about science and still feel qualified to shout things from your big mouth!

        • philjourdan says:

          Your childish taunts do not phase me. I have spent my life performing REAL science, not the phony stuff you spout on this page. As another noted, your title is simply a dream of yours, unrealized by your total incomprehension of reality. You demonstrate with each post your ignorance of science, and your lack of mental capacity to attain a phd.

          I shout nothing. I merely state facts and make observations based upon your writings. Unlike you, I have no need to introduce petty pejoratives and childish ad hominems. I do not need to admit defeat in a debate of ideas by doing so – unlike you.

  28. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Oh and send me that list of 1000 peer reviewed denialist papers. But first I have to go through the 2000 peer reviewed papers on cold fusion

    There are no peer reviewed papers on Cold fusion. There have been some papers on cold fusion, but they failed the peer review process. Even a phony scientist would know that.

  29. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 15, 2012 at 7:43 am

    No Dirk it got lost in translation. The death state is what seniors are giving Paul Ryan when talks about dismantling their programs to give tax cuts to corporations and millionaires!

    No, the death state is what Obama did to seniors. Robbing 700b from the program when it does not have the money to be robbed. Ryan’s plan preserves current benefits for all 55 and older. And phases in the new plan for those under 55 because there is no money left. No money is taken FROM medicare by the Ryan plan. That was done by the OBAMA plan.

  30. philjourdan

    We are seeing the ugly heart and face of left wing activism in ThePhD.

    • philjourdan says:

      We are seeing the true heart of left wing activism in phd. He is merely the latest vessel for the hate. He is not the first, nor even original. He fails to address any facts, merely spouting childish insults in hopes of brow beating the opposition into silence. And when the opposition is not silenced, his shrill cries only become louder.

      Like a child being told no, he has no method of dealing with reality.

  31. ThePhDScientist says:

    LoL Ann Romney says “F-YOU AMERICA, YOU AREN’T GETTIN TO SEE OUR TAX RETURNS. No we are not going to show you how small a percentage we pay on 20 million per year when you dumb a$$es are paying 25-28% on your paltry 100-150K. And guess what American when my husband becomes President are rates are going down even further baby! And maybe, just maybe we’ll buy another dressage horse and hire one you fools to pick up the manure. Job CREATOR, son!”

    • suyts says:

      Your blaming the Romney’s for legally filing taxes under laws written and ok’d by the Obama administration……. makes sense.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Hahah oh really!?! So Obama put the capital gains tax down to 15%? Obama help get the carried interest loop hole in there. Sigh Suyts…. Your level of denialism has reached record highs.

        • philjourdan says:

          RIF – it matters not who set them down there. The current law was written and passed under Obama. You apparently have a reading comprehension problem.

          It is you who seem to be in denial. The rates would not be where they are had Obama not approved them since the original rates expired 2 years ago.

      • suyts says:

        Yeh, because an overwhelming majority in the house and a filibuster proof senate for the first 2 years wasn’t enough time to change what he didn’t like. Denialism indeed.

        News flash! Obama is president. He owns this. He had ample opportunity to do as he pleased. I don’t know why you and others don’t understand he’s a blamer. He doesn’t lead, he doesn’t fix anything, he’s the blamer-in-chief.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Yes during Bush’s death plunge toward economic collapse was a great time to be rewriting the tax code. Now you’re being both foolish and the resident denier-in-chief!

          So suyts why don’t you think Romney will release his returns? Clearly something in there is so much more damaging than all the heat he’s taking for not releasing them. We know it’s all calculated risks, but aren’t you the teensiest bit curious? I know I am! You think 1) he’s really a billionaire or 2) he’s paid significantly less than 14% (especially during 08-09 years).

        • suyts says:

          Either way, what does it matter? Do you take the exemptions you’re allowed by law? I know I do. When the “millionaires for higher taxes” were given an opportunity to donate to the federal government each and every one of them declined.

          And, then, too, you’re overlooking another possibility. … I don’t know for sure, but, were I him, I’d let the Dems over-invest in the issue and then about Oct. 30 release my taxes showing I paid exactly what I was suppose to. That would be about election over by my reckoning.

          The thing is, we can talk all day long about what Obama hasn’t released, what he’s hiding and what Mitt isn’t releasing…. etc. In the final scheme of things, none of it presently matters. Do the Dems really want to have a conversation about what is and isn’t known about the candidates? That’s a fail for the Dems.

          We could talk about policy and performance instead. But, then, that’s a fail for the Dems as well. The HuffPo even headlined, “WORST RECOVERY SINCE DEPRESSION”. Of course they shifted blame, but you can’t get around the fact that this is the worst recovery in several generations.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha yes they do and yes it’s working 😉 When Mitt Romney says we need to cut taxes to create jobs, we deserve to know what his currently prohibitive tax rate is. Likewise, being a leading member of the millionaire class we should be told how Romney will now create more jobs once those prohibitive rates of less than or equal to 14% are lifted.

          You can’t get around that this is the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression!

    • philjourdan says:

      No, Ann Romney is not saying that. She is an intelligent adult that does not need to stoop to the gutter language that is your milieu. She said they would not release the taxes. There is no need to. She did not use childish insults and obscene pejoratives that you seem to only be able to use.

  32. suyts says:

    “You can’t get around that this is the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression!”

    Nope, I can’t. And neither can Obama.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      LoL – Tell you what, if it’ll make you feel better I’ll buy Chick-Fil-A when he wins reelection! At least we can drown our sorrows in food high in saturated fat and calories. We can stock up on guns since we know Obama wants to take those away and we can lament about how he want so let those damn gays get married. Choosing love over violence, f*ing liberal! 😀

      • philjourdan says:

        Like the clown who shot up the FRC? Good thing you posted after that occurred. It removes you as a suspect.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha oh Big Boy you’re too cute! While I definitely agree that the Family Research Council is a bigoted bunch of idiots that are very deserving of their designation as a “hate group”. I don’t believe in going around in shooting people. Especially the security guard – he probably didn’t like any of the crap they speak either.

          That said – I would love to see a bunch of gays and lesbians go to their office and start making out, preferably very scantily clad! If James Dobson should have a coronary from his outrage at this type of scene – well I’d try and feel bad.

        • philjourdan says:

          Here we have a clear definition of what liberals consider hate. Does FRC preach violence? no. Does FRC preach Intolerance? no. Does FRC preach discrimination, enslavement, or forced servitude? Nope!

          FRC preaches an opinion that differs from what liberals believe (or at least some half brain dead ones). So that makes them a hate group. For what? A difference of opinion.

          In liberal world, you are “badlife” if you do not agree with them totally. And thus, some think you should be killed. Others, like our esteemed poster, think you should be silenced and ostracized.

          They align themsevles with killer and active practitioners of hatred (such as the KKK, Aryan Nation and the NBPP), and attempt to subjugate everyone to their new little red book – the book of intolerance.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Here again show’s the clueless understanding of someone who probably believes most of what the FRC teaches. Phil – do you think it’s intolerant to say “criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior should be enforced.” That’s sort of the epitome of intolerance. Or how about saying “the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell is going to encourage the molestation of heterosexual service members.”

          Here again you showcase the small-minded, out-of-touch attitude of tea bagging conservatives. Maybe you should meet some gay people and find out if statements like those, by the FRC HATE GROUP, create a culture of tolerance and acceptance for people who were born gay (from straight parent) 😉

    • suyts says:

      Lol, you know, I don’t recall ever eating at a Chick-Fil-A, so I can’t comment on their food. But, isn’t chicken supposedly a healthier choice than say pork or beef? You’re going to have a hard time convincing people love over violence is how the left operates. It seems that it isn’t the case for some.

      So, when Romney wins, instead of Chick-Fil-A, why don’t we work on lowering our cholesterol and I’ll buy the beer! 😀 I’ll even leave the guns in my truck!

  33. ThePhDScientist says:

    PS You’re right about chicken, sans when covered in breading and fried in a vat of oil. Baked is the way to go my friend.

    BTW. As you mentioned yesterday, you would like to highlight some cancer research news, instead of all this gloom/doom right winger non-sense 😉 So you may find this interesting…

    Brief background: There is a lot of work going into what’s known as “immunotherapy” to fight cancer. That is using the body’s own immune system to attack and destroy the tumor. To some extent we already have a lot of evidence the body tries to mount an immune response against cancer and there’s ample evidence that a patient whose tumor is infiltrated with T cells (killer immune cells) often has a better outcome than a patient whose tumor is lacking an infiltrate of these killer T cells. Anywho..we’ve also been learning that cancer cells are very smart and figure out how to turn off the activity of killer T cells. They upregulate a molecule called PDL-1. The PDL-1 on the cancer cells binds to a receptor on the T cells called PD-1 (programmed-death receptor). As you can imagine by the name activating programmed death receptor is no good for T cells. So now Bristol-Meyers Squibb in collaboration with some scientists at Hopkin’s has been testing an antibody that blocks this PDL-1/PD-1 interaction and they’re seeing some really impressive results in patients who are resistant to all other therapies. Even in very fatal diseases like lung cancer they’ve gotten some nice response. More work to be done for sure, but an exciting time in cancer immunotherapy!

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200690?query=featured_home

    • suyts says:

      It’s been a while since I played with immunology. That’s exciting news! I’ll read the paper! Thanks!

    • suyts says:

      How do the results compare with other non-small cancer treatments?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Probably too small of trials at this point to really compare. But you’re talking about tumors which are resistant to all other therapies now starting to melt away…Let’s see what the larger phase studies show…cautious optimism (stock market likes it ;)).

      • suyts says:

        Yeh, well Bristol Myers has always been a money maker!

        Help me on this one, I thought T-cells and natural killer cells were distinct cells with distinct functions. Reading that it seems they’re one and the same. Is my memory askew?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No you’re right. There are cytotoxic CD8+ (killer) T Cells, which are considered part of the adaptive (learned) immune response and then there are natural killer cells, which are more considered part of the innate immune response. Primary differences being each CD8 T cells has a receptor that is unique for one particular antigen (recognizing a peptide that is presented in a class I MHC molecule). NK cells on the other hand seem don’t seem to specifically recognize peptide/mhc complexes but rather they detect the lack of MHC on a cell surface. A stressed cell may downregulate class I MHC causing the NK cell to no longer think this is a “self” cell and thus it is killed.

          Both cells can be important to anti-tumor immunity.

  34. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 15, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Yes during Bush’s death plunge toward economic collapse was a great time to be rewriting the tax code. Now you’re being both foolish and the resident denier-in-chief!

    So suyts why don’t you think Romney will release his returns? Clearly something in there is so much more damaging than all the heat he’s taking for not releasing them. We know it’s all calculated risks, but aren’t you the teensiest bit curious? I know I am! You think 1) he’s really a billionaire or 2) he’s paid significantly less than 14% (especially during 08-09 years)

    You continue to cast allegations, with no facts to back you up. The only ones that claim it was the “bush death plunge” of economic collapse are the sheep of the democrats. The reality is easy to see, for those with intelligence and an open mind to actually look for causes, and not scapegoats. Which leaves you out of that group.

    As for what Romney made and what he paid, no, we do not care. Why? Because it has no impact on us. It did not increase our income one cent (I have no stake in Bain), nor take one cent from me. Only the envious and greedy care, and then only because they see a cash cow that requires no work, but could reward them with huge dividends when they steal the money from others.

    That is your problem. Not satisfied to earn a living yourself – do you even earn a living? – you want to simply steal from others. As you see that as an easier way to obtain money than any legal means. Your jealousy and envy is duly noted. It is also very ugly. But then you have not demonstrated any compassion, intelligence or initiative to better yourself or others. instead, using lazy ways to try to promote yourself through racism and bigotry.

  35. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 15, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    When Mitt Romney says we need to cut taxes to create jobs, we deserve to know what his currently prohibitive tax rate is.

    No we do not. You either agree with him or disagree with him. What he pays has no bearing on what he is proposing. We know you disagree with him – so do so with substantive arguments, not petty pejoratives and insults.

    And best be careful or you will also be insulting your master since apparently Obama agrees with him. Obama has had total power to deny any tax cuts. The opposition has never had the power to over ride his vetos. So please, present your case. With a minimum of cussing, insults, mindless ad hominems, and petty pejoratives if you are capable.

    You can’t get around that this is the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression!

    Indeed, all the studies have shown that this is the worst recovery since the great depression. But the recession was not the worst. The empirical data shows otherwise. And who presided over the recovery? Obama. So at least you agree on one thing the facts support. The Obama recovery is the worst since the great depression.

  36. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:22 am

    Here again show’s the clueless understanding of someone who probably believes most of what the FRC teaches. Phil – do you think it’s intolerant to say “criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior should be enforced.” That’s sort of the epitome of intolerance. Or how about saying “the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell is going to encourage the molestation of heterosexual service members.”

    Here again you showcase the small-minded, out-of-touch attitude of tea bagging conservatives. Maybe you should meet some gay people and find out if statements like those, by the FRC HATE GROUP, create a culture of tolerance and acceptance for people who were born gay (from straight parent)

    Here again we have liberal assumptions with no basis in facts. He declares he knows my beliefs, even though I have never stated them in a forum in which he participated.

    Then he goes on to EXACTLY prove my point. I think all lemons should be outlawed! That makes me a hater. See the liberal mind? Disagree = hate.

    But of course no liberal post would be complete without the obligatory ad hominem thrown in, along with childish insults. I guess they only understand the childish language so have to put in their code words so they can recognize each other. All the while, they claim they are identifying hate, they use homosexual terms in a pejorative way that clearly shows their utter contempt and disdain for the group they are supposedly supporting! Kind of like how they supported the black man in slavery 150 years ago. That is liberal logic for you.

    Hatred, contempt, and petty insults. Because they are full of hate, they are contemptable, and they have the intellect of a child (unfortunately, not the innocence).

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      And here again PhiilJourdan does a fabulous job of skirting every point he has a tough time dealing with. You asked if FRC is an intolerant group. I just provided you with statements that shows they are very, very INTOLERANT. Now instead of addressing those points he goes on a woe-is-me rant “the left doesn’t give equal treatment to bigoted opinions”…

      Then he further says I used pejoratives to describe gay folks. Please show me where. Phil you are a piece-of-work my friend. And man you’ve got this denialism thing down to a religion!!!

      • philjourdan says:

        I neither skirted nor asked. I told you to prove they were a hate group. Again, the first amendment, remember that one? So if you are going to make an allegation (a frequent activity for you), then you have to back it up. I do not respond to strawmen. And as usual, after making said allegation, you failed totally to provide even a scintilla of proof. Because you have none.

        What you provided was their statements of beliefs. As I pointed out, they do not agree with some of yours (however, given your intolerance, hatred and bigotry, I can see why you do not recognize rational discourse).

        And I did not say you used pejoratives to describe gays, I said you use a gay term AS A PEJORATIVE (you really should learn reading comprehension). That indicates your total contempt for them to think that a gay term CAN BE USED as a pejorative.

        So once again, after creating numerous pathetic strawmen, failing to address a single point, and then lying about them all, you simply FAIL. You merely doubled down on your racist homophobic intolerant bigotry.

        Do you have an iPod hooked to your head with the simple command “breath” in order for you to survive?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I gotta ask Phil do you really believe any of that BS you type into this little screen? I mean honestly you’re so full of yourself and of poo that I can hardly stand it. I find it more than hysterical that you try and call me homophobic – the whole time defending the bigoted things the FRC says as “just their opinion”. So let’s set the record straight. When I say the FRC are a hate group because of their statements calling for homosexual activity to be criminalized or suggesting that there gay service members are now going to molest straight members then you defend that as their opinion and tell me I’m homophobic. Hahahaha! Seriously, what is wrong with you?

          Phil maybe you should meet some actual gay people and see how they feel about the FRC. Ask them if they feel the FRC is breeding a culture of tolerance and acceptance? Too scared to that? To scared to see how the world outside yourself functions?

        • philjourdan says:

          Having not yet been able to rebut a SINGLE point I have made, you resort to your tired and inevitable ad hominem attack. Why I will never know. No one buys your ad hominems. If you even had a scintilla of evidence to back up your lunatic ravings, you might actually be making people question their views. Instead, you only reaffirm to them that you are an ignorant racist homophobic troll.

          So continue to troll away. I love the spectator sport of watching a racist homophobic troll make a fool of himself. Blathering with uncontrolled hysteria about why some should not have the same freedom of speech afforded to his own racist homophobic rants.

          The reason I cannot take you seriously is because you are not even a believable parody of the racist homophobic democrats. I think that is why you have to pretend to have a degree or something. So you can salve your wounded ego with whimpers of relevancy.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha having not been able to rebut a SINGLE point I’ve made, you just go on again calling me a racist homophobe (without any proof to back up those assertions). And again I say stop being so disingenuous Phil! Go out and meet some gay people, stop pretending to be a fair-minded friend to all.

          You defend the filth from groups like the FRC as “first amendment freedoms” and “their opinions.” Well Phil we had people just like you who said the same thing about slavery, about women’s suffrage, and civil rights. They even had their bibles to back up their claims as to why all of those things were justified and hey it was “just their opinion” that blacks should use a separate lunch counter and that women should be barefoot and pregnant.

          Phil just like them you’re going to be on the wrong side of history. Eventually gays will gain full marriage rights in the United States and then what will the FRC say about criminalizing homosexuality. Then how will you defend the FRC?

          Need more proof of the filth that you defend? How about this? Now what do you have to say big boy? How will you continue to defend them? Oh I know, it’s just their opinion! You disgust me!

          “[A]llowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would likely result, for the first time, in heterosexuals being forced to cohabit with those who may view them as a potential sexual object.”
          — Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military,” 2010

          “[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.”
          — Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military,” 2010

          “Since homosexual conduct is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence, it too qualifies as a behavior that is harmful to the people who engage in it and to society at large.”
          — Tony Perkins, “Christian compassion requires the truth about the harms of homosexuality,” Washington Post, 10/25/2010

          “We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men.”
          — Peter Sprigg, “Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views.” 2011.

          “Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
          — Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

          “[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
          — Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in “Desecrating Corpus Christi,” 1999

          “One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
          -1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.

          “[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
          — Timothy Dailey, senior research fellow, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” 2002

          “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
          — FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

  37. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 20, 2012 at 7:50 am

    Hahaha having not been able to rebut a SINGLE point I’ve made, you just go on again calling me a racist homophobe (without any proof to back up those assertions). And again I say stop being so disingenuous Phil! Go out and meet some gay people, stop pretending to be a fair-minded friend to all.

    #1 – You have yet to make a point. YOu have to make a point for it to be rebutted. Debating 101 – try a course in it.
    #2 – You insisted upon calling me boy knowing that it is an offensive term to blacks given the Liberal Jim Crow laws and slavery in this history of the US.
    #3 – You use a gay term as a pejorative. The only way you can think that a gay term is a pejorative is if you are homophobic. Calling someone gay is not pejorative if it is descriptive. However, your pejorative use of the gay term shows that it is neither descriptive, nor is it meant as a complement.

    Game, set and match. You have been pwned again. If you do not want to be thought of as a racist homophobic bigot, stop acting like one. And if you want a rebuttal, make a point.

    You defend the filth from groups like the FRC as “first amendment freedoms” and “their opinions.” Well Phil we had people just like you who said the same thing about slavery, about women’s suffrage, and civil rights. They even had their bibles to back up their claims as to why all of those things were justified and hey it was “just their opinion” that blacks should use a separate lunch counter and that women should be barefoot and pregnant

    You are going to lose your ACLU card over that slur. I also defend the KKK, the NBPP and all other hate organizations over their first amendment right to free speech. Do I agree with your buddies? Nope! But I am smart enough to know that once you deny the right of free speech to any group for any reason, you have denied it to us all. When you grow up, you may come to realize that.

    People like me are the ones that gave women the right to vote, and freed the slaves. People like you killed people like me for doing so. But that is what hate is all about.

    So disgust yourself all you want. You are disgusting. And not very bright. Next time, bring some wits to the debate. It is really sad having to school a supposed adult in basic human rights, basic freedoms, and their hateful speech. But be heartened! I will defend your right to be a racist homophobic bigot. But like all the other hate groups, I will not listen to you, nor approve of what you say.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Phil I just have to say you really are a fu**ing idiot! LOL. And here is some more classic philjourdan roundabout reasoning! “You use a gay term as a pejorative. The only way you can think that a gay term is a pejorative is if you are homophobic. Calling someone gay is not pejorative if it is descriptive. However, your pejorative use of the gay term shows that it is neither descriptive, nor is it meant as a complement”…

      No I call you big boy because I see you sitting their at your computer like some fat Rush Limbaugh wannabe – it has nothing to do with race (he’s a big fat white boy!)

      How show me where I used gay as pejorative (hopefully without 6 degrees of separation).

      • philjourdan says:

        See? Here I come to debate the issues, presenting points, sourcing and backing up the points to show they are indeed facts, not opinion, and what does old phd do? His first sentence is his whole point. Another useless ad hominem.

        He then attempts to lamely excuse his racist homophobic behaviour – never once repudiating it or even denying he is a racist homophobic bigot. Instead, just more hate, more vitriol and more ad hominems – just like his buddies in the KKK.

        Good for you phd! Want to try for another major whiff? Please! Your frothing at the mouth at your inability to rile me or even make a point is great theater! Everyone here is finding not only greatly amusing, but very indicative of the racist homophobic bigoted liberals.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No you didn’t debate anything! See how stupid you are. You asked for proof the FRC is a hate group. When I gave it to you and you couldn’t defend them any more you went on a rant about the 1st amendment.

          Are you now willing to admit they’re a hate group based on the very hateful statements made by their members? As seen in my post above? Until you can stop debating like a child you will get called names like the fat brat you are!

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      And again big boy I’ll say, MEET A GAY PERSON. See who they think is a better friend. You the bigot, or me who would like to see equality. GET over yourself!

      • philjourdan says:

        I love this one – a slight derivation of the old “I have a friend who is colored” meme! It is amusing. I laughed on that one.

        Not even a good try, as all my gay friends (and relatives) think you are an absolute fool. And some are not even conservative. They are ashamed that people like you are trying to denigrate them with your hate and childish taunts. And yes, I send them the links to all your comments. I want them to see that the liberals are not their friends, no matter what the liberal lie is.

        They are also smart enough to know they have equality. They do not want affirmative action – they are equally as capable as any white homophobic racist bigot – and if you are indicative of the latter, they are more than equallly capable. They are not as stupid.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha, no Phil. What gay people thing is really incredulous and completely disingenuous is this phony assertion that people like you are a “friend” and you’re just simply defending the constitution when groups like the FRC spew their vitriol and hate.

          The FRC is no different than the KKK, except maybe they throw a few more bible verses behind their hate, and for you that mitigates and justifies their position. Why? Because you think just an ignorant bigot!

          And don’t be foolish we all know you don’t have any friends and if you had a gay relative we know you’d shun them!

  38. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 21, 2012 at 6:41 am

    No you didn’t debate anything! See how stupid you are. You asked for proof the FRC is a hate group. When I gave it to you and you couldn’t defend them any more you went on a rant about the 1st amendment.

    Are you now willing to admit they’re a hate group based on the very hateful statements made by their members? As seen in my post above? Until you can stop debating like a child you will get called names like the fat brat you are!

    Actually, I debated every non-point you made. And refuted everyone. You then became so enraged as to resort to your tired ad hominems and non sequiturs. You did not show the FRC as a hate group. YOu showed that you do not agree with their opinions. Yet the FRC has not deprived anyone of any rights, they have not shot anyone, they have not killed anyone, they have not lynched anyone. You showed that you detest freedom of speech. But we already knew that. You showed that you do not know how to debate, only to spew useless insults, pathetic racial epithets, and homophobic pejoratives. I gather you believe those tools are debating tools. They are not. They are the useless flailings of small minds and children. Nothing more.

    So, since I fully believe in the freedom of speech – as does Suyts since he has not censored your hate filled diatribe against even his own person – I will continue to ignore your childish rants and ad hominems, continue to call you out for outrageous lies, and continue to point out, factually, how your opinions are all wrong.

    And I know you will continue to be the spoiled child you have demonstrated you are.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      “pathetic racial epithets, and homophobic pejoratives” – more baseless and unproven assertions by a homophobic bigot!

      “he has not censored your HATE filled diatribe”

      What do you mean hate filled diatribe? You have not shown I hate anyone? What you’ve shown is you disagree with my opinions. I have not deprived anyone of any rights, I have not shot anyone, I have not killed anyone, I have not lynched anyone.

      See big boy, you’re so full of $hit you can’t keep it straight! My comments are mild in comparison to some of the things the FRC has said and yet you condone and encourage their hate speech, casually refer to it as their “opinion.” I

      In your very twisted and sick world people are only guilty of “hate” when they disagree with the opinions and positions that YOU support!

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        BTW: You do know it’s these sick and twisted positions of the NEW NEO-CONS that are going to contribute to your loss in the 2012 election? Legitimate rape, full ban on abortions with no exceptions for rape/incest, open hostility toward gays condoned as “opinion” – these things are so out of touch with mainstream America it’s like you people are from another country! Maybe those 10 Southern bible-belt states will end up seceding with Rick Perry as king and you can go with em?

        • philjourdan says:

          Why would I want to live in your imaginary cesspool? I am sure the reason the liberals will win is because of their stellar history of racism and prejudice. Yea, you know how they enslaved blacks, created the KKK, Jim Crow and other means to subjugate people based upon their own bigotry.

          Yea, that will be the ticket in the election.

      • philjourdan says:

        Like all liberals, you fail to accept responsibility for your own actions. I did INDEED PROVE those assertions – with your own words. Your tired and predictable bleating of “the devil made me do it” does not carry weight in an adult conversation. Yet you continue to use it even when SHOWN of your homophobia and racism.

        And you continue to lie about virtually every poster on this board. Attributing to them your own bigotry and hatred. That is you hate filled diatribe. Your simple refusal to read what is written by the poster, instead assigning them statements they never made, but that you wish they made. You have been called on your lies numerous times, and yet you still refuse to back up your lies with any documentation, simply repeating them. And not little white lies, but lies of slander and libel. Which we all know are hateful lies.

        I do not, nor have I ever, assigned hate to those that disagree with me. I pointed out how YOU did. And for that, you again resort to the childish game of rubber and glue. Every time you have been challenged to support your allegations, you have thrown your childish temper tantrum, and stormed off – never once addressing your hate and bigotry – or showing any hate and bigotry of any other poster.

        KIm is too kind on you. She merely points out how you err. But if the errors were ones of ignorance, that would be understandable. Yours however are errors of malisciosness. You know they are errors and only use them because you believe it advances your position. That is a child’s view. For it only serves to not only alienate those with opposing views, but also those with the same views that are more mature.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha no Philly boy here is what you did. You asked me to prove to you that the FRC was a hate group and so I gave you several hate filled statements made by them. Once presented with that evidence you did know what to do, so you had to brush it off as merely their “opinions” as well as going off on some tangent about being the world’s protector of free speech and first amendment rights. Further, you added that because the FRC has not committed any acts of violence against gays and lesbians (at least none we can pin directly on them) that they cannot be called a hate group. Never mind, of course, that it is there kind of hate speech, and the culture it breeds, that leads to very real and documented attacks against homosexuals.

          Then it really got rich when I made some FRC-style statements against you and you accused me of engaging in a “hate filled diatribe.” Yet I’ve never once committed any act of violence against you or anyone else on this board so by your own definition you should be protecting my freedom of speech, after all it was you who argued this “is just an opinion.”

          You’re a child who talks himself in circles while bobbing and weaving to avoid addressing any difficult points. Clearly, the FRC engages in “hate filled diatribes” – wouldn’t you say Philly Boy? I mean you can apparently identify them as you tried to accuse me of such a thing! But, it seems Philly is blind to “hate filled diatribes” when they come from the religious right!

          HOW CONVENIENT!

  39. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 21, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Haha, no Phil. What gay people thing is really incredulous and completely disingenuous is this phony assertion that people like you are a “friend” and you’re just simply defending the constitution when groups like the FRC spew their vitriol and hate.

    Now you know who my friends are. Tell me where i live. Tell my the number of siblings I have. Cousins? Aunts, uncles, nephews, neices? If you cannot even give that little bit of information about me, how is anyone to beleive that you know a single thing about me? Can you even tell me where i live? I have given enough hints of that.

    So what we see is you projecting your own attributes when you claim you know about me. Since all you have to go on is my writings here – just as that is all I have to go on about you. I assume nothing about you. You give enough of yourself on these pages that I do not care to know any more about you. You have already claimed to be a racist and homophobic bigot. I let those claims of yours stand. So, no. Kim was being kind to you when she pointed out your logical fallacies. To have a logical fallacy, you have to at least display some logic. You have yet to do so. Makign gross assumptions with nothing to go on is not logical.

    The FRC is no different than the KKK, except maybe they throw a few more bible verses behind their hate, and for you that mitigates and justifies their position. Why? Because you think just an ignorant bigot!

    How many people has the FRC lynched? Did you know that the KKK has as many biblical versus as the FRC? Yes, the liberals of the mid 19th century were very religious when they created the KKK. So you are wrong abou that. And my showing you the error of your ignorance does not make me ignorant. NOr a bigot. I would love for you to quote me – ANYWHERE – that shows any bigotry. I issued that challenge to you many weeks ago. And you have failed to provide even a SINGLE quote of mine that shows any bigotry. yet I have provided you with NUMEROUS examples of your racism and bigotry – examples you have not denied. So please forgive me if I cannot accept your self evaluation as evidence of anything other than your own behaviour.

    And don’t be foolish we all know you don’t have any friends and if you had a gay relative we know you’d shun them!

    I am not going to be foolish enough to argue with a fool. Until you can answer the questions posed in the first part of this response, I am not going to beleive you have the capacity for rational thought or analysis. Nor that you can understand facts. I made the statement. It is up to you to prove you know more about me that I know about myself. Good luck with that.

    BTW: Proof is actual facts, not ignorant opinions. Please spare everyone your vitriol, hatred, racism and bigotry and just present facts.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Hahahaha! Oh Philly Boy you think it’s really that hard to know something about you? Let me just take a stab in the dark here and say that you along with roughly 90% of posters here are male, white, middle aged to slightly “over-the-hill”, mildly overweight to m

      • philjourdan says:

        Assumption is the mother of all Eff ups.

        Thank you for again proving your ignorance. And again showing your hate filled diatribe. For a minute there, I actually thought you would answer with an intelligent response. But alas, I am the eternal optomist – always thinking that there is any good in everyone. You are definitely trying to prove me wrong in this case.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Hahahaha! Oh Philly Boy you think it’s really that hard to know something about you? Let me just take a stab in the dark here and say that you along with roughly 90% of posters here are male, white, middle aged to slightly “over-the-hill”, mildly overweight to moderately obese. You attend church at least semi regularly. You might not be openly hostile toward gays but you don’t really know any well. You frequently speak about how things used to be and remember the good old days…

      Come on really….you do realize this group and ones like it have a certain pasty white phenotype?!? But go on tell us how you’re really black and volunteer weekly at your local LGBT outreach center! 😉

      • philjourdan says:

        Really? Please quote where I talked about the “good old days”. You made the claim, now I am (again) challenging you to back it up. I suspect, as with all your other maliscious lies, that you will just spew more useless childish ad hominems, and slink away badly beaten, but refusing to admit your spanking. You are getting tired and predictable.

        And just for the record, so we are clear. I have never said I volunteer at an LGBT center of any kind, nor would I make such a stupid claim as it is false. That you try to use Gays as pejoratives only serves to prove to everyone that you are a homophobe. But the worst kind. Having no basis for your hatred of them, you hide it with false platitudes until someone scratches your surface, where the ugliness that is you appears unmasked.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha Phil you’re such a child.

          Document one place where I’ve used “gay” as a pejorative!?!

          Nope – you can’t. Surprised? Not at all!

        • DirkH says:

          The “PhdScientist” to Phil:
          “Need more proof of the filth that you defend? How about this? Now what do you have to say big boy? How will you continue to defend them? Oh I know, it’s just their opinion! You disgust me!”

          The”PhdScientist”, you don’t like the American constitution?

        • suyts says:

          People are only allowed to have opinions we approve of, else wise we hate them…. or they’re a hate group or something.

        • kim2ooo says:

          suyts says:
          August 23, 2012 at 8:56 am

          People are only allowed to have opinions we approve of, else wise we hate them…. or they’re a hate group or something.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          I’m starting to believe PhD is so bigoted – there is no honest debate coming from him. I know there is no coherently logical debate that he can muster.

          It isn’t like we haven’t tried to engage him with honest debate.

          Pin him with facts – he responds with name calling.

          He just keeps blovating.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahah Philly you’re so silly. How’d I do any ways? Bet I came very close to describing you, huh? It’s like I’m psychic!?! Or maybe it’s just that your kind as certain phenotype that’s very easy to spot!

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No, no we just saw under Philly’s definition. Hate is only defined as violence against someone. Everything else is just “opinion!”

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No problem with the constitution Dirk. Problem with frauds who defend hate under the guise of opinion and free speech, while simultaneously pretending to be some sort of “compassionate” conservative caring about the rights of persecuted minorities in the US.

    • kim2ooo says:

      Some interesting remarks about where PhD gets his ideas

      [“Posted by Matthew Vadum Bio ↓ on Aug 20th, 2012 Comments ↓

      72 Print This Post A A A

      After the Southern Poverty Law Center – a quarter-billion dollar leftist attack machine funded by George Soros – labeled the conservative Family Research Council a “hate group,” a gay rights activist shot up FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C. last week.

      FRC president Tony Perkins acknowledged “the gunman is responsible for the shooting,” but blamed the SPLC for “recklessly” labeling groups “like FRC that they disagree with as ‘hate groups,’ that created this hostile environment.”

      The Southern Poverty Law Center’s behavior isn’t reckless as such. It’s far worse than that. It is calculated and malicious, intended to foment hatred and raise oceans of cash by bamboozling gullible liberals into giving money to what is one of the wealthiest nonprofit groups in the history of the United States.

      The paranoid conspiracy theorists of the SPLC deliberately conflate conservative groups with genuinely extremist groups such as the infamous Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, another SPLC-designated hate group. In declaring FRC a hate group, it asserts that FRC is the moral equivalent of other SPLC-classified hate groups such as the Aryan Brotherhood, Nation of Islam, and New Black Panther Party. Even liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank calls it “absurd” for SPLC to place FRC “in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church.”

      FRC is trying to change American culture just as SPLC is trying to push the culture in a different direction. Most Americans would say the two groups have a difference of opinion. SPLC, which pretends to champion “tolerance,” doesn’t see it this way and routinely smears FRC as a hate group in order to discredit it and the ideas it stands for.

      Put another way, SPLC attacks the Family Research Council because the latter is opposed to homosexuality.

      Period.

      Every other complaint SPLC generates about FRC is a mere detail emanating from this central truth. To SPLC founder Morris Dees and his followers those who do not approve of homosexuality are guilty of hate, or if you prefer, thought crime. It follows that those who oppose same-sex marriage are also guilty of hate even though every time the question has been put on the ballot anywhere in the United States – even in irretrievably liberal California— Americans have voted same-sex marriage down. America, it turns out, is guilty of hate.

      But SPLC is selective in singling out anti-gay “hate” groups. The Center ignores many Muslim organizations that are violently opposed to homosexuality. Instead the group attacks people like David Horowitz, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer who worry about the threat that radical Islamists pose to America, accusing them of anti-Muslim bigotry for daring to speak out.

      The Southern Poverty Law Center has been at this game a long time, making money by smearing conservatives. It is so fabulously wealthy that it stashes money in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, two of those tax haven countries the Left keeps complaining about. In addition to those foreign accounts, in its most recent publicly available tax return the SPLC discloses an absolutely astounding $238.1 million in net assets.

      SPLC’s robust balance sheet dwarfs those of other big leftist groups. For example, the highly influential Center for American Progress, founded by Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta, discloses net assets of just $36.6 million, or less than one-sixth of SPLC’s bank ledger.’}

      READ MORE
      http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/smearing-conservatives-raking-in-cash/

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        LoL Isn’t it Latin that you and Philly like so much? Shall we say Ad Hominem?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Or should we also include “non-sequitur” since it really doesn’t follow that because the SPLC is a supposed “leftist” organization that the FRC is not a hate group…

        • kim2ooo says:

          Again you show you don’t understand logical arguments,

          Your trying to associate an inference – is fallacy.

          Non Sequitur – Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
          Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.

          http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentation

        • DirkH says:

          You can’t prove that you didn’t do something, The “PhdScientist”; therefore the kind of statement you use is redundant. The FRC cannot prove that it is not something; therefore it is the burden of the accuser to prove that it IS something.

          I hope you can follow me.

  40. suyts says:

    Well, clearly some of the things he says is to get a rise out of people here. Other times, there are legitimate areas of debate. The thing is, everyone gets a say, here. We’ll let the larger audience decide who presents the best arguments.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Kimmie I’ve more than proven the FRC Is a hate group. Which is why they’ve rightfully been given that designation by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Philly only objects to it because they attempt to use religious principals to disguise their hate and we know religion could NEVER be hateful!?! LoL

        • kim2ooo says:

          AND anyone can reasonable call [ using your own logic ] Southern Poverty Law Center a hate group. Read their pages they aren’t exactly tolerant .

          AND since you quote what they say…[ using your own logic ] ……………

          BOTH ARE FALLACIES
          Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious.

        • philjourdan says:

          Debate fail. Logic Fail. Intelligence fail.

          You fail a lot. You have not proven a single thing, other than you are a racist homophobic bigot who cannot tolerate free speech.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No Phil I don’t tolerate your homophobic bigotry and your support for hateful organizations while pretending you’re somehow compassionate to the plight of gay and lesbian Americans.

          Everyone can see you’re full of poo. STINKY!!!!

    • kelly liddle says:

      Between Phil and Phd it is mostly name calling at the moment. The quotes if they are not taken out of context by FRC members seem pretty hateful to me. Phil did not answer the question of whether or not he considers those comments damaging or hateful and instead has skirted the issue defending the right to free speech. Defending the right to free speech is a different subject. The KKK and whatever the equivalent organisations are today have opinions also but I can’t see anyone here defending their opinions because they are hateful even if you defend the right for them to be spoken. I also fail to recognise what the KKK has to do with the FRC. It would be like saying Pol Pots regime was worse than the KKK, there for the KKK are not so bad.

      • kim2ooo says:

        They may well be.

        THAT is not PHds problem.

        Who here has said anything hateful about LGBT?

        BUT PhD tries his best to smear anyone here who disagrees with him as the same as…

        REPEATING:
        Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious.

        It is a strawman fallacy
        http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentation

        • kelly liddle says:

          Kim
          Yep quite a few of those argumentative techniques have been used today.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 10:46 am

          You can’t make a scientific argument for irrational hatred!

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          The only one expressing irrational thought here…is you.

          In EVERY thread you post to here….you try to make the jump. The Inference isn’t there

          You constantly bring up GAY rights and try to infer we hold the same values as some group that you’ve classified as a hate group. BAD INFERENCE IT DOESN’T APPLY – SELL IT ELSEWHERE –

          It’s completely Off Topic.- It’s a feeble strawman.

          Did leftist try to storm Ryan’s speech?
          Can you prove they didn’t?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oh kimmie you’re such a fool – see every post by PhilJourdan. And you do apparently share those groups opinions as you voraciously defend them.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And finally if you don’t want to be part of MY and PHIL’s conversation, butt the HELL out. No one asked for your opinion anyway. Busy- bodied fool.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          BTW Kimmie it wasn’t me who classified them as a hate group and I’m sure you would agree that they’re a hate group based on the things you’ve heard them say, right? Since you don’t share their values.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 11:59 am

          And you do apparently share those groups opinions as you voraciously defend them.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Provide your evidence.

          I’m almost positive I have a few hundred posts here – AND thousands of posts that show on other sites.

          YOU have NEVER seen – OR will you find anything I’ve posted on Gays – Except where I corrected you that “Having Same Sex Attractions is not the same as ACTING on those Same Sex Attractions. [ 4-5 posts

          You Sir, are a liar…if you can’t produce the evidence for your claim

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 12:02 pm

          And finally if you don’t want to be part of MY and PHIL’s conversation, butt the HELL out. No one asked for your opinion anyway. Busy- bodied fool.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Ha ha ha ha 🙂

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm

          BTW Kimmie it wasn’t me who classified them as a hate group

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Reading comprehension is an acquired skill.

          Where did I say you did?

          You have enough trouble trying to reason – don’t add to your problem.:)

          Did the leftists try to storm Mr Ryan’s speech?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Kimmie you’re just like Phil, you can keep track of your lies and bull $hit!?!?!

          Reading comprehension is an acquired skill.
          Where did I say you did?

          UMM HOW ABOUT HERE KIMMIE:

          You constantly bring up GAY rights and try to infer we hold the same values as some group that YOU’VE classified as a hate group.

          Care to talk more about reading comprehension, since you can’t comprehend nor remember what you’ve wrote less than an hour ago?!?!

          Apologies Kimmie for being a pompous ass caught in a lie?!?

      • suyts says:

        Kelly, I would caution you about coming to such conclusions. There’s a specific time frame and background to some of these statements and Ph didn’t provide any context.

        Further, there’s some other glaring omissions behind some of his quotes. I’d rather not engage in this discussion so I’m happy to let Phil and Ph have their back and forth.

        But, Kelly, you’re a bright guy. Some of the quotes make some very clear implications which aren’t brought up. Why? Opinions formed by preconceived notions are easy to disagree with. Opinions formed by research is a different argument.

        When I disagree with the opinions put forth by climate alarmists, I offer data to rebut their data, or I expose flaws in their data or interpretation of their results. Most of us skeptics do this in one form or another.

        I’d much rather the discussion move from they’re a hate group because they said X,Y, or Z, and to the reason they said X,Y, or Z is because their data showed this. This is right/wrong because X, Y, or Z.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Please expand suyts I’d love to hear where the time frame argument is going? LoL Since most of these comments are from the late 90s and early 2000s (you know the FRC has only been around since the 80s). So we can’t really cut them any slack by saying “oh their bigot and hate” was a just a sign of the times!

        • kelly liddle says:

          Suyts
          We shall see if they move the arguments in that direction.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I have to say Suyts I’m also surprised that you would attempt to defend some of this filth from the FRC. While a right wing ideologue, you don’t seem completely unreasonable…

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          You can’t make a scientific argument for irrational hatred!

        • suyts says:

          Ph, I don’t see where I was defending them. I see where I said the argument against them is weak because of the arbitrary assignment and definition of “hate”, and the lack of information to back up such an assertion. The comparison to the KKK and other groups are a fail, because as far as I know, they’ve confined themselves to legal advocacy rather than lynching and intimidation and whatnot.

          Again, I’m not going to devolve into such a discussion but here’s a couple of points… you quote them here….

          “[A]llowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would likely result, for the first time, in heterosexuals being forced to cohabit with those who may view them as a potential sexual object.”
          — Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military,” 2010

          “[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.”
          — Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military,” 2010

          This is, of course, during the time frame Obama decided to allow openly gay people to serve. The first statement is an absolutely true statement because it has the qualifier “potential”. Unless you are going to assert no homosexuals engage in sexual objectification. We know that isn’t true. In fact, there’s a rather large subculture of the LGBT community which engages in exactly that. (There is also a sub-culture in the hetro community which also does, the distinction is, in the military billets, members of the opposite sex do not bunk together.)

          The second statement implies there’s information that states there is already a problem in the military. This should be easy enough to refute, rather than dismissing out of hand. Either there is information there or there isn’t. But, we don’t address that, we simply dismiss their statement and call it hate. What if the information they have shows this to be true? Is it still hate to say so?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha and you really believe that? Nonsense!

          You really think the FRC is coming at this from a position of having done their homework and concluding that their is a “serious problem of homosexual assault in the military?” A problem that only the “researchers” at the FRC have so far discovered?

          What we have is a HATE group who has a long and sick history of distorting the truth and telling out right lies about gay and lesbian people.

          Perhaps denialists don’t know science well enough to see that when Perkins says something like “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. . . . It is a homosexual problem.”
          Unfortunately real researchers, namely psychologists and psychiatrists don’t agree with Mr. Perkins on this point (or essentially any of his other points).

          What we have is hateful group. Their hate uniformly stems from their religious beliefs (and perhaps the closeted homosexuality of some of their leaders – I mean what’s with the gay obsession?).

  41. ThePhDScientist says:

    *err principles

  42. ThePhDScientist says:

    BTW We don’t need to refute stupid lies from Mr Perkin’s HATE group to do so only gives them legitimacy. We should continue to frown upon them as a radical extremist organization who has no place in America.

    • philjourdan says:

      Cop out. But not unexpected. You cannot refute them, so you label them with your own labels. That way, you do not have to be honest or factual in your hatred.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Go away you bigoted homophobic fool! Boy I know someone who is going to be upset when gays get full marriage rights in the United States!?! Going to really scare you huh Phil?

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, a hate monger is not going to tell me to go away and suceed. Since you have defined yourself as a hate monger, I will leave you to your own definition.

  43. ThePhDScientist says:

    And you don’t consider blatant lies against homosexuals to be hate?

    I suppose to you this is just another sort of denialist science when inflammatory and false statements are hurled against gay and lesbians?

    Thoroughly disappointed. I didn’t think your head was stuck that far up the right wing’s a$$….

    “We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men.”
    — Peter Sprigg, “Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views.” 2011.

    “Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
    — Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

    • suyts says:

      “And you don’t consider blatant lies against homosexuals to be hate?”

      Would that be any more or less hateful than blatant lies against any other members of our society? Say, like the TEA party?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Hahaha oh so now white, middle-aged, overweight men are a persecuted minority? And I don’t remember anyone saying things like tea baggers are pedophiles and rapists…

      • suyts says:

        No, but they’re described as racists on a daily basis. In spite of the fact that many of their members are minorities as is many of the politicians they support. They were also illegitimately connected to domestic terror groups.

        Clearly, the members of the TEA party are in the minority, or is it only race and sexual orientation which differentiate people?

        My point is, many people lash out and say things which others can construe as hateful. Does that make them a hate group? I don’t know, but if it does, then everyone is a hate group. And, if everyone is a hate group, what does it mean to be labeled as one?

        I think the word “hate” is cheapened when it gets bandied about so much. I would reserve the word for people who actually engage in an overt acts of violence and lawlessness or advocacy of such. But, I understand it’s a subjective word. I just wish I’d see some consistency with the center’s use of it.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          So do tea partiers face discrimination in employment, housing, and other public sector areas? Are tea partiers regularly subjected to physical violence for the fact that they’re a tea partier? And of course we know being a tea partier is a choice whereas sexuality is not – so the two obviously aren’t the same.

          People who organize with a sole (soul? ;)) purpose of perpetuating this culture of violence and discrimination are rightfully called hate groups.

        • suyts says:

          People get discriminated against in many ways and in all walks of life. If you see some one or any group advocating violence against fellow citizens, just point them out and I’ll join you in opposition to such people/group.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Meh I find that to be a pretty cop out position. When extremist groups go around spreading malicious lies that directly impact the lives of a whole class of people then I take issue with them.

          Do we give any seriousness to groups who still go around saying things like “blacks are genetically inferior, they shouldn’t drink from our water fountain or eat at our lunch counter” Of course not, we know those opinions are antiquated relics of our bigoted past. No difference with the filth coming from the FRC…That hate group should not be taken seriously and should condemned.

  44. kim2ooo says:

    REPOST for PhD’s ease”
    kim2ooo says:
    August 23, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 11:59 am

    And you do apparently share those groups opinions as you voraciously defend them.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Provide your evidence.

    I’m almost positive I have a few hundred posts here – AND thousands of posts that show on other sites.

    YOU have NEVER seen – OR will you find anything I’ve posted on Gays – Except where I corrected you that “Having Same Sex Attractions is not the same as ACTING on those Same Sex Attractions. [ 4-5 posts

    You Sir, are a liar…if you can’t produce the evidence for your claim

  45. kim2ooo says:

    You constantly bring up GAY rights and try to infer we hold the same values as some group that you’ve classified as a hate group. BAD INFERENCE IT DOESN’T APPLY – SELL IT ELSEWHERE –

    Sooooooo…do I owe you an apology for thinking you Don’t classify the group as a hate group or DO classify them as a hate group?
    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 20, 2012 at 6:13 am
    “When I say the FRC are a hate group because of their statements”

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Haha you could just admit that you were wrong in this exchange. But like Phil you can never admit it, so you continue to dance the dance!!!

      BTW Kimmie it wasn’t me who classified them as a hate group

      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      Reading comprehension is an acquired skill.

      Where did I say you did?

      You have enough trouble trying to reason – don’t add to your problem.:)

      • kim2ooo says:

        Hey! I’m open to apologizing….

        Sooooooo…do I owe you an apology for thinking you Don’t classify the group as a hate group or DO classify them as a hate group?
        ThePhDScientist says:
        August 20, 2012 at 6:13 am
        “When I say the FRC are a hate group because of their statements”

        I apologize. 🙂

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Thank you for highlighting the thought processes and rationality of the right wing tea baggers! That’s the best gift you could give me 😀

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 1:41 pm

          Thank you for highlighting the thought processes and rationality of the right wing tea baggers! That’s the best gift you could give me

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Once again your logic is flawed.
          The inference you try to make is that I’m a Tea Partier.

          That Sir, IS a Lie.

          Just as this one:
          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 11:59 am

          And you do apparently share those groups opinions as you voraciously defend them.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Provide your evidence.

          I’m almost positive I have a few hundred posts here – AND thousands of posts that show on other sites.

          YOU have NEVER seen – OR will you find anything I’ve posted on Gays – Except where I corrected you that “Having Same Sex Attractions is not the same as ACTING on those Same Sex Attractions. [ 4-5 posts

          You Sir, are a liar…if you can’t produce the evidence for your claim

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha oh ok you just defend the tea partier positions and not subtly infer that the SPLC is a leftist group and therefore shouldn’t be trusted. But I guess you’re liberal Democrat! LOL

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm

          Haha oh ok you just defend the tea partier positions and not subtly infer that the SPLC is a leftist group and therefore shouldn’t be trusted. But I guess you’re liberal Democrat! LOL

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm
          Haha oh ok you just defend the tea partier positions”

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Actually, WRONG AGAIN!

          I defend positions, I believe in – NOT any particular party.

          You seem to have a problem with understanding that concept.
          It comes with knowing HOW to think – Not some echo chamber telling me WHAT to think.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm
          subtly infer that the SPLC is a leftist group and therefore shouldn’t be trusted.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Actually, WRONG AGAIN!
          kim2ooo says:
          August 23, 2012 at 9:55 am

          “Some interesting remarks about where PhD gets his ideas”

          I left the inferences up to the individual reader.
          Reading Comprehension is an acquired skill.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha! Man such a smug little troll! I like it! 😀

        • kim2ooo says:

          AND You Sir…. remain an unapologetic coward of a liar

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Oooohhh now it’s getting a little nasty. Perhaps it’s time for the evening meds? LoL 😉

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahahaha! MOst scientists and physicians prefer clear and concise. So how about this – try clozapine “kid.”. LoL 😀

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 3:39 pm

          Oooohhh now it’s getting a little nasty.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          It’s called TRUTH…a foreign concept – I’m sure to someone who can’t master to create a comprehensive logical post.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 3:53 pm

          Hahahaha! MOst scientists and physicians prefer clear and concise. So how about this – try clozapine “kid.”. LoL

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Sorry, was your clozapine next to your Vagisil?-

        • suyts says:

          Sput….sput…lol!!! Very funny!

          Now…. keep it clean.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No Kimmie I seriously thought it could help and maybe you could share with some of the baggers (especially the birther wing of the party)

          What’s Vagisil Kimmie???

          😀

        • kim2ooo says:

          suyts says:
          August 23, 2012 at 4:03 pm

          Sput….sput…lol!!! Very funny!

          Now…. keep it clean.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          🙂 Gotta go…..Momma only lets me play with the disenfranchised for a few hours at a time 🙂

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Remember that’s C-L-O-Z-A-P-I-N-E and stay away from any schools well running this “kid” scheme we don’t want you ending up any dateline shows. If you see Chris Hansen run like the wind Kimmie!!!

          LOL.

          😛

  46. ThePhDScientist says:

    And actually you are the LIAR as already proven when you said:

    Reading comprehension is an acquired skill.
    Where did I say you did?

    Then I showed you and you still didn’t admit to your lies….Just more convoluted talking circles like your pal PhilJourdan!

    • kim2ooo says:

      ThePhDScientist says:
      August 23, 2012 at 2:53 pm

      And actually you are the LIAR as already proven when you said:

      Reading comprehension is an acquired skill.
      Where did I say you did?

      Then I showed you and you still didn’t admit to your lies….Just more convoluted talking circles like your pal PhilJourdan!
      [my bold ]
      xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      That’s a lie
      Reading comprehension is an acquired skill. 🙂
      kim2ooo says:
      August 23, 2012 at 1:39 pm
      I apologize.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        What’s the matter anyway – you find the Tea Partier designation a mark of shame? A scarlet letter? 😉

        • kim2ooo says:

          Your ignorance just compounds – doesn’t it?

          For the Scientist that can’t see to catch the short bus: Ha ha ha ha ha 🙂
          Retention span a problem?

          I’m a kid 🙂

          Why would I find it a mark of shame? Like the rest of your illogical rants – It doesn’t apply to me.
          Neither does Democrat – Republican – Libertarian.

          Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious.

          One does not need to be more “knowledgeable” than the Harvard Obstetrician, especially, since no one, here, has posted against his claim.

          – One ONLY needs to be more “knowledgeable” than YOUR argument from fallacy. 🙂

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahahaha! Uh oh now we’re getting back to the deranged looney bin talk!!! LoL

        • kim2ooo says:

          Whoppssseeee

          It stripped this part of my post:

          As I tried to teach you with this post
          FOLLOWED BY:
          One does not need to be more “knowledgeable” than the Harvard Obstetrician, especially, since no one, here, has posted against his claim.

          – One ONLY needs to be more “knowledgeable” than YOUR argument from fallacy.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Well they do say you can learn something from anyone!?!? The janitor, the guy with the 3rd chromosome…

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 23, 2012 at 3:29 pm

          Hahahaha! Uh oh now we’re getting back to the deranged looney bin talk!!! LoL

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Awww You wound me 🙂

          At least I’m not an unapologetic coward of a liar….eh?

    • kim2ooo says:

      TRY THIS AGAIN:

      ThePhDScientist says:
      August 23, 2012 at 11:59 am

      And you do apparently share those groups opinions as you voraciously defend them.

      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      Provide your evidence.

      I’m almost positive I have a few hundred posts here – AND thousands of posts that show on other sites.

      YOU have NEVER seen – OR will you find anything I’ve posted on Gays – Except where I corrected you that “Having Same Sex Attractions is not the same as ACTING on those Same Sex Attractions. [ 4-5 posts

      You Sir, are a liar…if you can’t produce the evidence for your claim

    • kim2ooo says:

      “Reading comprehension is an acquired skill.”

      “Where did I say you did?”

      Are my direct quotes.

      Is not a statement – it is a question. For the reading comprehension deficient …it’s the little squigglie [ ? ] at the end that demonstrates it.

      Being a question and not a statement – it is not a lie.

      You have LIED once again!

      • Me says:

        That’s nothing new.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ABSOLUTELY !!!

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Avoided Chris Hansen for one more day I see. Strong work! 😀

        • kim2ooo says:

          Processed Cheeseses man…you seem to know all the sexually shadies.

          “Liaison: Chris Hansen has allegedly been having a four-month affair with Florida TV reporter Kristyn Caddell, who is 20 years his junior,” [ my bold ]

          Sounds like predatory practices, to me.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009511/To-Catch-Predators-Chris-Hansen-caught-cheating-wife.html

          Does a pathology contribute to your unusual fixations?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Pathology as in an adult pretending to impersonate a child on the Internet? That’s your schtick Kimmie. How’s it working out?

          PS not sure what they’re teaching in Sunday school these days, but 30 and 50 are consenting adults – hardly predatory.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm

          Pathology as in an adult pretending to impersonate a child on the Internet?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Ha ha ha ha…you just want me to be an adult because I”VE throughly SPANKED you –
          Your ego bruised?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxx
          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm

          PS not sure what they’re teaching in Sunday school these days, but 30 and 50 are consenting adults – hardly predatory.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          You are so easy 🙂
          I was hoping you’d go for THEIR age difference as YOUR definition of “predatory”.

          pred·a·to·ry   [pred-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
          adjective
          1.
          Zoology . preying upon other organisms for food.
          2.
          of, pertaining to, or characterized by plunder, pillage, robbery, or exploitation: predatory tactics.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predatory

          He Plundered His vows of fidelity
          He Pillaged His Marriage.
          He Robbed His two young sons,
          He Exploited His Wife’s trust.

          Didja find your Vagisil?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha the only spanking you’ve been doing is with your prostitute – “spank me mommy and tell me I’m a bad boy”. LOL

          But maybe you are a child because obviously any adult would refer to extramarital affairs with the term “infidelity”. So NO trying to use some antiquated terminology so that one can proclaim “gotcha” does NOT make one look smart, only immature! Keep trying though (adult who’s pretending to be a) Kiddo!

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm

          PS not sure what they’re teaching in Sunday school these days, but 30 and 50 are consenting adults – hardly predatory.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          I proved it was. 🙂

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm

          But maybe you are a child because obviously any adult would refer to extramarital affairs with the term “infidelity”.

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          “Infidelity” is a “predatory” act. It is “exploitative”

          pred·a·to·ry   [pred-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
          adjective
          1.
          Zoology . preying upon other organisms for food.
          2.
          of, pertaining to, or characterized by plunder, pillage, robbery, or exploitation predatory tactics.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predatory

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm

          Hahaha the only spanking you’ve been doing is with your prostitute – “spank me mommy and tell me I’m a bad boy”. LOL

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Processed Cheeeses
          You seem to know what prostitutes like.

          Sounds like you have a personal problem is it pathological?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No infidelity is not exploitative…

          Definition of EXPLOITATIVE
          : exploiting or tending to exploit; especially : unfairly or cynically using another person or group for profit or advantage

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          See how dumb this game is?

        • suyts says:

          The thing which gets me is that I offer so many more topics to explore. We’ve many more posts which may be of interest. Don’t get me wrong, you guys are welcome to explore the issues at your leisure, but, when the thread gets this large its tedious to sift through. You guys have shattered my record for comments on one thread!

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          LoL That’s the smartest thing I’ve ever heard you say! It’s definitely time to move on! Of course I know Phil will be back with some stupid remarks, which i’ll have to try my hardest not to respond too! 😀

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 5:42 pm

          No infidelity is not exploitative…

          Definition of EXPLOITATIVE
          : exploiting or tending to exploit; especially : unfairly or cynically using another person or group for profit or advantage

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          Infidelity (colloquially known as cheating, adultery, or having an affair) most commonly refers to a breach of an expectation of sexual and or emotional exclusivity expressed or implied in an intimate relationship.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelities

          I you aren’t exploiting your marriage by your infidelity….YOU’d get a divorce.

          Mr Chris Hansen exploited through his sneaking around… while committing acts of infidelity. A predatory act.

          pred·a·to·ry   [pred-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
          adjective
          1.
          Zoology . preying upon other organisms for food.
          2.
          of, pertaining to, or characterized by plunder, pillage, robbery, or exploitation: predatory tactics.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predatory

          He Plundered His vows of fidelity
          He Pillaged His Marriage.
          He Robbed His two young sons,
          He Exploited His Wife’s trust.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 5:43 pm

          See how dumb this game is?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Oh Cheeseses…the guy who can’t tell a statement from a question…..Speaking about dumb?

          Hope to catch you on another thread! Hopefully, with an intelligent / logical debate.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahahah! Yes Kimmie maybe you’ll have learned some real science by then!!??!!

  47. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Haha no Philly boy here is what you did. You asked me to prove to you that the FRC was a hate group and so I gave you several hate filled statements made by them. Once presented with that evidence you did know what to do, so you had to brush it off as merely their “opinions” as well as going off on some tangent about being the world’s protector of free speech and first amendment rights. Further, you added that because the FRC has not committed any acts of violence against gays and lesbians (at least none we can pin directly on them) that they cannot be called a hate group. Never mind, of course, that it is there kind of hate speech, and the culture it breeds, that leads to very real and documented attacks against homosexuals.

    Sorry, I said PROVE. Your opinion is not proof. IN none of those statements did the FRC say “hate”. In none of those statements were any mention of threats of bodily harm. Just because you think that saying “I disagree” is a hate statement. Kim is right. YOu are totally clueless on logic. So you have once again proven nothing but your own ignorance.

    You failed to even address the issue in a logical way. YOu failed to prove your case. What you did prove is that you hate anyone who disagrees with you. That is hardly the proof you promised, and definitely not the proof asked for.

    Then it really got rich when I made some FRC-style statements against you and you accused me of engaging in a “hate filled diatribe.” Yet I’ve never once committed any act of violence against you or anyone else on this board so by your own definition you should be protecting my freedom of speech, after all it was you who argued this “is just an opinion.”

    No, the statements you made against me were racial pejoratives and homophobic slurs. Recognized as such by most of the civilized world. Which I guess leaves liberals out. Nor have I ever accused you of any act of violence, just your useless ad hominems and pejoratives. FRC does not go around calling people “queers” or “tea baggers”. Both are pejorative words meant to incite an emotion. YOu do however. As well as you obligator N word and other such racial slurs. They presented a case for why they believe as they do. We are all free to disagree – peacefully – something again foreign to liberals.

    You’re a child who talks himself in circles while bobbing and weaving to avoid addressing any difficult points. Clearly, the FRC engages in “hate filled diatribes” – wouldn’t you say Philly Boy? I mean you can apparently identify them as you tried to accuse me of such a thing! But, it seems Philly is blind to “hate filled diatribes” when they come from the religious right!

    I can see why you would want to think others are on your level. However, when challenged to back up any of your ignorant opinions you have failed miserably. When challenged to prove anything, you have failed miserably. You continue to make statements not supported by facts ,and you continue to use racial and homophobic pejoratives in your diatribes.

    And you have yet to prove a single allegation you made against me. So no one believes you now. WHy should they? You have not told the truth yet. Nor proved any lie you have used. It seems the only blind one is the child who cannot understand how to act as adult.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Show me where I used “queer”!!! Your head is so far up your A$$ that you now live in this imaginary world of make believe. Next you’re going to start telling me man really did arise on earth preceding some altercation with an apple and talking snake.

      Come back to reality big boy!

      • philjourdan says:

        RIF – I never said you used the term “queer”. Again, it is not possible to have a rational discourse with a person who descends into childish tantrums and petty ad hominems when they cannot even read the response written.

        Argue with your own strawmen. I ignore yours as they have no basis in reality.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Well great I am glad we agree the homophobic one in this room is you!!!

        • philjourdan says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 8:41 am

          Well great I am glad we agree the homophobic one in this room is you!!!

          RIF – The only one claiming the lie is you. There has been no agreement. But since you cannot comprehend what you read, I can see how you would jump to the false conclusion (that along with your ego that forces you to claim things not in evidence).

  48. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 8:14 am

    Haha Phil you’re such a child.

    Document one place where I’ve used “gay” as a pejorative!?!

    Nope – you can’t. Surprised? Not at all

    YOu definitely have a reading problem. I never said you used “gay” as a pejorative. I said you used a “gay term” as a pejorative.

    RIF – Just because you cannot understand adult words, does not mean you have to create your own lies.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      And again I say prove it you hillbilly fool!

      • philjourdan says:

        And again, claiming something using petty pejoratives is not proof. You have only proved you are incapable of a rational discourse.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          You’ve caught me! I am incapable of rational discourse with a fraudulent, homophobic, imbecile!

        • philjourdan says:

          You’ve caught me! I am incapable of rational discourse with a fraudulent, homophobic, imbecile!

          it is nice to know that you are incapable of rational discourse with yourself. At least we know that you are not arguing with yourself.

        • kim2ooo says:

          You should have put your period after “discourse”.
          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 8:40 am

          You’ve caught me! I am incapable of rational discourse[.] FIXED it for ya.

  49. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 9:30 am

    Hahah Philly you’re so silly. How’d I do any ways? Bet I came very close to describing you, huh? It’s like I’m psychic!?! Or maybe it’s just that your kind as certain phenotype that’s very easy to spot!

    Not even close. And you failed to even pick up on some hints I have given. But what you have proven, is that you have the mind of a child. Unable to put away childish ideas. Unable to discuss anything in a logical and rational manner. Instead, having to assault the messenger because you do not like the message. Kim is right. It is not an act with you. YOu are incapable of adult discourse. Which means you are no phd or scientist, just some child playing dress up with mommy’s clothes.

  50. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 9:32 am

    No, no we just saw under Philly’s definition. Hate is only defined as violence against someone. Everything else is just “opinion!”

    Again, I never said that. You really are reading impaired. Either that, or having failed to address even a single point of mine, you feel a need to construct straw men so you can claim a false victory.

    What astonishes me is the way you lie when every statement made by the both of us is preserved here for everyone to see. It is not like you can lie and get away with it. So why are you trying? One can only surmise, that like a child, when frightened, you close your eyes and all the bad things go away. So you think if you ignore what is said, and pretend something else is said, then others will believe you.

    Sadly, no one else here has that kind of childish mentality.

  51. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 9:34 am

    No problem with the constitution Dirk. Problem with frauds who defend hate under the guise of opinion and free speech, while simultaneously pretending to be some sort of “compassionate” conservative caring about the rights of persecuted minorities in the US.

    YOu are definitly psychotic. On the one hand you say no problem with the constitution, and then in the very next sentence, you object to a basic provision of it! Freedom of Speech. I do not have to like what everyone says to defend their right to say it. The latter is called freedom of speech. First amendment. Look it up.

    And the reason we have it is due to people like you. You define hate speech as anyone with a different opinion than you. Thank god we have free speech and the Big Brothers like you do not get to dictate what is “newspeak”. For then society would be a bunch of mind numbed robots, all spouting the same insanity as the only sanctioned speech. I know you would love that. As you continue with your hatred and ignorance. Both cornerstones and requirements of being a liberal.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Go away Phil I’m now done interacting with you. Everyone can see that you bob/weave and won’t own up to your own B.S…You get caught in it, called out on it and you still can’t form a coherent argument.

      We’re finished now, no time for crazy crap.

      • philjourdan says:

        I do not bob or weave. I do refuse to participate in your ad hominem game, or answer to your straw men. But I debate the points made.

        You have yet to debate a single point, instead merely trying to see what insult you can pen next without reading or comprehending what you read.

        If you are done, leave. No one is forcing you to make a fool of yourself.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha you don’t do anything but obfuscate. You have no rational rebuttals for anything. You get caught in your lies and you just keep them going!

        • philjourdan says:

          Wrong again phd. I just rebutted you. No obfuscation. That you are incapable of understanding the written word or even how debating works is a given. But that is your problem. not mine.

          I would suggest you go back to school where you dropped out and actually pay attention to your teachers this time. Then perhaps you would not be so easily bested in a battle of wits.

  52. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 11:52 am

    Hahaha and you really believe that? Nonsense!

    You really think the FRC is coming at this from a position of having done their homework and concluding that their is a “serious problem of homosexual assault in the military?” A problem that only the “researchers” at the FRC have so far discovered?

    I believe that Suyts said the FRC was a political advocacy group. If he at some point said they were a research organizatio, I missed it. So I fail to see how your attempt at twisting the words again is making a point. As has been stated, it is their OPINION. And they are welcome to it. That does not make them a hate group. That means they have their own biases (which an opinion is merely a statement of the bias). So they are not “discovering” anything. You again are trying to claim that those with opposing opinions to yours are hateful. That is not your opinion. That is a claim of omniscience. A claim that is not born out by any of your rantings or writings.

    What we have is a HATE group who has a long and sick history of distorting the truth and telling out right lies about gay and lesbian people.

    Again, what lies? Which gene is the gay gene? The problem again with your claim is you have no facts to back it up. To date, there is not even a valid hypothesis of a gay gene. It is a claim, yet none that has been proven. And it is something that may be proven. But until it is, the duty of science is to QUESTION things so that we are not blinded by false paths. Stating their opinion of things is not hate.

    Perhaps denialists don’t know science well enough to see that when Perkins says something like “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. . . . It is a homosexual problem.”

    Your insistence upon using “bad words” (I use the simple term for the simple minds that cannot understand big words) shows that you are not willing to discuss your biases or facts. You have your opinion and even though there are no facts to back them up, you have to maintain your level of ignorance by using bad words to try to silence those who disagree.

    Unfortunately real researchers, namely psychologists and psychiatrists don’t agree with Mr. Perkins on this point (or essentially any of his other points).

    An appeal to an imaginary authority does not make a point. WHile there are many who hold that view, there are also many that hold opposing views. Nothing has been proven yet. So again, it is an OPINION. Which authorities do you want to believe? You do not hold a monopoly on authorities, nor on knowledge. So your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. Perhaps less so given your proclivity to degenerate into mindless insults.

    What we have is hateful group. Their hate uniformly stems from their religious beliefs (and perhaps the closeted homosexuality of some of their leaders – I mean what’s with the gay obsession?).

    What we have is a difference of opinion. The FRC is not advocating depriving anyone of life, liberty or rights. You are. And therein lies the difference. They are indeed pushing their agenda, but with out mindless hate. You are pushing your solely through hate. So of course since the only lens you use is one of hate, all you see is hate.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Hahahaha did you really say that Phil? More proof you don’t know any gay people. Ask them when they chose to be gay. But since you don’t actually know any gay people why don’t you just ask yourself, when did you choose to be straight?

      You’re such a foolish bagger I really can’t continue this any longer.

      • philjourdan says:

        I said that because, unlike you, I am a scientist. So my opinion is irrelevant. What I believe is immaterial to the facts. And so far, we do not have any facts that say whether there is a gay gene or not.

        However, you fail logic again. Stating there is no proof of a gay gene is not then stating that sexual orientation is a choice. I have not made a statement on whether it is or is not. I have my opinion that I have yet to state. But that is JUST an opinion and is not a fact.

        Even a first year science student knows that. And that is why we know you are no scientist.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha we don’t have the gene for schizophrenia either you dumb $hit. Does that mean we think schizophrenics are “faking it”? They’re choosing to have paranoid delusions? Furthermore we don’t know the gene that makes someone straight, so does that mean they’re not really straight?

          Clearly you don’t understand science. By the way Mr. Scientist, what field are you working in?

          HAHAHAHA YOU MAKE ME LAUGH BIG BOY! 😀

        • DirkH says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          August 24, 2012 at 9:47 am
          “Hahaha we don’t have the gene for schizophrenia either you dumb $hit. ”

          Spoken like a true Phd and scientist. Where did you learn all these complicated words, like…
          … schizophrenia?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          You worried Big Boy is losing Dirk? You coming to his rescue? LOL

        • DirkH says:

          Sorry if that was too complicated for you.

          You’re the first Phd and scientist using the phrase “dumb $hit” in his writing that I met.

          That’s what I meant. I should not try to be subtle when talking down to you, I know. I’ll leave you alone now.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha well I suspect you haven’t met many PHD Scientists hanging around the denier community 😉

        • suyts says:

          Lol, most skeptics don’t wear their credentials, it’s safer that way. However, I believed one or maybe two have addressed you on this blog. Again, I’m not sure about the credential.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      The FRC is not advocating depriving anyone of life, liberty or rights…

      Hahaha no they simply voice their support for things like the Ugandan Bill, which sought to murder homosexuals for the crime of being gay.

      IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BE ANY MORE DENSE PHILJOURDAN?

      • philjourdan says:

        I guess that makes you a hate group as the claim of the support of those who sought to murder gays has already been debunked. So you are simply being a hate group, by your own definition, by spreading more malicious lies.

  53. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Oh kimmie you’re such a fool – see every post by PhilJourdan. And you do apparently share those groups opinions as you voraciously defend them

    Strawman. I have yet to defend a single word they have said. I have defended their right to say it. And I have pointed out, that scientifically, all they are talking about is their opinion, not fact. Yet you try to make it about your opinion being a fact. When your opinion is nothing more than an excuse to hate others. You have demonstrated that.

    Whether Kim or I share their views or not is #1 – Immaterial, and #2 – not known.

  54. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    And finally if you don’t want to be part of MY and PHIL’s conversation, butt the HELL out. No one asked for your opinion anyway. Busy- bodied fool.

    We have not had a conversation. I have merely pointed out your lies, hatred and opinions. You have responded with stupid and childish ad hominems and attacks. That is not a conversation. Think of it as I am admonishing a child. and the child is throwing a tantrum because of the admonishment.

    And that is also why I refuse to answer any of your challenges (as Kelly pointed out), until you stop your tirade, answer my first challenge, and start acting like an adult.

  55. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Hahaha oh so now white, middle-aged, overweight men are a persecuted minority? And I don’t remember anyone saying things like tea baggers are pedophiles and rapists…

    Non sequitur. Who said anything about white middle-aged overweight men? Who claimed they were a minority or persecuted? And who said anything about gays being pedophiles and rapists?

    You love to use pejoratives when you have nothing to add. But they add nothing to any thing said because no one but you is claiming the hatred.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Umm who do you think we’re talking about when we’re referring to the tea party baggers – just take a look around you phil!?!

      • philjourdan says:

        Um, no. If I call you a “queer” when you are not, I am using a gay term as a pejorative. For the sole reason of insulting you. WHy? Because the user must think that calling someone gay is an insult. Degrading, demeaning, and dehumanizing.

        So every time you use the gay term as a pejorative, you are demonstrating that you think gays are somehow an insult. And that by associating someone with gays, you are insulting them. Instead, you are merely insulting gays, and proving you are a sad homophobic bigot.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Straight people tea bag as well you jack a$$. And your 6 degrees of separation toward trying to paint me as homophobic is laughable at BEST!

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry phd, I gave you a direct correlation. Not 6 degrees. And who does the practice is immaterial. It is who owns the term. The Gay community. So by using it for your juvenile pejoratives, you are showing complete contempt for th gay community (as it was not meant as a derogative when they created the term).

          You are guilty as charged. You are a homophobic bigot. I am sure you will try to deny it, but the facts speak for themselves.

          Your childish pejoratives are also very lame. Did not your mother tell you that name calling only insulted the name caller?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          LOL! More lies and obfuscation! I never once referred to you or any other poster as gay or queer or any such thing. I have called you big fat boy, but as you said if its true is it really an insult!?!

          What’s insulting is you pretending to be a friend to the gay cOmmunity!

        • philjourdan says:

          Claiming “more lies and obfuscation” without pointing out any is merely ad hominems. You are welcome to disect my comments and point out where there are any lies, and how I obfuscated the issue. I thought I kept it short and to the point. But you are welcome to try.

          Please do, and leave the petty ad hominems and tired insults behind. I would really enjoy an intelligent response from you for a change.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha! I did point it out, but again since you can’t back up your claims with any evidence just more lies and obfuscation. It’s really getting tired big boy!

        • philjourdan says:

          No, you claimed it. YOu did not point out anything. I posted facts. You can challenge the facts, but so far you have failed to do so. instead merely relying on childish ad hominems to try to browbeat yourself into a point. Having failed to realize that no one here cares about your juvenile antics, nor do they carry any weight.

          One wonders why you continue to pursue such a course.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I’ve challenged you multiple time to poInt out here I used gay as a pejorative. Unable to do that you obfuscate and said “I never said that I said you used the gay term as pejorative” and honestly a this point every one is left wondering what the hell you’re talking about. So prove it big boy! Otherwise end this conversation and admit to your own tea partying homophobia!

  56. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Kimmie you’re just like Phil, you can keep track of your lies and bull $hit!?!?!

    Please list the lies and bull shit. If you cannot, then you are lying.

    Reading comprehension is an acquired skill.

    There is your problem. Why you have no reading comprehension. Reading comprehsion is learned. It is not acquired through a process like osmosis. Hence why you have failed to learn it.

    Apologies Kimmie for being a pompous ass caught in a lie?!?

    We are still waiting for your apology since that is another lie on your part.

  57. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Meh I find that to be a pretty cop out position. When extremist groups go around spreading malicious lies that directly impact the lives of a whole class of people then I take issue with them.

    Like the malicious lies you spread that directly impact the lives of a whole class of people? That makes you a hate group.

    Do we give any seriousness to groups who still go around saying things like “blacks are genetically inferior, they shouldn’t drink from our water fountain or eat at our lunch counter”

    I have never gien any seriousness to the democrats.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      I hope that you’re at least doing all this typing while running in place. You know keyboarding is not really a “sport” that burns many calories?!!?

  58. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 23, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Oooohhh now it’s getting a little nasty. Perhaps it’s time for the evening meds? LoL

    Perhaps it is time for you to look closely at your own statements as that is exactly how you sound.

  59. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 24, 2012 at 7:45 am

    No Phil I don’t tolerate your homophobic bigotry and your support for hateful organizations while pretending you’re somehow compassionate to the plight of gay and lesbian Americans.

    Everyone can see you’re full of poo. STINKY!!!!

    Again, your ignorant opinion is not a fact. You have been challenged to find a SINGLE statement of mine that is in any way a pejorative about gays. You have failed. But your demonstration of your hatred of gays is rampant throughout your rantings.

    What everyone sees is your childishness. No one can see what is not there, so no one sees what you falsely alleged. And given your definition of hatred, they can see you apparently hate me. For you are spreading (or trying to) malicious lies about me.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      LOL Phil you’re so funny. I’m sure the human rights campaign would love to have you as a member. You’re right you’re so supportive and concerned for the treatment and welfare of suppressed minority groups in America.

      By the way Phil the Ugandan Bill was in fact proven to be a bigoted and homophobic as you are!?! So stop with your lies, ok!?!

      • philjourdan says:

        I see how your previous statement fits in now. It is you who try to obfuscate and who lie. So of course you have to accuse others of your own faults and deficiencies.

        You also attempt to create strawmen to easily defeat, and when I do not fall for your strawmen, you get angry and petty. The subject was never the Ugandan Bill, but you are attempting to make it so. So the lie is all yours.

        Sorry, either you present facts and stay on topic, or I will continue to call you out for your juvenile behavior and childish pejoratives.

  60. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 24, 2012 at 9:47 am

    Hahaha we don’t have the gene for schizophrenia either you dumb $hit. Does that mean we think schizophrenics are “faking it”? They’re choosing to have paranoid delusions? Furthermore we don’t know the gene that makes someone straight, so does that mean they’re not really straight?

    Clearly you don’t understand science. By the way Mr. Scientist, what field are you working in?

    Non Sequitur. We were not talking about your mental problems. Did I ever say anyone was faking being gay? Nope! I merely pointed out that no “gay gene” has been discovered. I made no judgemental statement other than pointing out the fact. I did not leap to any erroneous conclusions like you did. As I stated, I am a scientist. I merely report the facts, and leave the bigotry to the small minded.

    RIF – It might help you stop making a fool of yourself.

  61. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 24, 2012 at 10:04 am

    You worried Big Boy is losing Dirk? You coming to his rescue? LOL

    Unlike you, I am not in a contest. I am merely reporting the facts. Ergo, I am not winning nor losing. However, you are apparently losing playing by yourself.

  62. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 24, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    Hahaha well I suspect you haven’t met many PHD Scientists hanging around the denier community

    As far as I know, no one here with the exception of yourself, hang around a denier community. But I understand, not being able to debate the facts, you have to resort to petty ad hominems.

    • philjourdan says:

      Still occupying your head I see. Must be crowded in there with all those people sharing that small space.

      And I challenge you to quote a single stupid remark. Quote mind you. Your interpretation (which we know to be deficient) is not a quote nor is it even reality.

  63. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 27, 2012 at 6:45 am

    I’ve challenged you multiple time to poInt out here I used gay as a pejorative. Unable to do that you obfuscate and said “I never said that I said you used the gay term as pejorative” and honestly a this point every one is left wondering what the hell you’re talking about. So prove it big boy! Otherwise end this conversation and admit to your own tea partying homophobia!

    Strawman. I never said you used gay as a pejorative, so I have nothing to answer. I said (for the reading impaired, and the last time) you used a GAY TERM as a pejorative, and I documented it.

    So yes, you are a homophobic bigot. You use gay terms as pejoratives.

    And you have NEVER answered a single challenge of mine. I have answered almost all of yours, but will not answer any more. If you are so dishonest as you cannot either answer a challenge, or withdraw the lie you made, then you are either woefully ignorant, or a liar. The jury is out on which one.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      You’re really an idiot and a fool. Reread what you wrote, your arguments don’t even make any sense.

      Again you’ve never PROVEN anything. If you had, you would be quick to highlight one of my posts where I’ve done such a thing, but since I never have you can produce no evidence. Only lies!

      Go play that game somewhere else Big Boy.

      • philjourdan says:

        I know EXACTLY what I wrote. I had to repeat it several times for the slow learner here. My arguments are very logical and flow. I made a claim. I produced evidence to back up the claim. And you come along and cry fowl because I produced evidence to prove my point. I cannot be lying if I quote you. I quoted you. YOu are a racist homophobic bigot. Proven so by your own words.

        That you are incapable of rational, logical or even scientific thought has now been proven not only by Kim, but by myself. Your pathetic protestations and infantile ad hominems are not a rebuttal.

        p.s. I am not going anywhere. You either grow up, accept responsibility for your own writings, or continue to be proved the fool.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha big big boy you heap so much praise upon yourself. Especially for a lying, illogical, irrational not wit! But of it helps your self esteem keep telling yourself how smart you are!

        • philjourdan says:

          Praise upon myself? I heaped no praise upon myself. I merely stated facts. I do not need to heap praise upon myself. I also do not need to pretend to be someone I am not. I do not need false monikers to inflate my importance. My words speak for themselves. I wrote clearly and concisely.

          Which means I doubt you understood a single one. Just more petty pejoratives from the child who only knows juvenile insults.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          So arrogant you can’t even see your megalomania – not at all unexpected though!

  64. ThePhDScientist says:

    No fat boy you’ve provided absolutely NO EVIDENCE that I use gay terms as pejoratives. I don’t even use “gay terms” whatever that means?

    You’re the homophobic bigot who supports hate by religion and all other sorts of nastiness! But nice try attempting to turn the tables on me. Your lies and deceits won’t work though big boy. So go try somewhere else!

    • philjourdan says:

      I see how this works. I quote your exact words demonstating my point – and that is no evidence. You have yet to quote a single line of mine proving your lie, yet that is proof. And thus spake the jabberwocky.

      I am sorry, but I really cannot debate a witless child. If you do not accept quoting your own statements as proof of what YOU wrote, then you are hopeless. And I see that my challenge to you to print a SINGLE homophobic bigoted statement of mine will never be answered because you do not live in reality.

      Have fun in your delusions. You have just been owned by me.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        ROTFL!!!! Hahahaha! Fat boy honestly is the plaque clogging the arteries to your brain? You’ve never once quoted anything I’ve said that could be construed as homophobic (not even in your convoluted mind). Now he declares you’ve just been owned by me. Hahahaha! Big boy don’t make me laugh so hard this early, I almost spit my coffee out. LOL.

        So delusional!

        • philjourdan says:

          Yes I did. I quoted exactly what you said. But I guess in your delusion you refused to acknowledge your own words.

          And I realize that quoting you is considered to be unfair in your delusions, so I know you will never be honest enough to admit your own mistakes from your own mouth.

          But your delusions are your own. I will continue to point out your hate and lies. I understand you will continue to deny them just like a child would.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No you’ve never quoted anything I’ve said, which any sane person would consider homophobic. You tried to make some 6 degrees of separation story about gay terms as pejoratives and some other B.S., but with no good evidence to back it up. Good thing you’re not a lawyer, huh Philly Boy? You’d have lost your case!

  65. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 28, 2012 at 6:57 am

    No you’ve never quoted anything I’ve said, which any sane person would consider homophobic. You tried to make some 6 degrees of separation story about gay terms as pejoratives and some other B.S., but with no good evidence to back it up. Good thing you’re not a lawyer, huh Philly Boy? You’d have lost your case!

    So you are a liar as well. There are several places on this thread alone that I have quoted your EXACT words. Check out the start of this post.

    So now I have proven you are a liar, a homophobic bigot and a racist. No any degrees of separation. Your EXACT words. Not some group you are affiliated with. Not some group you happen to like. Not some clowns who run around in your favorite percale. YOUR WORDS.

    And you are a liar.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      No you’ve never quoted any of my posts that are even remotely homophobic. Only an insane maniac trying to make a ridiculous 6 degrees of separation argument could even think to possibly construe something I’ve written as homophobic.

      Game over. You lose Big Boy.

      • philjourdan says:

        You proved you were a liar to everyone. They read the homophobic pejoratives you are using. I quoted them, and instead (maybe) saying you MISSED the quotes (in which case I could then prove you a liar because you responded to them), you double down on the lie! Your problem is you cannot retroactively edit your comments. So when you use your homophobic phrase, and I quote it, it is here for all to see. Which the rest of us have easily seen.

        INstead, you claim you won the “game”. I guess hatred is a game to you. It seems to be to most liberals. Sorry, mr. homophobic racist bigot. It is no game. Crawl back under your sheet with your fellow klansmen.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Haha you’re such a twat. I don’t need to edit anything because I’ve never said and you’ve never shown anything that I’ve said to be the LEAST bit homophobic. I’m really starting to wonder how crazy you are? Give up this fantasy Big Boy it’s not working for you and really making you look SILLY!

  66. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 28, 2012 at 6:58 am

    So arrogant you can’t even see your megalomania – not at all unexpected though!

    Meglomania? Such a big word for such a small mind. But you are welcome to show me where you think there is any meglomania.

    Make sure you quote me as well. If you know how.

  67. philjourdan says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    August 30, 2012 at 5:50 am

    Haha you’re such a twat. I don’t need to edit anything because I’ve never said and you’ve never shown anything that I’ve said to be the LEAST bit homophobic. I’m really starting to wonder how crazy you are? Give up this fantasy Big Boy it’s not working for you and really making you look SILLY!

    *Sigh* – Another juvenile ad hominem from the poster who only knows juvenile ad hominems. Your petty insults are not even original or contain any brain power. Knowing that you lost the argument, and that I have proved you are a homophobic bigot, you slink back to your safety net of tired ad hominems. Even the Child Kim has told you that the admission of defeat in any debate is the person who must resort to childish ad hominems as you constantly do.

    You are only proving my point. And demonstrating to everyone you are a homophobic racist bigot.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Still waiting for that proof big boy! It’s funny that you’re willing to keep this going so long without any proof. It does make you look a bit crazy. And then you refer to the Man Child Kim – again more craziness! I know we’ve got some meds for that!

      • philjourdan says:

        No, you are still denying the proof. I have already given it to you. You even tried to deny it, which shows that you did see it, But alas, once again, you merely spew your tired ad homenims instead of repenting your bigotry.

        You can continue to play the game as much as you like. Everyone else here has already seen both the proof and your silly “uh uh” denial.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No I haven’t seen anything and neither has anyone else here (that’s why you’re not getting any back up on this homophobia charge Big Boy). Let’s see you’ve been going on this for so long now and the only thing you produced was some obfuscation about “gay as a pejorative” then it was “no I never said you used gay as a pejorative, I said you used the gay term as a pejorative”. And in the end you produced no credible evidence. Case closed. Jury is out, you lost!

          Sorry Big Boy. At least accused me of being a fat-o-phobe. There i’ve actually given you some evidence, I’ve certainly been unkind to overweight and obese people, especially when I point out the immortal sin of gluttony and ask why our fair-minded Christian brethren don’t target the gluttons with the same viciousness as they do the gays ( a question to which I still have not found the answer).

        • philjourdan says:

          @phd – your lack of reading comprehension is your problem alone. You are the one printing the homomphobic slurs. You are the one printing racial slurs. You are the one that cannot make a post without some childish petty slur against a race or sexual orientation.

          I pointed them out. That you so easily forget EXACTLY what I quoted and said is no one’s problem but your own. Stop trying to use the crutch of “everyone does it”. And stop lying. I have corrected you 3 times now of EXACTLY what I pointed out of your slurs. And yet you still go back to your own lie.

          Sorry, you are busted. Anyone over the age of 6 knows exactly what I accused you of, proved my accusation with quoting your own words. That you still deny it is no ones problem but your own.

          And your juvenile ad hominems have no effect on anyone but yourself. They do display your lack of intellectual capacity since apparently that is the sum total of your posts. No facts, not even any informed opinions, just lies and childish pejoratives.

        • philjourdan says:

          p.s. I have not solicited any support, nor will I. My statements stand as written. Unlike you, I let the truth speak for itself. I do not need a mob mentality to validate my self worth.

  68. Pingback: A Happy New Year To All —- A Look Back And Forward | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s