5 Ways Liberals Are Much More Constitutional Than Conservatives

I’ll admit, this article is a direct result of a back and forth debate I had this afternoon with a conservative. This debate centered around this person’s belief that conservatives are people who support “Constitutional values,” while liberals are constantly trying to undermine our Constitutionally protected rights.

So I decided I’d list my top five ways that liberals are much more Constitutional than conservatives.



In no particular order, let’s get started.

1) Religious freedoms: This is the one that often irritates me the most when it comes to conservatives. They really can’t mentally grasp the concept that “freedom of religion” means that no American can be forced to have another person’s religious views placed upon them. Liberals actually believe in true religious freedom. As in, keep religion private and out of public policy. Simple, right? Let people practice their religion (any religion, or no religion at all) as much as they’d like, just as long as it’s done so privately. You know, where it cannot be forced on other people. That’s true religious freedom. The right for myself, or any other American, to live our lives as we want, without someone else’s religious views being forced upon us. Conservatives are constantly trying to assert that “religious freedom” means that they have the right to pass laws which force their religion on other people. Forcing people who don’t subscribe to a particular religion to follow laws based on that religion isn’t “freedom of religion” – that’s religion by force. In other words, it’s completely unconstitutional.

2) Women’s rights: This one is really simple. When the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade it gave women the right to have an abortion – end of story. Any attempt to infringe upon that right is unconstitutional. Which is exactly what conservatives are constantly trying to do. Hiding their attempts to ban abortion clinics under the guise of “protecting women’s health” is laughable.

3) Equal rights: I’m not quite sure how this is even an issue. Seriously, in this day and age, how are we still having to fight for equal pay for women and equal rights for LGBT individuals? Well, because Republicans continue to vote against legislation that protects women in the workplace, while supporting laws that would make discriminating against LGBT Americans legal. The rule here should be crystal clear: If a straight, white Christian male is given a right – everyone should have that same right. That’s the thing about every American’s right to “equal rights” – you can’t pick and choose which Americans you want to give them to. Although conservatives are constantly trying to do exactly that.


4) Voting rights: Long ago, some people attempted to keep certain people (typically people of color) from voting by requiring tests or charging a “poll tax” in order to vote. These were clear attempts to discourage these particular people who might want to exercise their Constitutional right to vote from being able to do so. Well, since Republicans can’t flat-out prevent people from voting, they’re now passing strict new voting laws that make it more difficult for many Americans to vote. But it’s “okay” because these laws aren’t meant to discourage people from voting; that would be unconstitutional, you see. No, no. These laws are meant to combat rampant voter fraud – a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Liberals want to make voting easier, and more accessible – while conservatives are trying to make it more difficult and discouraging.

5) Obamacare: A fairly new one, but still a constant. It’s rare that you can bring up the Affordable Care Act to a conservative where they don’t go on and on about how “unconstitutional” and “socialist” the health care law is. The law was passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court – it’s Constitutional. In fact, outside of a full-on Constitutional Amendment, you don’t get much more “Constitutional” than the Affordable Care Act.

If you look throughout all of these subjects, you’ll notice a common trend. When it comes to conservatives, it isn’t about what’s actually Constitutional, but what they wished was. Conservatives will frequently go on and on about how much they love our Constitution – up until it supports something with which they disagree. Then they have absolutely no problem doing everything they can to prevent Americans from being given those rights.

Hit me up on Twitter and let me know what you think.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Dosbilliam

    Just one minor change…for 3, I’d suggest changing “homosexual” to “LGBTQA” or my personal favorite, “LGBTQAWTFOMGBBQ.” 😀

    • nivek5913

      alphabet soup…..

      • Nemisis

        Hard to BBQ soup, but not impossible,

  • Jim Bean

    Isn’t the religious freedom one a two way street though in that religious people shouldn’t have to have conform to non religious views? After all, the Amendments was focused on safe guarding the religious, not the non-religious.

    • DatDude

      Well Jim, let me tell you something you did not know, Aetheism is defined as a religion. Freedom of religion is protecting you so you can practice your religion. Not force it upon someone else.

      • pcChuck

        Exactly who defines atheism as a religion? To say that atheism is a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

      • DatDude

        I would suggest that atheism is a religion in the same sense that sitting on the couch and doing nothing is a hobby. You see, your example singles out one particular activity not to engage in and so is comparable to the claim that not being specificly christian is a religion. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. As such, it is a belief about gods (that they don’t exist) and qualifies as a religion. Granted, it’s not organized. In the same fashion, remaining sedentary is not organized. But if sitting on the couch and doing nothing is what someone likes to do, it’s a hobby.

      • pcChuck

        Citing Wikipedia, “religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and word views that relate humanity to an order of existence.”
        Atheism is the absence of such beliefs. Not believing something exists is not the same as believing something doesn’t exist. Believing is an active process. The same way collecting stamps is an active process. Atheists do not actively believe that gods don’t exist, we just don’t believe in any. It takes no time or effort to not believe. Do you actively spend time not believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, or do you just not believe in them?

      • Nemisis

        ” Not believing something exists is not the same as believing something doesn’t exist.”

        What? Not the best example. I do like the active disbelief part.

      • mosquito

        If you don’t believe that A exists, then you necessarily believe that A does not exist. After all, you have only two options, believing that A exists and believing that A does not exist. You may not admit that A does not exist, you may avoid asserting that A does not exist, but, nevertheless, you believe that A does not exist. There is one way out of this. And that is that you’re a fucking moron who cannot make the most basic of logical deductions.

      • Nemisis

        You’re truly an idiot.
        You argue that I’m a moron.
        You postulate that there are two concepts.
        Existence or non-existence.
        I accept that.
        You wrote: ” After all, you have only two options, believing that A exists and believing that A does not exist.”

        Congratulations.

        What is your point? Other than to confirm that, ” Not believing something exists is not the same as believing something doesn’t exist.” is a poor example?
        (see what I did there? I was being informal.)

        Yet another failed attempt to discredit or defame or whatever this is you are trying to do.
        I reaffirm, your comprehension of what you are reading is poor at best.
        Maybe you should sit this one out.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you’ve demonstrated you’re a moron. Once again, you’ve done this by making a bald, unsubstantiated assertion: “You’re truly an idiot.” Notice that I did not just baldly assert that you are a moron. I demonstrated repeatedly that you are a moron.

        Note that “Existence or non-existence.” is not a sentence, moron. There, I did it again. I did not just say that you are a moron. I caught you in the act of being a moron. That’s what makes what you did the childish activity of name calling and what I did the adult act of charging someone justifiably with a fault.

        My point was to get you caught with egg on your face. I’m trying to demonstrate to everyone that your a blowhard, a fraud who tries to present himself as an intellectual, when in fact he is just a know nothing moron.

        You’re quite self-deluded. I’m not failing at this at all. It’s quite fun actually, because you’re so moronic that you’re making it much too easy for me.

      • Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I already stated my point. It implies that you are, as always, wrong. You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic.

      • William Carr

        Many Atheists actively try to persuade people there is no God.

        They challenge laws and religious practices; they’re pushing their viewpoint with “religious fervor”.

        If you all decide tomorrow to just say “‘eh”, and go silent on the subject, we’ll stop thinking of you as Evangelicals for Nothingness.

      • pcChuck

        And if you would stop trying to force us to live by your religious standards, we wouldn’t need to defend ourselves from them. So why don’t you stop first?

      • William Carr

        And it’s incredibly popular, too.

      • mosquito

        Your explanation is quite illogical. It’s like saying that a person who believes that numbers don’t exist is mathematical. After all, his belief is a belief about numbers, which is part of mathematics. That line of argumentation is sheer nonsense. I could go on endlessly proving this logical conclusion.

      • Actually, in mathematics/physics there is such a concept as “imaginary numbers.” I believe Stephen Hawking has written about them.

        http://en.wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Imaginary_number

      • mosquito

        What is your point, BB-Mystic? Imaginary numbers have been around for over one hundred years. Despite their name, they are not at all imaginary, in the usual sense of that word. They most definitely exist. They are not merely imagined to exist. They most definitely exist. If you believe that real numbers exist, then you have to believe that imaginary numbers exist. They are constructed from real numbers.

      • mosquito

        Doing nothing, by definition, is nothing. So how can it be a hobby? It’s nothing. What is it? Is it a hobby. No, it’s nothing. Is it a vocation? No, it’s nothing. Is it something? No, it’s nothing. Do you get it? It’s nothing. Why is it not something? Well, if it’s something, then it’s doing something. But, that’s false. After all, it’s doing nothing. That my friend, is an irrefutable logical argument. If you disagree, then you changed the subject. You’re not talking about doing nothing. Don’t change the subject. Please stay on topic.

      • haggrr

        Religions are beliefs in things you can’t prove or disprove. Therefore Atheism is a religious belief.

      • Nemisis

        No…just look at what you said and google religion and then google atheism…

        Your statement is the equivalence of “All apples are fruits, therefore all fruits are apples.”

      • mosquito

        There is no such thing as “the equivalence” of a statement. There are many statements which are equivalent to a given statement.

      • Nemisis

        Search Results
        e·quiv·a·lence
        iˈkwivələns/
        noun
        noun: equivalence; plural noun: equivalences
        the condition of being equal or equivalent in value, worth, function, etc.
        synonyms:equality, sameness, interchangeability, comparability, correspondence; uniformity, similarity, likeness, nearness

        Your failures continue to pile up.
        Be quiet, you are embarrassing yourself.

      • mosquito

        No, Nemesis, you are the one who is demonstrating that you are a moron. If you read my statement carefully, then you would have to agree with it. I did not say that there is no such thing as equivalence, moron. What I said is that there is no such thing as the equivalence of a statement. And then I proved this assertion. If you were not such a moron, then you would have followed the proof. Any competent logician will confirm that it is a proof, moron. I know about what I am talking. I have a thirty year career of publishing proofs of my original mathematical theorems in some of the best mathematical journals in the world. I can provide references if you desire, moron.

      • You know, just because you call someone “moron” four times doesn’t make it true, and only ends up demeaning you.
        A little kindness goes a long way. Arrogance is not an attractive feature.

      • mosquito

        BB-Mystic, your reading comprehension is clearly very poor. I did not just call someone a moron. I demonstrated that they were a moron. That makes the statement that they are a moron an established fact, it makes it true.

        You’re very confused. Calling a moron a moron no more demeans me than calling Hitler an asshole would demean me.

        I have no intention to show kindness toward a blow hard. What we need to do with blowhards is expose them for what they are and treat them like pariah. They are despicable people and should be so regarded. Jesus did not treat the Pharisees kindly. He was thoroughly angry with them for their hardness of heart. Your understanding of kindness is not Biblical by any stretch of the imagination. You get it from your culture, not from the Bible.

        You’re very confused. You owe me an apology for suggesting that I am arrogant. There is not a bone of arrogance in my body. Despising a blowhard does not in any way suggest that I am arrogant.

        The Apostle Paul said of the circumcision party that he would that they would mutilate themselves. Does that imply he was arrogant? No, it does not.

      • Well, since you just proved what I said, there’s no way in hell I’m going to apologize to you.

        I don’t apologize to condescending, arrogant snots who think their PhDs from Columbia University make them better and smarter than everyone else.

        Your opinion that someone is a moron is just that–your opinion. You know what they say about opinions? They’re like assholes–everyone has one, and they all stink.

        Also, I wasn’t talking about Paul. I was talking about you.

        Just because you’re well educated and have supposedly published plenty of papers doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to be a civil human being.

      • mosquito

        BB-Mystic, you are deeply confused. What you said about me is false. You cannot possibly substantiate it. It is just something that you have, in an ungracious spirit, chosen to believe about me. Hence, there is no way that I could have proven it. You cannot prove a false assertion.

        You’re full of crap. I don’t think that my PhD from Columbia University makes me better and smarter than everyone else. That thought was hatched in your malignant imagination. Nothing which I have done in this thread warrants that slanderous thought about me.

        As for my opinion about a moron, we’ve already covered this ground. Your reading comprehension is apparently abysmal. Let me repeat the point. I did not just say that someone was a moron. I established that he is a moron. That makes it a fact, not my mere opinion. So, you’re full of crap. My statement that this person is a moron is a statement of established fact. It is not just my opinion, despite your bald, unsubstantiated assertion to the contrary.

        When are you people going to stop this moronic activity of making bald, unsubstantiated assertions? It’s moronic. That’s not my opinion. That is a hard, logical fact.

        You seem to have totally missed the discussion about Paul. Paul’s behavior is approved behavior. Hence, if it was okay for Paul, then it’s okay for me. That’s a logical proof. Get it?

        I am fully aware of my responsibility to be a civil human being. Saying that I wish that the circumcision party would mutilate themselves is not acting uncivilly, despite any bald, unsubstantiated assertion you may make to the contrary. Don’t waste your time. It’s just spinning wheels.

      • You’re absolutely hilarious.

        Honest to God, I don’t think I’ve ever met such an out-there troll as you. Did you snort or inject something before you came on this thread? Because that’s the only way you could come up with some of the shit you’ve been spouting.

        My statement that this person is a moron is a statement of established fact.

        Established by what? Your little pea brain? Sorry, that’s not the real world.

        Paul’s behavior is approved behavior. Hence, if it was okay for Paul, then it’s okay for me.
        Approved by whom? A God that doesn’t exist? Again, you’re showing that you’re an arrogant, condescending snot.
        This has been fun, but I’m not going to answer you anymore. If you think this means you’ve “won,” well, that just proves that you live in an alternate universe. I have better things to do. Like watching paint dry.
        *snicker snicker*

      • mosquito

        My God, you’re totally moronic. I have pointed out several times that you are making the altogether basic logical mistake of making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. And yet you continue to do this mindless thing. You’re thick as a brick. You’re so full of your own thoughts that you cannot profit from the wisdom which I have shared with you. You’re thoroughly self-deluded. You actually believe that your thoughts have substance when, in fact, they are thoroughly vapid.

        You’re full of crap. Everything which I have written in this thread is eminently logical, not the product of substance abuse. Any competent logician will readily confirm this. Your saying that my posts here are born of substance abuse is just one of your bald faced lies. As I said elsewhere, and proved elsewhere, you’re a fucking liar.

        You ask “Established by what?”. Are you really that moronic? Is your reading comprehension that abysmal? It’s established by valid logical argument. Any competent logician will confirm that my arguments are valid. That you don’t understand that they are valid demonstrates that you are a moron.

        You’re very big on bald, unsubstantiated assertions, moron. Don’t you know that all such assertions are empty. You’ve not contributed anything to the discussion by making such assertions.

        I’ve not shown myself to be arrogant or condescending. You obviously think that by just declaring something to be so you’ve established that it is so. It is you that appear to be involved in substance abuse. Such magical thinking is the stuff of deep mental disturbance.

        You’re a thoroughly pathetic person. You’re obviously a total loser. Enjoy cleaning those toilet bowls.

      • Dear God, you’ve made my day. I’ve never laughed so much in my life.

        you cannot profit from the wisdom which I have shared with you.

        Wisdom? *hee hee hee* Your statements only qualify as “wisdom” in your own fractured little mind. I wouldn’t have that “wisdom” if you were the last “wise” person on Earth.

        You know, it doesn’t matter how YOU think you’re coming across. If EVERYONE you’re talking to thinks you’re a pretentious asshole (and I’m sure everyone who has interacted with you on this thread would agree with me)…

        …then just maybe, you’re a pretentious asshole.

        Also, if I’m not contributing anything to the discussion, why are you still talking to me? I would think you’d want to be in your Mathcave somewhere, spinning up more Holy Theorems.

        4-Wart Division for sure, folks. Vote now!

      • mosquito

        That’s right, moron. You cannot profit from my wisdom. That you cannot concede that I have shared wisdom with you shows that you are a partisan bigot. And, as my mother would say, some people’s taste is all in their mouth.

        You’re once again engaged in the mindless activity of making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. It apparently entertains you to do this, which demonstrates what an utter moron you are.

        It definitely matters how I think I’m coming across. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans how you think that I am coming across. Your opinions are thoroughly vapid and, hence, worthless. Moreover, since you’re a fucking liar, they are totally untrustworthy.

        It also doesn’t matter if anyone thinks I’m a pretentious asshole. Since I am not, every single one of such people is wrong.

        You ask: “Also, if I’m not contributing anything to the discussion, why are you still talking to me?”. Apparently, you are even more moronic than I thought you were. Try to think for once. I know that you’ll find it painful. But give it a shot. Try to come up with a reason why I’m still talking to you. Your reading comprehension is so abysmal that you don’t even realize that I’ve already given it away. You truly are a moron. You’re so absorbed with your own thoughts that you can’t learn. You think that you’ve already learned enough, when you’ve obviously learned nothing. You’re what is called a fool, a person who never comes to an understanding of the truth.

      • William Carr

        No, no, you haven’t “proved” anything.

        Nothing you have posted has been in the form of a rigorous proof.

        You simply spout your opinions and expect people to believe them.

      • mosquito

        You’re proving that you know nothing when it comes to proofs. All of my arguments have been in the form of rigorous proofs. Any competent logician can confirm this. I know about what i am talking. Some of the best mathematical journals in the world have accepted my proofs as being valid proofs. Those journals don’t do that unless the submitted proofs are indeed proofs. No, I don’t just spout my opinions. That statement of yours is a patently false lie. And you know it’s a lie, because you have read my proofs. Perhaps, you don’t understand the proofs. That’s not my problem, it’s yours.

      • William Carr

        You words demonstrate arrogance; it is not unreasonable to assign you that character trait.

      • mosquito

        What does “You words” mean?

        Nothing which I have written demonstrates arrogance. You are making this shit up as you go along.

      • William Carr

        “Appeal to Authority”.

        “Ad Hominem”.

        I find it difficult to credit your claim. A Logician should know better.

      • mosquito

        You first two lines are not sentences, moron.

        There is no reason whatsoever to find it difficult to credit my claim.

        The only reason you are resistant to crediting my claim is that you have uncharitably taken a hostile stance toward me, moron.

      • You’re hopelessly self deluded. I am not at all embarrassing myself. You are embarrassing yourself. Every single one of your posts has been wrong. I’d say that that is embarrassing yourself big time. You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic. You’ve even convinced yourself that your lies are true.

      • mosquito

        That is a ridiculous definition of religions. Many mathematicians believe in the Poincare Conjecture even though no one can prove or disprove it. That does not make the Poincare Conjecture part of some religion.

      • William Carr

        If a sect of Mathematicians went around scoffing at people who didn’t believe in the Poincare Conjecture, and trying to make others believe it was true without proof, THAT would be a Religion.

        Honest Atheists don’t try to push their anti-belief on others.

        Those that do, however; are demonstrating Religious Fervor.

      • mosquito

        Yeah, and if a heard of elephants built a shrine in Sri Lanka and worshipped at it, that would be a religion.
        It wouldn’t be, as you suggest, a Religion, but it would be a religion. I’m also confused about for what the fuck reason you capitalized that. Does that make the statement more true or something?

        My point is that your first paragraph is a straw man. It contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. Moreover, it’s false. Forcing people to believe something without proof does not constitute a religion. It might constitute a cult, but not a religious cult. Religion has to do with worshipping a god.

        So, your first paragraph is a complete waste of time. It’s a straw man and it’s patently false.

        You shouldn’t talk about religion when you have not got a clue as to what is a religion.

      • William Carr

        Given the Evangelical Church I grew up in, your conclusion is rated “pants on fire”.

        I recommend you also review the definition of “Straw Man”.

        It invariably begins with the form “my opponent believes X, and I oppose this view”.

        Simply stating a definition is not a Straw Man.

        This would not be the first time I’ve seen someone make a false “straw man” claim in the wild attempt to win an argument.

      • mosquito

        Your first sentence is meaningless. Try to write something that actually has content.

        I have no need to review the definition of straw man. I am an expert on logic with a thirty year career of publishing my proofs of my original mathematical theorems in some of the best mathematical journals in the world. If I say that an argument is a straw man, then you can bet on that statement with no uncertainty.

        You are thoroughly wrong. There is absolutely no reason for a straw man argument to begin that way and, in fact, I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a straw man argument begin that way. As a general rule, you can not say how a particular argument begins, since it is always possible to reword an argument without changing its essence.

      • Nemisis

        OI! I not collect stamps!

      • William Carr

        No, being Agnostic isn’t a religion.

        An Agnostic simply says “I don’t know”.

        Atheists jump straight to determined belief in the negative.

        They have Faith that there is no God; they proselytize, and push their viewpoint.

        They seem to be CERTAIN there is no God, but of course, they have no more proof of that than the Pope does to the contrary.

      • mosquito

        Being a Christian is also not a religion. Indeed, being a member of any religion is not a religion. The fact that you could even entertain the idea that it might be suggests that you’ve dropped a few too many tabs.

      • RINOVirus

        Atheism is not a religion. Just because Rick Santorum and his ilk say it doesn’t automatically make it true.

      • Nemisis

        Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

        Under your contention that atheism is a religion, that would mean atheists worship the fact that they don’t believe in deities.
        So. What is your point? Other than to validate that the 1st amendment covers atheism in Freedom of religion.
        Or, as I suspect, it is a failed attempt to say atheists practice the religion of atheism and therefore admit that there is a supreme deity because they worship atheism.

        I’ll tell you something you did not know.

        Atheists do not force atheism on anyone.
        They simply do not want theism forced on them.
        The framers of the Constitution recognized this and very deliberately omitted the use of words that would indicate that America was founded with religious promulgation in mind.

      • William Carr

        When an Atheist files a lawsuit challenging, say, Prayer before a new Session of Congress…

        How is that “not forcing atheism” on anyone?

        The Court ruled that a prayer before a new Session of Congress isn’t “Congress making a law establishing a religion”, it’s just an old tradition.

      • mosquito

        Nemesis, you write: “Under your contention that atheism is a religion, that would mean atheists worship the fact that they don’t believe in deities.”

        You are pathetically moronic. It would mean no such thing. Your premise does not imply your conclusion. Yet you assert that it does. This demonstrates that you are quite a moron.

        You write: “Other than to validate that the 1st amendment covers atheism in Freedom of religion.” That’s not a sentence, moron.

        You write: “The framers of the Constitution recognized this and very deliberately
        omitted the use of words that would indicate that America was founded
        with religious promulgation in mind.” You make this shit up as you go along. You are quite the bullshit artist. This makes you a thoroughly untrustworthy person.

      • Nemisis

        I will attempt to use smaller words and less complex sentence structures in order to fit your limited capacity to comprehend what you are reading.

        Do you have a grasp on what Atheism is and how it differs from religion? I don’t think you do. So…

        Atheism is the belief that there is no god, no supreme being, no deities and that means they do not worship.

        Therefore when Datdude wrote, “Atheism is defined as a religion.”, he was wrong.

        The definition of Atheism is:
        Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.~google

        The typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a “belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods”

        A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true.

        I assumed nothing in my statement. As atheism is indeed not a religion. My conclusion, illustrates that there is an error of definition in the statement of DatDude’s.

        I wrote:
        “So. What is your point? Other than to validate that the 1st amendment covers atheism in Freedom of religion.”
        Using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence can add emphasis, it’s an informal means of doing so. You can use it in creative or personal writing, but it’s not recommended for formal writing.
        Since I’m obviously not addressing the United Nations and this is a comment thread I think it is safe to say that this is not formal writing.
        NEXT (for you caps lovers)

        What do you think I make up?

        Never mind, thinking is not your strong suit.
        Read something beyond the comment sections of
        websites.

        Read the Federalist Papers. Then you can talk about what the founders may or may not have meant when they chose the words they did.

        I seriously doubt you would comprehend even the first paragraph. Your limited knowledge of the use of language, especially that of English is disturbing at best.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you are quite childish. My reading comprehension is not lacking in any regard. I have a Ph. D. from one of the best schools in the country. You don’t acheive that status without having an eminently strong reading comprehension.

        You are the one that is lacking in reading comprehension. I had no trouble understanding anything you wrote. I merely pointed out that you were butchering the English language, which is not surprising, since you are a moron, as I will repeatedly demonstrate below.

        Concerning whether I understand the difference between atheism and religion, you write: “I don’t think you do.” This demonstrates that you are a moron. Nothing which I previously wrote gives any reason for thinking that I don’t understand this difference. Your moronic version of reasoning, on the other hand, might “lead” you to that “conclusion”, moron.

        You wrote: “Atheism is the belief that there is no god, no supreme being, no deities and that means they do not worship.” No, it does not mean that. It does not even imply that. Gods, supreme beings, and deities are not the only thing that one can worship. In some eastern countrieses, for instance, they worship their ancestors. If one wanted to, he could worship President Obama. So, your “logic” is the logic of a moron, moron.

        You wrote: “Therefore when Datdude wrote, “Atheism is defined as a religion.”, he was wrong.” Once again, your “logic” is moronic. The fact that atheism is not a religion in no way, shape, or form rules out the possibility that someone defined atheism as a religion. The evidence is mounting tht you are a bona fide, a number one, moron.

        You write: “A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce
        or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that
        something is true.” To say: A. In other words, B. means that B is just another way of saying A. In other words, it means that A is equivalent to B. But your first statement and your second statement do not mean the same thing. Indeed, your second statement does not even follow from your first. Indeed, your second statement is false. When talking about a premise there is no assumption whatsoever about the truth of the premise. Indeed, when talking about whether a premise implies a conclusion it does not matter a hill of beans whether the premise is true. You obviously don’t understand this basic fact of logic, moron.

        You write: “I assumed nothing in my statement. As atheism is indeed not a religion.
        My conclusion, illustrates that there is an error of definition in the
        statement of DatDude’s.”

        “As atheism is indeed not a religion.” is not a sentence, moron. And why do you have a comma after “conclusion” in the third sentence, moron.

        You wrote: “”So. What is your point? Other than to validate that the 1st amendment covers atheism in Freedom of religion.” “So.” is not a sentence, moron. And “Other than to validate that the 1st amendment covers atheism in Freedom of religion.” is also not a sentence. My god, you’re a fucking moron. I’m just going pretty much sentence by sentence through your last post and finding something moronic at each step.

        Your chest beating and mocking of me has accomplished absolutely nothing but to give you the advantage of demonstrating that you’re an utter asshole, asshole.

      • Nemisis

        This will be my last reply to anything you have to say.

        Grow up Dr. Howser.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a bona fide, a number one, moron. None of this has anything to do with any immaturity in me. Exposing blowhards is a valuable service to the community and to you, the blowhard in question. Find something better to do with your time, something more appropriate to your intelligence level, like cleaning toilet bowls, asshole. I’ll be looking for your presence here and will be sure to expose your moronic character to all readers of the thread in question. It won’t be difficult, since you’re oozing a moronic character.

      • You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic.

      • Your logic is atrocious. You don’t have to believe in a god to worship something. In some Eastern religions they worship their ancestors. You’ll assert anything if you think that it supports your cause, no matter how wrong it is. You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic.

    • pcChuck

      No. no one is exempt from being exposed to religious or non-religious VIEWS. The problem is forcing people to live by someone else’s religious views. You think abortion is a sin? Don’t have one. You think gay marriage is wrong? Don’t get gay married. You think having sex out of wedlock is against your particular god’s will? Keep it in your pants. Nobody is trying to force you to live by their beliefs or non-beliefs. Just kindly do the rest of us the same favor.

      • Jim Bean

        That’s a strong position but not one I see people on either side of the debate subscribing to.

      • Well, Jim, you must not be going to the right places. I see variants of the above all the time at progressive sites I visit, especially when arguing with those who would deprive us of our rights. It’s really a common argument.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        It’s the liberals who want to deprive people of their rights.
        You think you can force people to act and think in a way you deem right.
        And you use the govt to do it.
        You’re no different than the far right.

      • pcChuck

        Really, what rights are liberals trying to deprive you of? Is someone stopping you from going to the church of your choice? Is someone trying to prevent you from voicing your opinion? Is someone trying to take away your ability to vote? Are you being forced to have soldiers quartered in your home? And tell me how someone can force you to think in any particular way?

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Yes they are
        You suppress speech and opinion if it doesn’t agree with you.
        I remember during the occupy movement, white men were told to shut up.
        You liberals said we don’t count, because were “privileged”.

        You try and tell people how much money they are “suppose” to make
        Anything over that should be given away.

        And yes you liberals tell people how to think.
        We are suppose to embrace gays and illegals with open arms.
        I just read an article from a feminist, that says it takes a village to raise a kid.
        And were suppose to allow other parents to discipline our kids when they do something wrong.

        Nobody is taking your right to vote, that is another liberal lie.

      • pcChuck

        I never said anyone was trying to take away my right to vote. I was asking you if someone was trying to stop you from voting. And I think you should be able to make as much money as you can. I would never suggest that you have to embrace gays or condone their lifestyle. I would just ask that you realize they are as human as you are and deserve the same rights that you do. And you are free to think anyway you want. No one can FORCE you to think in any particular way or to even think at all. And if you think being told to shut up is the same thing as stopping you from speaking, you’re wrong. If you think you views are important, just shout louder. Just because I may not agree with what you say, doesn’t mean I don’t think you shouldn’t be able to say it. I’m free not to listen, as you’re free not to listen to me.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Nobody is stopping anyone.
        We need an ID for everything.

        Voting should be no different.
        You leftist scum are only trying to allow illegal aliens a way to vote.

      • William Carr

        Derp !

        Illegal aliens can’t vote. All polling places have Poll Watchers, both Democratic and Republican.

        Do you think the Republicans are asleep?

        In a study of a billion votes over 14 years, only 31 suspected cases of Voter Fraud were caught.

        There’s no money in it, and serious jail time.

        “Voter Fraud” is a Right Wing myth… and you can’t come up with a SHRED of proof that it’s ever affected any election.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        If no ID is required, illegals could vote all they want to.

        Are you really that stupid?!

      • William Carr

        We all have ID. You have to Register, show that you live in the Precinct, and then pass inspection by the Poll Watchers and the volunteers at the Ballot table.

        Illegals don’t risk being caught or we’d have thousands of them caught just because of their accent.

        Stop believing in hoaxes.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Then what are you liberals screaming about?

      • Cemetery Girl

        Do other states not have a person registering to vote not give either an ID number or Social Security number? I had to do that. It was years ago, but I had to do that.

      • R. Taylor

        One must register to vote. Illegal aliens do not fit the criteria for that.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Unless no ID is required

        Moron…..

      • Ric Babel

        An ID is required when you register to vote.

      • mosquito

        You’re very big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertion. Since you do that, you are clearly not intelligent enough to know that doing that is a complete waste of time for everyone who reads these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        All facts that you libtards are afraid of people knowing
        To late

      • mosquito

        I didn’t know that you could go to an adjective, moron.

        I am no libtard. You are such a despicable partisan bigot that you think that anyone who disagrees with you must belong to a different party. That insanity may keep you warm at night but it’ the reason you belong in a psychiatric ward for observation.

        The fact that I am not a libtard is definitely cemented by the fact that I’ve contributed to the Heritage Foundation on numerous occassions over the years.

        You are a pathetic asswipe.

      • strayaway

        Technically you are right. However, passage of Obama’s amnesty bill will put millions “on the path to citizenship”. Then its just a matter of time before they vote and share full federal benefits. The anchor babies of illegal aliens are given citizenship rights at birth and do vote. They wouldn’t be here of course were it not for actions of their parents

      • William Carr

        Obama hasn’t authored an “amnesty bill”.

        The Senate did a bipartisan bill, but John Boehner won’t allow a vote on it.

      • strayaway

        Oh gosh you’re right. President Obama doesn’t call it an amnesty bill. Just because it puts millions of illegal aliens on the “path to citizenship”, it shouldn’t be confused with amnesty because he hasn’t used that word. Oops, substitute “uncocumented immigrants” for “illegal aliens” to make this less clear. Try again: Just because it puts millions of undocumented immigrants on the “path to citizenship”and allows them to compete with already unemployed unskilled US workers shouldn’t be confused with amnesty because he hasn’t used that word. There are other things in the “immigration reform bill” of course including tripling the number of IT workers coming here to replace middle class workers. I’m sort of thinking that this should be renamed the “destruction of the working and middle class Americans’ standard of living bill”. I realize that isn’t as catchy as “reform”.

      • mosquito

        You write: “Just because it puts millions of undocumented immigrants on the “path to
        citizenship”and allows them to compete with already unemployed
        unskilled US workers shouldn’t be confused with amnesty because he
        hasn’t used that word.” Could you please butcher English a little more? It’s not dead yet.

      • strayaway

        What I wrote might make more sense to you if you had included my comma after “path to citizenship”(,). I regret having confused you by not including it the second time I wrote the sentence. Thank you for your insight anyway. Now buzz off pest.

      • mosquito

        No, moron, that would not have made any difference whatsoever. That comma was not there when I quoted you. I cut and pasted what was there. So, there was no comma there.

        You have no authority to tell me to buzz off. Your saying this is totally vacuous. It’s sheer beating of the chest, like a moronic ape.

      • strayaway

        As I pointed out, the sentence above it had a comma. You chose to make issue with the repeat sentence. You chose the title ‘mosquito’. I couldn’t resist swatting.

      • mosquito

        Well, if you were swatting you accomplished nothing. Do you find that accomplishing nothing entertains you? If you do, that’s a sure sign that you are a moron.

      • mosquito

        There, I buzzed off. Now I’m back. You’re not the brightest bulb in the pack, are you?

      • strayaway

        yawn….

      • mosquito

        You actually think that the only thing wrong with your tortured English sentence was a missing comma. It looks like it’s time for you to go back to grade school.

      • strayaway

        Instead of ‘mosquito’, maybe you be ‘schoolmarm” or “frustrated nun.

      • mosquito

        You wrote: “maybe you be”. Do you play a banjo on the front porch of a cabin in Appalachia?

      • strayaway

        Good catch schoolmarm and actually a funny response. While you remain off topic, I appreciate your humor.

      • mosquito

        Thanks for your encouragement. You must be one of the first people in this thread that acknowledged that I was right about what I posted. I may not be on topic, but I think I’m addressing something very important. The English language is a beautiful thing and we should all be concerned with how badly it is being butchered.

      • strayaway

        I was the first person who appreciated your humor in your last post. I wish you well in your quest to preserve and protect the English language from both instances of punctuation assaults and from the ravages of the overtired and ADD impaired.

      • pcChuck

        Defensive much? Tell me exactly where in my post I suggested anyone was being stopped from voting. You suggested that liberals were trying to deprive you of your rights and I was only asking for an example. My questions were rhetorical. I don’t think anyone is being forced to quarter soldiers either.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        I never said anything about my rights deprived…lol
        it’s real simple, if you want to vote, get an ID

        That is all

      • pcChuck

        I think you need to keep track of the threads you’re commenting on.

        “It’s the liberals who want to deprive people of their rights.
        You think you can force people to act and think in a way you deem right.
        And you use the govt to do it.
        You’re no different than the far right.”

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You should practice what you preach

      • RINOVirus

        Suppress freedom of speech? When the government puts you in jail for something you said let me know. Occupy telling white men to shut up? Where were people of all races in the movement, your point is moot. No one is trying to tell you how much you’re supposed to make. Sadly, you seem to support greedy people who want all the benefits of government and society and don’t want to pay for it…I’d call it entitlement. No one is telling you to embrace gays, you are being told you have to respect their rights as human beings. Is that so hard? And a feminist telling you how to raise your kids? Yeah…the rambling of one person is supposed to represent a whole movement? Yeah…ok….
        And yes, Conservatives are trying to limit voting rights. Ending early voting and late registration. Putting fewer voting booths in minority areas. Putting polling places that are harder and harder to access. Trying to get people’s names removed from the voting rolls like college students. Your kind doesn’t believe in freedom or liberty. You believe in a double standard world where you get to decide what rights other people have.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Did you think dismissing what I said makes you smart?
        There are dozens of youtube videos showing feminists and black dudes telling white guys to shut up.

        But you come in here and just dismiss it….LOL

      • R. Taylor

        I can tell you to shut up all I want, but no one is MAKING you do it. Big difference.

      • Morgan

        Yeah and he also pwned you with one hand tied behind his back. RW Moron!

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You say this while ignoring the videos proving me right.
        Yeah youre real smart…LOL

      • William Carr

        You forgot closing DMV offices and radically cutting hours of service at others.

        Suspiciously, in minority areas !

      • mosquito

        Do you realize that the English language is a beautiful thing? If you do, then why are you butchering it? “Suspiciously, in minority areas!” is not a sentence.

      • William Carr

        It’s a sentence.

        And it’s Conversational English, bug.

      • mosquito

        William Carr, I don’t know what you’re talking about, but “”Suspiciously, in minority areas!” is most definitely not a sentence. Any decent English teacher could tell you that. For one thing, there’s no subject.

      • Jim Bean

        You demand people act like they support gay marriage when they don’t. If they refuse you insult them.

        If someone criticizes a behavior of a black man you insult them and call them racist.

      • pcChuck

        So where the fuck do you think you have a right not to be insulted. Quit acting like a victim.

      • Jim Bean

        I never said I thought I had a right not to be insulted. You indicated no one was trying to stop anyone from voicing their opinion. I said when you criticize Obama, tons of people call you racist. If they’re not calling you racist in an effort to get you to shut up, then why are they?

      • Nemisis

        Since your view is protected under the 1st.
        Happy for you. I won’t try to convince you it is incorrect.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        All those veterans that you liberals hate.
        They are the ones who gave you the freedom to think how you want.

        Be thankful

      • Rev. Tom

        As a veteran and someone who is still involved with the US Military I will agree with you on one part of your comment although I would refer to it more for the veterans as protected and for the active duty, protecting.

        When it comes to liberals hating veterans or the active duty, many are serving and have served. The same may be said of conservatives. The hate as you call it is not so much an individual thing until politics get involved.
        Actions speak louder than words. There is constantly rupubliCON propaganda saying liberals hate the military but the actions of republiCON politicians where support for veterans is concerned shows that they only care about the military and members as long as they can use them.
        It seems that both sides of the political spectrum where politicians are concerned do not give a rats ass about us. The biggest difference is that republiCONs support expanding the military because it is profitable to do so but as for the military members, they are like toilet paper. Useful but in the end get shit on, thrown away and best flushed out of sight.

        That takes us back to your comment about thinking.
        You can seriously write that after your comment about YouTube videos telling white men to shut up or are your comments attempts at sarcasm? Guess what, you can find YouTube videos that say almost anything you could imagine. If you want to watch some interesting YouTube videos that may make you think, try the original 911 clips of the airplane crashing into the WTC. Now comes the thinking part. Go frame by frame until you see the first frame where the explosion starts. When you find that, notice the nose of the plane and it’s shadow. Then take your finger and have a light source that causes a shadow, move your finger to the wall and notice when the finger and shadow meet. Then go back and look at the explosion, the plane and the shadow. Think about what you see and what the official stories are, which came from the GOP at that time. That should really give you something to think about. I am not making any claims or accusations. If you can find unadulterated videos that are clear enough to really see these three things, it should make you think a lot more than some irrelevant feminist or “black dude” telling white guys to shut up on a video.

        BTW before you start with calling me a liberal, I am not a liberal nor a conservative, I do not support or follow either political perspective, I think for myself.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        That’s the problem, it’s NOT irrelevant.

      • William Carr

        You know what’s so damned peculiar?

        Conservatives insisting they know what Liberals think.

        Conservatives insisting that Liberals want Gun Confiscation, when many Liberals own guns.

        Conservatives insisting that Liberals are “Godless” when many Liberals go to Church.

        Conservatives insisting that Liberals hate Veterans though; it’s beyond insanity that you actually believe that.

        Tip: you can’t simply decide what Liberals believe by inverting what YOU believe in.

        Democrats tried to pass an expansion of the VA back in February, to deal with the backlog of applications.

        The Bill would have increased the number of doctors and administrative workers.

        Guess who shot it down?

        Go on, Guess !

      • So you’re trolling this thread now too, jackass?
        You still haven’t told me what “job” you have that allows you to be on this site 24/7.
        Must be good to be able to work in your pajamas.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You still havent back up your outrageous claim.
        Dumbass troll

      • Oh, you mean my claim that you don’t have a job, and that’s why you’re commenting here every five minutes?

        You know how to prove me wrong, don’t you?

        Say you have a job.

        I told you where I work. Return the favor.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Insults is all you got.
        Now when are you going to cite your proof?

      • Again, dude, FOR WHAT?

        You’ve been vomiting so many comments on these threads I STILL don’t know what you’re talking about, and I don’t think you do either.

        It’s a bit disingenuous, to say the least, for you to demand proof and not state exactly which statement you’re demanding proof FOR.

        Unless, of course, this is one big circle jerk for you to avoid answering MY question.

        So: either shut your piehole or tell me exactly what I’m supposed to “prove.”

      • mosquito

        If you don’t know what it is you’re supposed to prove, then you are more of a moron than I thought you are. Indeed, in that case, you don’t have a functioning brain. In that case, your reading comprehension is that of my dog.

      • mosquito

        BB-Mystic, you’re a pathetically moronic individual. There is absolutely no reason to prove you wrong. Your assertion has been ruled out of any intelligent conversation, since you never made even a feeble attempt to substantiate it. It’s as if you never made the assertion. So, there is no assertion of yours to disprove, moron.

      • mosquito

        You are hardly the one to call someone a jackass. I have proven repeatedly in this thread that you are a jackass.

        Your second question is like asking a man who never beat his wife how long he’s been beating his wife. Asking questions like that is quite moronic.

        Which is it, moron, is he working in his pajamas or is he “on this site 24/7″”? My God, you’re a bona fide, a number one, moron.

      • mosquito

        There you go again with the same basic logical mistake. You’re thick as a brick.

        Which is it? Is he on this site 24/7 or is he working in his pajamas, moron?

      • William Carr

        No…. we settled this bit over “lunch counters” two generations ago.

        If your religious beliefs say you can’t do business with “sinners”, that’s your problem.

        We’re not depriving you of a “right” to refuse service to gays… you don’t have that right.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        I’m not religious, but your dead wrong.

        All businesses have the basic right to refuse service to whom ever they want to.
        It’s none of your business.
        Deal with it libby

      • mosquito

        What was it that you wanted to say about his dead wrong (i.e. “your dead wrong”)?

        You’re patently wrong. All businesses do not have any such right, despite your empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertion to the contrary. As someone else pointed out, this point was settled quite some time ago.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        I guess you have never seen the sign posted on most business walls.
        It says “We reserve the right to refuse to service to anyone”

        Keep reading that until it gets thru that fascist head of yours.
        You cant force people to be who you want them to be, hypocrite.

      • William Carr

        They can post a sign that says “no Blacks served at this establishment” but it’s not legal, and they’ll be sued.

        So just posting a sign doesn’t mean bupkiss.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Of course it does, because as a business owner, he or she can come up with whatever reason they need to.
        You lose again fascist.

      • mosquito

        I already disproved this line of reasoning. Your reading comprehension is quite poor.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You have no ability to think for yourself.
        Nothing but a tool for the left.

        How pathetic are you

      • mosquito

        You are very big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Since you do this, you are obviously not intelligent enough to know that doing this is a complete waste of time for everyone who reads these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations.

        I certainly am able to think for myself. My entire participation in this thread, which has been voluminous, has been by thinking for myself. So, you’re full of crap.

        You write: “Nothing but a tool for the left.”. With this sloganeering, you demonstrate yourself to be a despicable partisan bigot. I know that’s redundant, but it gets the point across.

        I am not pathetic at all. You, my friend are the pathetic one. Being despicable is quite pathetic.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Liberal, especially tools like you, are incapable of reason.

      • mosquito

        You’ve just, once again, demonstrated that you are a moron.

        The main trunk of your last post reads as follows: “Liberal are incapable of reason.” The form of that gibberish is “Adjective are incapable of reason.”, which, of course, is sheer gibberish, not to mention the moronic juxtaposition of the singular “liberal” with the plural “are”.

        You are truly a moron.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Keep trolling libtard, its all youre good for

      • mosquito

        You are hopelessly self-deluded. I am not doing any trolling. Rather, I am doing a thoroughly logical complete dressing down of your sorry ass.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Youre nothing but a troll
        You haven’t “dressed down” anyone…LOL

      • mosquito

        There you go again with mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions, demonstrating the utter poverty of your position.

        I have definitively dressed down some people, including you. With irrefutable logical arguments, as any competent logician will confirm, I proved that you are a moron and a fraud, attempting to pass yourself of as an intellectual, when all you are is a blowhard. So, I most definitely dressed you down.

        The fact that you don’t concede this is just a symptom of your deeply quixotic personality.

      • mosquito

        You are confirming that you have absolutely nothing.

        Why? Because, bald unsubstantiated assertions are just that, absolutely nothing, and that’s all that you’ve given, bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

      • mosquito

        The government has already proved that it can force businesses to do business with those with whom they didn’t want to do business. So, you’re living in a fantasy land. This point was already made earlier. You really are quite slow on the uptake, aren’t you.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Only a few who chose to tell the truth.
        That’s what they get for trusting the govt.

        Meanwhile the smart business people don’t play PC games, and they deny service to whomever they want to.
        They do whats best for their business, not PC liberals like you.

        It’s real easy to make up an excuse for not serving someone.

      • mosquito

        You are quite a moron. You “reach” conclusions that don’t follow. Nothing which I have written implies that I am a PC liberal. Yet, you have moronically “concluded” that I am. That makes you out to be a moron.

        I have already refuted your entire line of reasoning in this post. Your claim that what you describe is typical is sheer posturing.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You ideals match up, and you insult me with every comment.

        You are definitely a leftist, PC liberal
        And truly disgusting

      • mosquito

        You’re a moron. I’ve said absolutely nothing about my ideals. Your imagination has taken over your grip on reality. That means that you are certifiably insane.

        I don’t have to be a liberal to insult you. All I have to be is someone who despises blowhards, which is precisely what you are.

        You believe in word magic. Make an accusation and, poof, it’s true. Which means that you are certifiably insane.

        And again, your logic is abysmal. You couldn’t make a sound logical argument if your life depended upon it. Your not intellectually equipped to do that.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        More troll bait…..

      • mosquito

        You’re full of crap up to the top of your head. You’re certifiably insane. Why? Because you believe that you are accomplishing something by making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. You’re obviously bereft of the intelligence that would tell you that doing that is a complete waste of time for everyone who reads these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations, the kind of conversation you prefer, for obvious reasons.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        It was you making the assertions and now your just trolling me

      • mosquito

        You’re an embarassingly quixotic individual.

        You believe in magic with words. You believe that if you assert something it turns into a fact. That implies that you are certifiably insane.

      • mosquito

        What was it you were trying to say about my just trolling you (i.e. “your just trolling me”)?

      • mosquito

        There you go again with mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions. You are obstinately incorrigible. This all adds up to demonstrate that you are a moron.

        What was it that you were trying to say about my just (i.e. “your just”)?

      • mosquito

        As I pointed out elsewhere, you are confirming that you have absolutely nothing.

        Why is that? Because, bald, unsubstantiated assertions are just that, absolutely nothing, and you have given nothing but bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

      • William Carr

        Actually, no, they don’t.

        Discrimination was outlawed based on the InterState Commerce Clause.

        If your business has ANYTHING to do with any product made in another State, it can be regulated.

        Nobody has successfully challenged the Interstate Commerce clause.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        They can use whatever reason they want to, even if they have to lie.
        You lose fascist

      • mosquito

        You’re quite confused. Lieing is not without its consequences. You talk as if lying allows the business to refuse to do business with someone, thereby defeating the fascist. Good luck to the business when the fascist discovers the business’s lie and comes down on its arrogant head.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        First you have to prove it, and that’s not easy.
        Which is why so many businesses get away with it.

        Dumbass libby

      • mosquito

        You’re hopelessly self-deluded. You’re the dumbass. You actually believe that you’ve accomplished something by making a bald, unsubstantiated assertion. That makes you out to be quite a moron, since making such an assertion is vacuous and, hence, a moronic activity.

        Your logic is atrocious. Nothing which I have written implies that I am liberal. Yet, you have “concluded” that I am liberal. That demonstrates that you are thoroughly illogical, thoroughly moronic.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You libtards do it everyday.
        Hypocrite

      • mosquito

        You’ve demonstrated, once again, that you’re a moron. Nothing which I have written in this thread implies that I am a liberal. Yet, you have “concluded” that I am a liberal. That demonstrates that you have an abysmal hold upon logic and, hence, that you’re a moron.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Its amazing what hypocrites you liberals are

      • mosquito

        I’m not a liberal and I have no idea about whom you are talking.

        Knowing you, however, I suspect that you are lying through your teeth about them.

      • mosquito

        Does capitalizing anything make the statement even truer than it would have been without the capitals? How does that work?

      • mosquito

        What were you trying to say about his dead (i.e. “your dead”)?

      • mosquito

        There you go again, with your bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

        Also, your logic is abysmal. The fact that you see something all the time does not by any stretch of the imagination imply that “It’s really a common argument.”. If that’s not what you were trying to argue, then we’re back to you making mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

      • Nemisis

        Everyone on the other side of the Christian debate is saying that.

      • Nemisis

        “You think gay marriage is wrong? Don’t get gay married.”

        Lol….Everytime I see the 3 amigos..
        (Mormons coming to Convert) I will think of that.

      • Morgan

        I NEVER open my door to Thumpers. Instead, I crack my window just enough to tell them to leave and NOT come back.

    • Nemisis

      No, the 1st was meant to safe-guard against a theocracy.
      Since Jesus teaches us that we should pray in private..please Christians…Observe it.

      • Jim Bean

        Bull. Jesus taught to pray in public as well.

      • William Carr

        No…. he plainly instructed his followers to go into a closet, private, and pray.

        He pointed out that the Pharisees that staged Prayer in public were just being self-aggrandizing.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Actions made publicly to show how you honor God actually dishonor God. The vanity taints the acts.

      • mosquito

        Your logic is quite atrocious, William Carr. The fact that he plainly instructed his followers to go into a closet, private, and pray in no way, shape, or form disproves Jim Bean’s statement that “Jesus taught to pray in public as well.”. The fact that you obviously think that it does demonstrates that you have an abysmal hold upon logic.

    • Nemisis

      IMO.

      The part of the first regarding religion was designed to prevent preferential treatment of religion. Disenfranchising people with no
      religious views was not the goal nor the effect. (until the 1950’s)
      The intent of the 1st was to take the collective pool of people and their ideals and draw from them a neutral ground on which to base our laws.
      Preference of none over that of another in the pursuit of for the good of all. In situations where there can exist only a preference of the one over the other then the preference of the one can not be made and the good of the whole must do without.

      • Jim Bean

        The intent of the first was to prevent domination of the governing body by powerful religious groups such as the Catholics had managed in England. Nothing more.

      • Nemisis

        Really? So then why this?

        Religious Affiliation
        of U.S. Founding Fathers# of
        Founding
        Fathers% of
        Founding
        Fathers

        Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
        Presbyterian 30 18.6%
        Congregationalist 27 16.8%
        Quaker 7 4.3%
        Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
        Lutheran 5 3.1%
        Catholic 3 1.9%
        Huguenot 3 1.9%
        Unitarian 3 1.9%
        Methodist 2 1.2%
        Calvinist 1 0.6%
        That’s just 175 of the founding fathers including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin,
        John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
        You would think that if they intended to preferentiate they would have chosen words to elevate other religions above that of Catholicism.
        Seeing as only 1.9% were Catholic.

        Instead they specifically wrote “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Establishment has a great many uses and definitions depending on use in the context of written English. In this case “establishment” can be interpreted to mean “create” as in create a national religion. It can also mean the “establishment that is religion”. I tend to prefer the latter to the former due to the following line, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which covers the already established different religions as well as those not established including the right to freely not practice any religion.

        Henry VIII split the Church of England from the Holy Roman Church in order to get an annulment. Yeah for the sanctity of marriage. At the same time Protestants, think of the root of the word, began to also split off and formed many more religions based on the same theme with a different take.
        A more personalized, tailored version to fit whatever dogma the founding priest was spouting.
        There are currently over 945 distinct Christian based religions globally. With the bulk in english speaking countries. Why would our founders specifically not specify which religion to protect us from if they had Catholicism in mind?

      • Jim Bean

        (Oh, brother) I used Catholic as an example because it was the Catholic church that had run the show in England. (England ruled this country for while. Then there was a war, leading to a new country, and our constitution . . . . .its complicated.)

      • Nemisis

        That is exactly why the framers chose the exact words they did.

        Clearly they did that to avoid the quagmire of laws we have today.
        (just a sec JB)

        Hey Gnat, “quagmire” is used to illustrate the mess that the religious sector has created and “Clearly” is used informally.

        I get it, we are on the same side of the argument here. I simply got carried away.
        My long comments seem keep Gnat off the streets and out of jail.

      • No, I did not fail again. Your argument is moronic. It’s a circular
        argument. You never established that the first amendment forbids “a
        preference in regard to” a religion”.. You just mindlessly asserted that
        it does. So, you lost again, as you always have, one post after
        another.

      • mosquito

        This is unmitigated gibberish. I suggest you seek professional help.

      • Nemisis

        Go get an education and then come back.

      • mosquito

        You’ve proven again that you are a moron. I have the highest education you can get in this country, a Ph. D. from Columbia University in New York City. You’re completely out to lunch, moron.

      • You’re hopelessly self deluded. You are the one who needs an education. I am eminently educated. You’re hopelessly addictedt to word magic.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you write: “then the preference of the one can not be made”. You don’t make some one’s preference. You’re making up your own private language. I suggest that you seek professional help.

      • Nemisis

        Let me “dumb” it down for you.
        “then the preference of the one can not be made”.

        The preference of the one refers directly to a condition that favors a portion of a group, person or ideology when that preference is harmful to the group as a whole.

        In-case you still don’t understand written English.
        If your 5th grade class wants ice cream and you don’t want ice cream and throw a fit because you want gummy worms, the teacher then decides that there will be no worms or ice cream.
        Get it now? Is that plain enough for you?
        Do you need a more verbose explanation?
        Do yourself a favor and pay attention in class.

      • mosquito

        You missed the point, moron. You don’t make some one’s preference. Hence, the phrase “then the preference of the one can not be made” is gibberish, because it assumes that you make one’s preference. Get it now? Is that plain enough for you? I doubt it, because you’re a moron. It can’t be made plain enough for you. You need a functioning brain to understand it. Alas, you don’t have one.

      • You’re quite moronic. The “preference of the one” obviously does not mean what you say it means. It means what is preferred by some particular entity. You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic. You think that by just asserting something you’ve established that it is true. This implies that you are seriously mentally ill.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.111

    • mosquito

      You wrote: “Isn’t the religious freedom one a two way street though in that
      religious people shouldn’t have to have conform to non religious views?” What the fuck? Could you try to butcher the English language a little more? It’s not dead yet.

      • Jim Bean

        The author wrote of five things. I isolated one – the ‘religious freedom one’. Other than a comma that should have been after the word ‘though’, the sentence is correct. Its your reading comprehension skills that haven’t advanced far enough yet.

  • TheEquilizer2U

    You cant open up our borders then claim to follow the constitution.
    You cant just give citizenship to a criminal who broke into America and then claim to follow the constitution.

    This list goes on and on.
    Sorry, but this article is way off!

    • FactoryGuy

      Who opened the borders? Don’t remember that ever happening. So far the only person to give citizen ship to illegal aliens was Reagan (since the end point of that statement was to denigrate Obama).

      • TheEquilizer2U

        The dems opened the border
        Have you been living in a cave?

        It’s all over the news, illegals were allowed to cross the border, then the dems bussed them all over the country.
        That latest report, over 40,000 of them missed their immigration court dates.
        They simply vanished.

        You liberals have no idea what your doing.

      • William Carr

        WTH ?

        Do YOU live in a cave?

        Refugee children came to America, ran up to the Border Agents and asked for help.

        G.W. Bush signed a law saying that when that situation occurs, the children must be taken to a safe sanctuary.

        There was no single detention center that could handle that many refugees, so they were bussed, and flown, to various Federal facilities.

        It’s the LAW !

        Obama didn’t sign it, Bush did.

        Where do you get the idea that Democrats “opened the border” ?

        It was Reagan granting Amnesty to 3 Million illegal aliens, and deciding not to prosecute companies that hired illegals, that opened the Border.

        Here’s a little test.

        We reverse that, and start prosecuting companies that hire illegals.

        Their desire for cheap non-union labor would go to war with their desire to stay out of jail…

        And a month later there would be a line at the border headed South.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Complete lie
        You must be a complete moron if you think the American public is going to believe that.

        Watch the elections this november and you will know what I mean.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Lost cause with that person. Completely lost cause. You would be better of trying to teach calculus to a dog.

      • mosquito

        What does it mean to say that someone would “be better of trying”?

      • mosquito

        You are hopelessly self-deluded.

        You believe in word magic. You believe that if you assert something, then it magically becomes fact.

        In particular, you beiieve that if you say that my arguments are not proofs, that means that they are not proofs.

        All of your assertions are empty. They are just bald, unsubstantiated assertions. The fact that you make such assertions implies that you are not intelligent enough to know that making such assertions is a complete waste of time for everyone reading these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and excluded from any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably makes for moronic conversations.

        Any competent logician will confirm that my arguments are proofs. That’s a hard, cold fact around which you cannot get, no matter how hard you stroke yourself, in your quixotic meanderings.

      • R. Taylor

        Are you serious? SMH…

      • No, he’s just being his usual trollish asshole self.

        The EquALizer has been flooding this site with stupid comments lately. He won’t admit that he doesn’t have a job and can sit on the computer 24/7.

      • mosquito

        There is no such word as trollish, asshole.

        You are such a moron that you’ll never learn that making bald, unsubstantiated assertions accomplishes absolutely nothing. By doing that you are simply spinning wheels, which is quite a moronic activity.

      • William Carr

        Troll is noun; using a noun as a verb is a “verbal”.

        That would be Troll-ing.

        Troll-ish is likewise informal.

      • mosquito

        Troll is noun, Jane is girl, Tarzan is boy, Cheetah is ape. Welcome to civilization, Tarzan.

        Like I said, there is no such word as trollish.

        You people obviously have no appreciation for something as beautiful as the English language. As my mother would say, some people’s taste is all in their mouth.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Hey leftist tool, open your eyes

      • R. Taylor

        You must mean Fox News.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        The most overused leftist talking point….ever…

      • FactoryGuy

        And you didn’t see this happening until somewhere around January 2009, right?

      • It’s all over the “news”…. as in Fox News…

      • TheEquilizer2U

        All over the news means multiple news outlets.
        Your not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you…..

      • mosquito

        No, “all over the news” does not mean multiple news outlets. It means a hell of a lot more than that. It means that it is on every news station. If it misses even one news station, then it is not all (get it, all) over the news.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        All over man, all over

      • mosquito

        What were you trying to say about his doing (i.e. “your doing”)?

      • mosquito

        What in the hell is “citizen ship”? Is that a ship that belongs to a citizen?

    • Nemisis

      Where the hell were you in 1986.

  • mosquito

    What you have described is not religious freedom. Rather, it is freedom from religion. That is quite a different thing from religious freedom. Getting a law passed which supports one’s religion is not forcing one’s religion on the public. The democratic process is not force. Your entire argument about religious freedom is one big straw man. No wonder you can’t convince conservatives that you support the Constitution. You’ve completely mangled your interpretation of it.

    • Ryan Harvath

      Two things, 1 Have you read the first amendment??
      Freedom of Religion and FROM religion
      “Getting a law passed which supports one’s religion is not forcing one’s religion on the public”
      That’s exactly what that is!!!!
      Law goes into affect to say a prayer before a civil governmental meeting, atheist attends meeting as a citizen, or should they just stand outside the door until the magic words are spoken, and in doing so do you think the other ‘religious’ people will respect that persons view point if it comes to debate on a topic?? Please tell me your post was satire!
      The democratic process can very much be used and manipulated so the end result is a forceful one
      Just because the Majority believe in X cause does not make them correct in applying their belief as law onto the rest of society, or slavery would have gone on FAR longer than it did, it took a minority and it wasn’t the democratic process that set slaves free it was a presidential decree (Emancipation Proclamation) that later became part of the constitution!

      • mosquito

        Yes, Ryan, I have read the first amendment. It says absolutely nothing about freedom from religion in the sense of which the gentleman I was responding was describing. He was talking about keeping religion private. The fact that the government cannot endorse a religion says absolutely nothing about keeping religion private, says absolutely nothing about whether religion can affect public policy. It teaches nothing about that sort of freedom from religion which says that religion must keep its mouth shut in the public sphere. You are very big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Since you do this, you are clearly not intelligent enough to know that doing that is a complete waste of time for everyone reading these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, than anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations. Here’s one of your mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions: “That’s exactly what that is!!!!”. I already refuted this mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertion. Here’s the refutation again. The democratic process is not force. It never has been, and never will be. You’re full of crap, despite your mindless, empty, moronic, bald, unsubstantiated assertion. You’re quite the moron. You write: “atheist attends meeting as a citizen, or should they just stand outside the door until the magic words are spoken”. Last time I looked, moron, atheist was singular and they was plural. So, how did you make the moronic switch from the singular “atheist” to the plural “they”? You write: “Please tell me your post was satire.”. The only thing that might be satire here is your post which is thoroughly illogical, with illogical bald, unsubstantiated assertions and nonsequiturs and atrocious English. Give up your poor impersonation of someone carrying on an intelligent conversation. You obviously do not have the intellectual wherewithal to carry on such a conversation. All that you are able to do is make mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions. In other words, you’ve got nothing. Your last paragraph is embarassingly illogical. The fact that a minority passed emancipation does not in any way, shape or form imply that the majority is incorrect. The fact that you think that it does demonstrates what an illogical moron you are. But, anyhow, no one here claimed that the majority is right when it wins a referendum. So, this paragraph is an illogical paragraph, an example of what is known as a straw man. That’s the gist of your paragraph, one moronic illogical mistake after another.

      • Ryan Harvath

        Conservatives insist that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and argue against strict separation of church and state. Too often, though, conservatives seem to have a flawed understanding of what freedom from religion really entails and fail to realize that freedom from religion is crucial to religious liberty in general.

        You can call me moronic all day long, you’re entitled to your opinion but it doesn’t affect me in the least, it’s a weak and unintelligent manner of having a conversation and doesn’t make your idea any more credible or correct
        When a law is passed that favours a religion or religious ideal that is FORCING that religion on others there is nothing grey about that, that you deny it speaks more on your intellect than mine
        and it breaks the First Amendment because when a law is religiously based it FORCES and removes liberties from others who do not share the same views
        But please continue with insults and name calling, nothing quite proves a point like immature behaviour

      • mosquito

        Ryan Harvath, you’ve contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion. Your entire post is a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Since you make such assertions, you are clearly not intelligent enough to know that making such assertions is a complete waste of time for everyone who reads these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations.

        So, your entire post is ruled out of order. So, you’ve contributed nothing to the conversation. That is indeed moronic. Spinning wheels is a moronic activity.

        I have not behaved immaturely at all. Pointing out that someone’s argument is moronic is not childish. It is part of an intelligent debate. By pointing out that someone’s argument is moronic and explaining, as I did, why it is moronic, I have refuted their argument. That is an intelligent thing to do, not a childish thing to do. A child would hardly be capable of making such a logical evaluation of an argument.

        You apparently don’t know what is name calling. I never involve myself in the childish activity known as name calling. Any charge which I bring against someone is only brought along with any justification necessary for the charge. This is not name calling, this is accurate discernment.

        So, once again, this demonstrates that your entire post consists of moronic bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Perhaps, you find this entertains yourself. If so, then you are more of a moron than I realized.

      • Ryan Harvath

        I am sorry but you are completely incorrect, you refute nothing, you bring zero evidence and only assert your OPINION (as if it were fact) about my intellect
        My entire post is ruled out of order?? LOL you make zero evidentiary statements, your entire rebuttal is based on your opinion of my intellect which is not fact, but is your opinion
        You avoid any actual discussion on a matter which anyone can understand;
        **
        Religious based law is NOT freedom of religion because it forces one groups religion on the whole **
        Your entire argument is based on your slander of my intellect and your obvious lack of any REAL proof
        You attack my english, you attack my intellect, but you do not discuss anything
        Your denial about your methodology being childish in the implement of name calling is also your opinion, and it is an ignorant and incorrect opinion, you are welcome to hold that opinion but it’s obvious to me that you are incapable of doing anything other than attack others with zero evidentiary standing and only ad hominem (at best) remarks
        it’s nothing more than name calling and pounding of your fists on the table, it’s immature
        You just deciding to ‘rule out of order’ my argument is at best egomaniacal behaviour, as if you are some internet and debate supreme court judge
        It’s quite laughable really
        But as all good conservatives do call names, digress to character attacks, all in the effort to avoid the actual topic of discussion, while trying to prove yourself right, with zero reason logic or proof, when in fact you are most certainly wrong

      • mosquito

        Ryan, once again you’re proving that you’re a moron. Once again, you’re doing this by making mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

        You’re full of crap. Any competent logician will confirm that I have refuted every single thing which you have asserted. That’s a fact. It’s not my subjective opinion. It’s an objective fact, despite your mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

        Yes, your entire post is ruled out of order. Are you really that thick? I explained why. Bald, unsubstantiated assertions are illegitimate, ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is this? I explained that too. This is not my opinion. This is basic logic.

        You’re full of crap. My rebuttal is not based on anyone’s opinion. It is based on logical argumentation. You are real big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. When are you going to learn that making such assertions is a moronic activity? That’s not my opinion. That’s a basic fact of logic.

        I already refuted the claim that a majority law supporting a religion is forcing religion on the public. Once again, the refutation is that the democratic process is not force. It never has been and it never will be. That’s a proof, moron.

        You’re a moron. I’m not a conservative. You just made that up and then presented it as though it was an established fact. This shows that you are a liar, presenting falsehood as if it were established fact.

        I have not set myself up as a judge to throw out your argument. The reason why your argument is thrown out is that you have violated the laws of logic. That’s not my opinion. That’s an objective fact. Any competent logician will confirm this.

        You’re a pathological liar. You imagine things about me and then declare them as if they were true. There is one way out of this. Namely, you are certifiably insane, unable to distinguish your imagination from reality.

      • mosquito

        Ryan Harvath, you shouldn’t have ventured into the realm of logic. By doing so, you’ve revealed your ignorance. You obviously don’t know what is the ad hominem fallacy. As my son would say (he’s got more intelligence than you will ever have), the ad hominem fallacy is not saying that your opponent is a jerk. It is saying that your opponent is a jerk and is, therefore, wrong. The former is merely an observation or a false statement. The latter is a logical fallacy. More precisely, it is a nonsequitur, its premise does not imply its conclusion. So, it is clear, that I have never, in this thread, involved myself in the ad hominem fallacy. I can say that someone is a moron to my heart’s delight, during a logical argument, without ever committing the ad hominem fallacy. I can do that just as freely as I can get up during such an argument and relieve myself. So, you’re out to lunch when it comes to understanding the ad hominem fallacy. You think that there is something wrong with saying that someone is a moron. But that is perfectly legitimate, especially if you demonstrate that it is true.

      • Ryan Harvath

        I just read your posts on your profile, it’s quite obvious that you are no more than a pseudo-intellectual school yard bully, who does nothing more than go around attacking grammar and nuances of sentences, If I contributed nothing to this argument because you made no argument
        I won’t reply to you after this because it’s quite obvious all you do is attack and slander with no real intention of discussing anything
        The only conclusion I can infer from reading what you’ve ‘contributed’ to any discussion is that you have some need to go around masturbating your ego in public, slandering every minut, ridiculous detail
        It must be lonely on the pedestal you’ve put yourself on

      • mosquito

        Ryan, you’re proving that you are a moron. You are once again committing the very logical error which I previiously pointed out, the logical error of making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. You’re really quite dense.

        I am no pseudo-intellectual. I am established as an eminent intellectual, having published my proofs of my original mathematical theorems in some of the best mathematical journals in the world for almost thirty years. You haven’t got a clue as to whom you are dealing with, you pseudo-intellectual twerp.

        The reason why you contributed nothing to this argument has nothing whatsoever to do with me. It has to do with the fact that all your assertions are illegitimate, since you did not substantiate them. In fact, you did not even make a feeble attempt to substantiate them. And then, having this pointed out to you, you continue to do it. You’re thick as a brick.

        You’re quite confused. I have not slandered anyone. I’ve substantiated every charge which I have made. That frees me from the charge of having committed slander.

        I’ve not put myself on any pedestal. Your getting very confused. You’re so far below me it looks like I’m up high. Your concluding that I am up high is the conclusion of a moron. You’re down in a ditch and you yell up to me and say, how did you get so high up in the air? That’s quite moronic.

      • Are you for real? You’ve got to be caricature of a human being. No one could naturally be this stupid.
        You may or may not be a mathemetician, but you certainly are a grade-A troll. You need to go back under your bridge.

      • mosquito

        I’ve been withholding judgement about you, but you have just made things abundantly clear. I wrote an eminently logical post and you moronically respond “Are you for real?” and “No one could naturally be this stupid.”. No one could respond that way to an eminently logical post unless they themselves were pathetically stupid.

        I am not any sort of troll, never mind a grade-A one. You are quite big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Since you do this, it is clear that you are not intelligent enough to know that doing this is a complete waste of time for everyone reading these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, than anyone can assert anything, which inevitably makes for moronic conversations.

        So, your assertion that I am a grade-A troll just went into the trash can, being an illegitimate assertion, since you never made even a feeble attempt to substantiate it. You just mindlessly asserted it.

        The conclusion of this evaluation of your post is that you are a moron. You have not got a clue as to what it takes to make a logical argument.

      • Grade-A troll, folks. *hee hee hee*

        Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably makes for moronic conversations.

        “If we allow people”? This isn’t your site, Sparky. Exactly how are you going to stop me?

        “Then anyone can assert anything”. Well, yeah. This is the Internet, you know. The Wild Wild Cybernetic West. If you can’t handle that, maybe you should go back to talking to yourself. Since apparently you’re the only one who can understand or appreciate Your Royal Well-Published Holy Mathematician Intelligence.

        So I’m a moron. So what? You call everybody that. If everyone is a moron, then no one is.

        Gentlepersons, I hereby nominate Mosquito to be elected to the Trolls’ Hall of Fame (3-Wart Division, with Bonus Points for Pretentious Twaddle).

        *dies laughing*

      • mosquito

        With each and every one of your posts, you prove that you are a moron.

        You write: “If everyone is a moron, then no one is.” That is a totally illogical statement. Your premise does not imply your conclusion. The fact that you think that it does demonstrates that you are lacking a functioning brain.

        If you’ve been keeping track, then you’ll notice that you keep putting up posts. Then I thoroughly refute the post, demonstrating that it is moronic. Despite this constant pummeling of you by me, you keep coming back for more pummeling. This clearly demonstrates that you are seriously mentally ill.

      • *hee hee hee*

        You only think you’re “pummeling” me in your own little pea brain. But you keep right on thinking that, because I *love* pummeling. Straight, no chaser, with a side of chocolate.

      • mosquito

        You’re still doing that moronic logical mistake.

        Moreover, you’re patently wrong. I am most certainly pummeling you, as any competent logician will readily confirm. You are hopelessly self-deluded if you believe that you’re not being pummeled.

        You’re a pathetically deranged individual.

      • mosquito

        You are pathetically moronic. You tell me to go right on thinking that, because you love pummeling. If I’m only thinking that I’m pummeling you, then that has absolutely nothing to do with your loving pummeling. Yet, in your statement, you’ve got it having something to do with your loving pummeling. This demonstrates that you have the IQ of a slug.

      • mosquito

        You write: “”If we allow people”? This isn’t your site, Sparky. Exactly how are you going to stop me?”. This demonstrates that you are a moron. There is no assumption that the premise of a conditional statement is true. You are obviously suffering under the delusion that there is such an assumption. That’s because you are a moron.

      • Well, yeah. And your point is…? (yawns)

        Also, make that Polysyllabic Incomprehensible Pretentious Twaddle. *hee hee hee*

      • mosquito

        I’ve already made my point. You’re so moronic that it went completely over your vacant head.

        You’re quite a moron, laughing at your own joke. There’s a name for people like you. They’re called blowhards.

      • mosquito

        You said that I’m nasty. You’re the one that’s nasty. You’re downright putrid. Your presence in your own body is causing it to rot from within.

      • mosquito

        You write: “”Then anyone can assert anything”. Well, yeah. This is the Internet, you know.” You apparently regard as a strength of the internet that anyone can say anything, like 1 = 2. This demonstrates that you are more of a moron than I realized. It is no strength of the internet that people can have moronic conversations on it. That is indeed something to mourn over, not to celebrate. But this is not your attitude. As my mother would say, some people’s taste is all in their mouth.

      • mosquito

        You are thoroughly pathetic. You think that by mocking me you’ve scored a point. The only advantage you’ve gained by doing that is the advantage of being able to demonstrate that you’re a fucking asshole.

      • *hee hee hee*

        I don’t care about “scoring points.” This isn’t a contest, after all. You’re just so much fun to mock! You provide mountains of raw material.

        If you don’t want to be mocked, then maybe you should stop being such a pretentious, raving jackass.

      • mosquito

        That’s another one of your bald faced lies. You definitely care about scoring points. That’s precisely what you have been trying to do in your attacks upon me. This is a contest, moron. And you lost it a long time ago. As for mocking me, you’re pathetic. You think that you’ve actually said funny things about me. You’re totally self-deluded. All of your attempts to mock me have fallen flat.

        I am not pretentious or raving. Your saying that I am is just another one of your bald faced lies.

      • mosquito

        What is a mathemetician? I’ve never heard of such a person. I’d guess that he works on mathemetics, but I haven’t got a clue what that is. I’ve never even heard a word that sounds like that: math-e-met-ics. Boy, you sure are a moron.

      • mosquito

        Ryan Harvath, you wrote: “I just read your posts on your profile, it’s quite obvious that you are
        no more than a pseudo-intellectual school yard bully, who does nothing
        more than go around attacking grammar and nuances of sentences, If I
        contributed nothing to this argument because you made no argument”. That’s not a sentence, moron. You really should find something more appropriate to your intelligence level, like cleaning toilet bowls, asshole.

      • It may or may not be a sentence, but it certainly is a statement of fact, and everything you write just reinforces it.
        Good Lord, you’re ridiculous.
        (By the way, that means “laughing out loud.”)

      • mosquito

        BB-Mystic, with each and every post you prove more and more that you are a moron. A statement is necessarily a sentence. So, it cannot be a statement of fact, because it’s not a sentence. You’re talking gibberish. You say that it may not be a sentence, but it’s a statement. That’s complete nonsense. So, you’re the one that’s ridiculous. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You’re contradicting yourself. There’s hardly anything more ridiculous than that, moron.

      • Grade-A+, folks.

        *hee hee hee*

      • mosquito

        Your a totally pathetic person. You actually think that you’re scoring points against me by mocking me. You’re doing no such thing. All that you are doing is digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. You’re blissfully ignorant of this, which is just another proof that you are a moron.

      • mosquito

        Your logic is atrocious. What you say is obvious from my posts does not at all follow from my posts. If you think that it does, this demonstrates that you have not got a clue about logic.

        I am no pseudo-intellectual. I am an internationally renowned intellectual, with several publications in some of the best academic journals in this world. This is hardly the stuff of a pseudo-intellectual. You are just blowing hot air. That is to say, you are a blowhard.

        Correcting people for their grammar mistakes is not an insignificant thing. The English language is a beautiful thing and everyone should be concerned when people butcher it. Your disagreement with this demonstrates your lack of taste and discernment. As my mother would say, some people’s taste is all in their mouth.

        I have not slandered anyone. You apparently don’t know what the word slander means. I have substantiated every charge which I have made in this thread. That clears me of the charge of slander.

        The bulk of your thread is just bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which, as always, amount to nothing.

      • mosquito

        You are quite the moron, Ryan Harvath. Immature behavior proves no point, other than that the person is immature. You apparently believe it proves that the immature person is wrong. That belief is a classical logical error. There’s hardly a more basic logical error than that error. So, this demonstrates that you are totally moronic.

      • mosquito

        You are quite the moron. Immature behavior proves nothing, other than that the person in question is immature. You apparently think that it proves that he is wrong. This is a classical logical error, known as the ad hominem fallacy. That you subscribe to this fallacy demonstrates that you are thoroughly moronic. That’s not my opinion. That’s a hard, logical fact.

    • Nemisis

      I disagree. Getting a law passed that is in it’s nature related to a specific religious view is a violation of the first in that it does establish a preference in regard to that religion.

      Laws are passed all the time in spite of the public opinion and often are contrary to what the public wants. Usually when that happens it is due to a religious objection, or a corporation wants exclusion from existing laws and the public does not want it.

      I’ll give two examples.
      A county wants to hold a vote to allow liquor or wine sales.
      The religious community wants to maintain a dry county.
      The Catholic community doesn’t care but the Baptists do.
      A vote is held. The bill passes, the Baptists predict billions killed by drunk drivers and the Catholics have a brunch.
      Behind the scenes the county commissioners wanted the bill to pass because of the increased revenue in taxes.

      A company wants exclusion from a law based on religious freedom.
      Companies are now considered people and therefore may indeed be religious. The company is granted that exclusion despite the fact that there are no grounds within their religion to claim exclusion and that the company can not demonstrate it’s strict adherence to it’s claimed religion. I do mean Hobby Lobby, and feel that their wanting exclusion based on religious belief they had better adhere to their religion’s beliefs. Pay your workers nightly as per the bible Hobby Lobby. Then we can talk exclusion to the laws of man that the laws of god demand you adhere to, again per the bible.

      The second example is why laws with foundation in religion are not acceptable. As soon as there is a law that says a person can not go to church to pray you will see me stand on the side of the church.
      Since the only time I see that happening is when churches are voluntarily excluding people I can’t side with the church.

      • Cemetery Girl

        I have asked people before, if we pass laws based on Christianity, then which denomination do we select? Their beliefs can vary drastically. If make Christianity the country’s established religion then we will just switch from fighting over what religion is right to what denomination is right.

      • mosquito

        This is a dumb question. If we pass a law based on Christianity, the law is passed. There is no need to select any denomination. No one is talking about making Christianity the country’s established religion. So, your third sentence is an illogical assertion, one known as a straw man.

      • Cemetery Girl

        All of Christianity can’t agree what (if any) terms are acceptable regarding abortion, if homosexual marriage is acceptable, if birth control should be allowed, so how exactly do we base these on Christianity? Making laws supporting a certain religion is establishing the religion.

      • mosquito

        Cemetery Girl, you are thoroughly illogical. Find something better to do with your time. You’re completely inept at constructing a valid argument. It matters not a hill of beans whether Christians agree. The belief system of Christians is found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. It doesn’t matter whether any Christian subscribes to something in those Scriptures, that thing is still Christian. I have already, on two occassions, refuted your claim about establishing a religion. You are obviously quite stupid, since you did not follow my irrefutable refutation. Find something better to do with your time. You are obviously too stupid to follow a logical argument.

      • Hubris, thy name is Mosquito.
        (hee hee hee)

      • mosquito

        There is no hubris here. I just happen to know my craft well. Is it hubris when a craftsman makes a beautiful craft? No, not at all. Is it hubris when he knows he did this? No, not at all. Is it hubris when he tells people to look to him if they want it done? No, not at all. A good craftsmen knows he’s good and he tells people that if they want the job done well, they should come to him to get it done. This has nothing to do with hubris. It has to do with being a good craftsmen and having a justified estimate of one’s abilities.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you are very big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Since you make such assertions, you clearly are not intelligent enough to know that making such assertions is a complete waste of time for everyone who reads such assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations.

        According to your moronic “logic”, our law against murder is against the first amendment because it establishes a preference for all religions which are against murder. So, much for your moronic “logic”. It’s not logic at all, it’s imbecilic reasoning.

      • Nemisis

        I don’t make “bald assertions”. They are not unsubstantiated. I proffer the every dry county in every state that has had this very debate.
        Santa Rosa County Florida and Hamblen County Tennessee. Just to name two such real world counties where those specific debates and votes happened in the last 14 years. An addition to that the exact scenarios played out nearly identical in predictions of doom and a sharp increase to the debauchery already present including an increase in violent crimes like rape and murder.
        Google it, I don’t have time to do your research for you.

        Your moronic assumption that our laws are based on the 10 commandments is just that. A moronic insult to the intelligence behind the Magna Carta which is the frame work document of constitutional law by which all democracies have risen.
        Murder is a crime because it violates the rights of another not because of a commandment in the book of one religion stolen from the scroll of another.

        By the way learn the difference between logic and knowledge. You will need to know it if you chose to try to thwart my comments with the utter non-sense you just posted.
        I don’t care if you have a differing opinion.
        That is fine. Just don’t be an ass, and be incorrect in the use of language, and not know the difference between anecdotal reference and bold, unsubstantiated assertions or use the term logic when you mean knowledge.

        To do what you just did is not logical, because you gave me the opportunity to illustrate your ignorance so either your a brilliant idiot or an utter fool.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you are hopelessly self-deluded. You actually think that you are refuting me. You’re doing no such thing. You’re just spinning wheels by making bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

        You definitely make bald, unsubstantiated assertions. You
        did not even make so much as a feeble attempt to substantiate your
        assertions. You just mindlessly asserted them.

        You are quite the
        moron. I never said anything that would suggest that I believe that our
        laws are based on the 10 commandments. You made that up in your
        imagination and then presented it as if it were fact. This means that
        you are a thoroughly untrustworthy person or certifiably insane, unable
        to distinguish your imagination from reality.

        You’re full of crap. Not all democracies have arisen from the Magna Carta. You’re making this shit up as you go along.

        You’re full of crap. I have posted no nonsense. My posts have been eminently logical as any competent logician will confirm.

        You’re really suffering from delusions of grandeur, asshole.

      • Nemisis

        You’ve read a book or a blog about how to win arguments and you cite “bald assertions”?
        You are a mental powerhouse.
        Your statements are themselves the literal definition of a bald assertion.

        You have made no claims other than to repeat the same lame comments over and over.
        You offer no evidence to refute my statements.
        Which began with “in my opinion.”
        You fail to counter my evidence with anything that could remotely be mistaken for evidence.

        You actually think that you have some superior mastery of the English language and yet you have not once demonstrated even the in slightest an understanding of anything you comment about.

        This will literally be my last post to you.
        Because you are a small tiny minded person.
        You have no real value to this conversation because you add nothing to it.
        I doubt your capable of having a conversation with anyone for as long as I have tolerated this one with you. You continually fail at whatever this is you are doing.

      • mosquito

        Nenisis, you’ve once again demonstrated that you are a moron. There is nothing in what I wrote that gives you cause to conclude that I read such a book. Yet you assert it as if it were established fact. That shows that you are a fucking liar, a fraud, representing yourself as knowing something that you do not know.

        My skill at debating does not come from reading a book. It comes from thirty years of writing proofs of my original mathematical theorems for publication in some of the best mathematical journals in the world. You have not got a clue as to what you are up against, you arrogant twerp.

        You’re full of crap. I substantiated every assertion which I made. Anyone who wishes to take the time to go back and read what I wrote can confirm this for themselves. Your claim that my assertions are the literal definition of a bald assertion is just another example of your constant making of bald, unsubstantiated assertion. Hence, once again, by making this claim, you’ve demonstrated that you are a moron. You’ve got nothing but bald, unsubstantiated assertions. You have not yet begun to contribute to the discussion since all your assertions are ruled out of the discussion as being unsubstantiated.

        The reason why I keep repeating the same criticisms, which are not at all lame, but to the point, is that you moronically keep repeating the same basic logical errors. As long as you do that, and give me such an easy way to refute you, I’ll take advantage of the opportunity.

        Your quite self-deluded. I have countered every single thing you said by eminently logical refutation. You’re full of crap.

        I don’t think that I have a superior mastery of the English language. I’ve just observed that you haven’t got a clue about the English language. My having a better understanding of the English language than you hardly makes my understanding superior, unless you simply mean superior to you.

        What was it that you wanted to say about my capable (i.e. “your capable”), moron?

      • Nemisis

        Intellegence and education are not synonymous as evidenced by your childish behavior.
        Whatever you think you are. You are far from intelligent.
        You may have knowledge yet you lack the discipline to utilize it. You may indeed be a Dr. of mathematics , yet
        you’ve given no indication that you are anything other than someone who went to college obtained all sorts of knowledge, who espouses wondrous statements of self-grandeur. Bully for you. Yet you lack something.
        Something that all intellectual people have. That something will elude you and haunt your success in life because you can’t understand it. You can’t begin to wrap that tiny core around it. It is something so simple in elegance, yet to you so enigmatic that you feel you have to lash out and destroy and hate. I would wager you just recently lost your job because you lack what was required. You fail not because you are an idiot. I was wrong, your not. You are far less complex.
        You are a megalomaniac. With nothing to add to society and can take nothing from it.
        So go on then, continue to attempt to defame me.
        Correct me where you think I error. I will laugh each time you do. I know what you lack. I know you can never obtain it. I know you desperately try to make people like you. I know you have not been writing papers on mathematics for 30 years. I would not be surprised if your “peers” described them as chicken scratches or something a trained monkey would accidentally type out.

        No the real reason you lash out at me is because you are intellectually an infant.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you’ve demonstrated that you are a moron, by continuing to ignore the correction which I have made of your argument several times, by making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. You are truly moronic, truly thick as a brick.

      • mosquito

        You write: “Intellegence and education are not synonymous”. That’s like saying that strength and training are not synonymous. In other words, it’s moronic.

      • Nemisis

        I am actually making money based on your replies.

        I won $50 because I predicted with 92% accuracy what you would say. I only missed “Strength and Training”

        Go peer check your statement.
        You can strength train.

        “… intelligence and education are closely
        inter-related, and they may be measured with varying degrees of precision. Moreover, there is probably some form of longitudinal cascade
        between them, quite possibly with reciprocal causal and selection effects; yet, the optimal longitudinal data sequence to understand the processes
        involved in these reciprocal and selection effects is often unavailable. At the same time, because
        they are not perfectly correlated, neither education nor intelligence is a perfect proxy for the other.”
        ~ International Epidemiological Association, Oxford University Press.

        Or simpler terms “Education and Intelligence are not synonymous”

        You fail, again.Maybe you should have gone to Oxford.

      • mosquito

        You’re thoroughly self-deluded. You keep saying that I fail again, when I have not failed a single time in this thread. Again, I cannot have failed, since I proved all of my assertions. Perhaps, you are just too moronic to follow my proofs. But that’s neither here not there. Any competent logician can confirm that I did prove my assertions. So, I did not fail at any time in this thread. You’re just moronically saying that I did. What’s the matter with you? Does it give you some sort of thrill to make vacuous statements?

        With this post you demonstrate what a moron you are. You’re clearly stating that saying that two things are not correlated is the same as saying that they are not synonymous. This clearly demonstrates that you either don’t know what it means to say that two things are corrrelated or you don’t know what it means to say that two things are synonymous. Either way, you’re a fucking moron.

      • Nemisis

        Stating that you did not fail is not proof you did not fail. You have offered no proof of anything.
        You continue to offer only Argumentum ad hominem.

        “Any competent logician can confirm that I did prove my assertions.”
        Thereby stating that any logician who disagrees with your statement is not competent.

        That is logical fallacy and contrary to the evidence displayed in this thread.

        You offer only your grand assumption that your peers would be supportive because you have obtained the highest level of education this country or the world offers. That is ridiculous in the light of the errors you consistently make, to the point that I am making money off your very predictable responses.

        For instance your short sightedness causes you to fail to understand the word “proxy” and it’s correlation to the discussion in that intelligence and education are not proxies because they do not correlate perfectly. Correlation by it’s very definition excludes education and intelligence from being synonyms. IE: One may have a vast education and not be intelligent.
        One may be very intelligent and not have a vast education.

        Oxford Dictionary defines correlation as;

        correlation
        Pronunciation: /ˌkɒrəˈleɪʃ(ə)n

        , -rɪ-/
        noun
        1. A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things: research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime [mass noun]: there was no correlation between the number of visits to the clinic and the treatment outcome
        More example sentences Synonyms
        1.1 [mass noun] The process of establishing a relationship or connection between two or more things: the increasingly similar basis underlying national soil maps allows correlation to take place more easily
        More example sentences
        1.2 [mass noun] Statistics Interdependence of variable quantities.
        More example sentences
        1.3 Statistics A quantity measuring the extent of the interdependence of variable quantities.

        Oxford kicking Columbia’s ass?

        Since there exists intelligence without education, and education is not criteria for intelligence. They are, by logic, separate and independent of each other and stand complete exclusive of the other. I will grant that the higher the intelligence the greater the ability to educate. That is correlation, but is not support for a synonymous state.

        So again you fail.
        I got $5 bucks because I was able to Oxford again.
        What was that proof you keep offering?
        Oh yeah “you’re a fucking moron.”

      • mosquito

        You’re quite a moron. No matter how many times I prove something, you still disagree about what I proved. The fact that I did not fail is proven by my proofs. Those are here for anyone to inspect. Any competent logician will confirm that they are proofs. That fact is proof that I did not fail. I’m not saying that I did not fail because I say that I did not fail, as you moronically suggest. I’m saying that I did not fail because my proofs being proofs prove that I did not fail. That is a proof, moron.

      • mosquito

        You write: “You continue to offer only Argumentum ad hominem.” You really should not stick your feet in the waters of logic. You just sank in those waters. You have not got a clue as to what is the ad hominem fallacy. As my son would say (he’s a boy who has more intelligence than you will ever have), the ad hominem fallacy is not saying that your opponent is a jerk. Rather, the ad hominem fallacy is saying that your opponent is a jerk and, therefore, his argument is wrong. The former is merely an observation or a false statement. The latter is a logical fallacy. More precisely, it is a nonsequitur, it’s premise does not imply it’s conclusion. Hence, it is abundantly clear that I have never involved myself in the ad hominem fallacy. I can say that someone is a moron to my hearts delight and never involve myself in the ad hominem fallacy. I’m as free to do that in the middle of an argument as I am free to get up and relieve myself. This all shows that you don’t know about what the fuck you’re talking. You’re a complete fraud. You throw around fancy terms without having a clue about what you are talking. You are really a despicable person, as are all con artists.

      • mosquito

        You write: “Any competent logician can confirm that I did prove my assertions.”
        Thereby stating that any logician who disagrees with your statement is not competent.

        That is logical fallacy and contrary to the evidence displayed in this thread.”

        You’re quite insane. You believe that you make something to be true by just asserting it to be true.

        There is absolutely no logical fallacy involved in what you describe. You are just mindlessly declaring that there is one. You don’t know about what the fuck you’re talking. With each and every one of your posts you add more and more proof that you are a complete ignoramus and a fraud, who tries to pass himself off as an expert on any number of topics.

        You write: “That is ridiculous in the light of the errors you consistently make, to
        the point that I am making money off your very predictable responses.” Once again, you’re quite insane. I’ve not committed any errors. You’re just asserting that I have. Demonstrate a single error that I have committed. You won’t be able to do it. I’m guessing that you won’t even try. That’s because you’re a fucking liar. You’re also lying about making money off of my predictable responses.

        Your section about proxies, correlation, and synonyms is sheer bullshit. You obviously don’t understand the meaning of these terms. If you did, you would never claim the implications which you claim follow from the meaning of these terms. You are a complete fraud.

      • mosquito

        I have not failed at anything. You have written a “thesis” about proxies, correlation and synonyms which would get you a failing grade at any university worth its title. Take me up on the challenge. Submit it for a grade. Be careful. The teacher may call the psychiatric ward to have you committed.

      • Nemisis

        I have written nothing of the kind.
        I referenced that work to the proper publisher.
        Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology
        If you have a problem with it take it to Oxford.
        Perhaps you will have better luck demonstrating your super brain to them, because it ain’t working here.

        Why don’t you just stick to math.

        Clue: I just baited you again.

      • mosquito

        You proved, once again, that you are a moron. Every single one of your posts in this thread includes at least one proof that you are a moron. You’re a deeply mentally disturbed individual. You’re a glutton for punishment. You keep coming back for me to rake you over the coals, by giving an irrefutable refutation of your drivel.

        You most definitely wrote such a “thesis”, by the definition of a thesis. The reason you’re having trouble recognizing my superior intellect is that you’re a moron.

        You’re a moron. You don’t know what it means to bait someone, as is clear from the fact that you said that you baited me, and you didn’t.

        By the way, moron, “Why don’t you just stick to math” is a question.

      • You’re quite narcissistic. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether it is working for you. Your opinion about anything in all of creation is worthless. You’re a pathological liar, as I previously proved.

      • My proofs are proof that I did not fail to prove what they prove. A proof bears all the marks of a proof and nothing else does.

      • mosquito

        You quote: ” intelligence and education are closely
        inter-related, and they may be measured with varying degrees of precision.” This is complete bullshit. The measurements of which this quote is speaking are all linear measurements, using a linear scale of measurement. It is not at all clear that intelligence can be laid out on a linear scale. If it can’t, then none of the measurements spoken of here have any degree of precision whatsoever.

      • Nemisis

        Again, if you have a problem with that take it up with the authors.
        I have provided my source. You may find those people at Oxford.
        They have a real education, unlike the one you don’t have.
        You need some remedial reading comp classes.

        You are a superb example of a classic fucktarded individual, and a liar.

      • My argument is airtight. If you don’t understand it, that demonstrates that you are a moron.

        I have proven that I am John D. McCarthy. So, you know that I have a Ph. D. from Columbia University. That’s a real education, moron.

      • Nemisis

        Nah, your argument is not airtight. You have not proven your anyone, or that you have a real education.

        You can not finish McCarthy’s equation.
        You couldn’t debate your way out of a revolving door.
        I do not “know” that you have a “Ph.D.” due to the lack of any supporting evidence.
        I do know you love the word moron, which is indicative of an older brother who calls you moron.

        So basically until the equation is finished, you have proven nothing.
        In simple terms you failed to prove you are McCarthy and expect me to take your word as proof which makes you a moron.
        Perhaps your brother is right. Or, was it your sister or mom, or dad.
        Did you hurt them? You killed your family pet just to get even with them didn’t you.

      • You’re full of crap up to the top of your head. My argument is definitely airtight. Moreover, it is obviously airtight. It’s about a four step argument, with very short steps. It’s validity can be confirmed in about a minute.

        If you don’t understand that my argument is a proof, it’s not because of my argument. It’s because you are a moron.

        You continue to commit one of the most basic logical errors. You’ll never learn to stop doing this. That’s because you are a moron.

        I am an expert at debating, despite your bald, unsubstantiated assertion to the contrary. As I’ve previously observed, you’ve got nothing. That’s what bald, unsubstantiated assertions are, nothing.

        Your logic is atrocious. Using the word moron is not at all indicative of an older brother who calls me moron. The fact that you think that it is demonstrates that you are a moron.

        You’re full of crap. I don’t expect you to take my word as proof. And even if I did, that would not make me a moron. You’re the one who could not debate your way out of a revolving door. You’ve failed at every single attempt you’ve made at a logical argument.

      • You’re quite a moron. Of all the educations in the world, which would be “the one” that I don’t have. You truly are a moron.

      • Nemisis

        You are perhaps the most predictable troll on the internet. You anal fixation on minutia is your downfall and my windfall. I received $10 for that response.
        There really is nothing I can not get you to comment on specifically. Occasionally I predict exactly what you will say or where you will focus your attention.

        If there were to be a Zombie Apocalypse, I predict you would be completely safe even if surrounded by zeds.

      • You are a pathological liar. You are not making money off of my responses. You are not even predicting my responses. These bald, unsubstantiated claims are just your pathetic attempt to save face, as I previously observed.

        You wrote: “You anal fixation”. What a moron.

        I am not a troll. None of my participation in this thread could even remotely be described as that of a troll.

      • You’re a pathological liar. You are not making any money off of my posts. You are just moronically asserting that you’re making money off of my posts. You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic.

      • mosquito

        You are very big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Your opinion about my intelligence is totally worthless. It has no significance whatsoever. The scientific communities opinion of my intelligence, on the other hand, is very significant. And that opinion, based upon my academic achievements up to and including those of the present decade, is that I am eminently intelligent. So, you’re full of crap up to the top of your head.

      • I’m sure you are intelligent. You’re also a thoroughly nasty, despicable person. Intelligence is no guarantee of simple humanity.
        But just keep this up. You’re getting more entertaining by the minute.

      • mosquito

        If I’m intelligent, then why do you keep mocking me and accusing me of being stupid? I know why? It’s because you are a fucking liar. You just make this assertion to try to win a point in our debate even though the assertion has no basis in fact. Yeah, that’s right. You’re a fucking liar.

        Stupidity is also no guarantee of simple humanity. Lord knows, you’re fucking damned stupid. But you have not got a shred of decency in your putrid frame.

      • Awww, I got you to swear! Temper, temper.

        Would you prefer “ignorant”? Would that suit you better, Sir Academic Achievement?

        I think you’ve just graduated to the 4-Wart Division. With an extra layer of, as Nemesis indicated, Megalomaniac.

        *snicker snicker*

      • mosquito

        My god, you are thoroughly childish.

        As I’ve demonstrated elsewhere, you’re a fucking liar. So, none of your statements has any substance to it. It doesn’t matter what you say. It’s all totally untrustworthy, as is the statement of any pathological liar, like you.

      • Do you honestly think I care what you think of me?

        hahahahaha

        So if it doesn’t matter what I say, why are you still talking to me? Inquiring Minds Want To Know.

        Maybe you haven’t noticed, but nobody’s paying attention to our little kerfluffle. The conversation has died down and everyone has moved on. So it doesn’t matter what you “demonstrate,” because nobody’s here to see it.

        If you were doing any such thing, that is. Just because you jump up and down, stamp your foot, and noisily proclaim something umpteen times doesn’t mean it’s actually happening.

        Nemesis and Ryan had the grace to bow out, as they knew there was no sense in beating this dead horse. I think I’ll join them. But it’s been fun, Sir Academic Achievement. Enjoy that pretentious ivory tower!

        By the way, voting’s closed. You were inducted into the Trolls’ Hall of Fame by a landslide!

        Toodles.

        *hee hee hee*

      • mosquito

        My God, are you a narcissistic twerp. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether you care about what I think of you. The important thing is that I have demonstrated here that you are a thoroughly despicable person. The important thing is that you have dug yourself into a hole from which you cannot extricate yourself. The important thing is that your condemnation is just, asshole.

        Apparently, you haven’t been able to rise to the challenge of coming up
        with a reason why I am still talking with you, even though I’ve already
        made it clear what is that reason. Your so absorbed in hearing the sound
        of your own thoughts, you’ve totally missed the important thoughts in
        this discussion. They are most definitely not yours, moron.

        You’re full of crap about nobody being here to see our discussion. You’re quite self-deluded. Keep telling yourself that. Say it really hard. It won’t help.

        You’re full of crap. My demonstrating what I have asserted has nothing to do with jumping up and down, stamping my feet and noisily proclaiming things. I’ve done nothing of the sort. What I have done is I have constructed irrefutable logical arguments. That’s not my subjective opinion. That’s an objective fact as any competent logician will readily affirm. You’re full of crap.

        As I have previously observed, you’re a bald faced liar. There has been no such vote. Moreover, if there were, it would not turn out the way that you foolishly hope it would.

      • mosquito

        The reason why Nemisis and Ryan Harvath bowed out is that they did not have a leg on which to stand, as I demonstrated in an irrefutable way. The same is true of you, you don’t have a leg on which to stand. Unlike them, however, you keep coming back for more punishment. That just demonstrates that you are much more of a moron than either of those two.

      • Nemisis

        If that is what helps you make it through the day, then soldier on. Your accolades are sung by bards through the hallowed halls of Colombia.
        Provided that you are indeed what you claim;

        The scientific community merely caters to your childish behavior because they are being polite.

        I don’t have to be polite.
        I have the luxury of telling you “no”.
        No, your are not as smart as you think you are.
        No, your grasp of logic versus knowledge is ironically debatable.
        No, your writings are not well thought out.
        No, your not a respected person.
        No, your simply wrong.
        No, you can not admit it when you are wrong.
        No, assuming you are infallible is your mistake.
        No, you are unable to admit you are wrong.

        Your not respected because you demand it.
        You demand respect because you are arrogant.
        You are arrogant because you believe your above every one else and the world owes something to you. You fail, just like you always do, because you presume greatness while achieving only mediocrity.
        That is your Hubris.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, once again you prove yourself to be a moron, making empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Intelligent people learn from their mistake. You just keep committing the same error one line after another. That’s because you’re a moron. You can’t learn anything. You’re too absorbed with your own thoughts. You actually think that they are meaningful.

        Your first question assumes that I need something to get me through the day, something that you have not established. So, there you go again, moron. It’s a way of life for you. It’s also a moronic activity.

        Colombia is a country, moron. I doubt very much that they sing about me down there.

        What the hell does it mean to say: “No, your are not…”. My God, you’ve got the IQ of a slug. You cannot write a line without making a mistake. Be honest. You’re learning disabled, aren’t you?

        What the hell does it mean to say that something is ironically debatable? You’re making up this gibberish as you go along. You’re a fraud, trying to make it look like you actually have a functioning brain. Well, guess what, it’s not working.

        You’re making up all of this stuff. You feel free to do that. That’s because you’re a fucking liar.

        My writings have a celebrated reputation of being excellent. They would not be published in some of the best mathematical journals in the world if they were not. I can provide references if you so desire. But, you would not have a clue as to what these writing are about, moron.

        I am eminently respected.

        I cannot possibly wrong. I proved everything I asserted in this thread. That means that all my assertions are established fact, most definitely true.

        I most definitely can admit it when I am wrong. I have a reputation of being quicker than most people to apologize when I’ve done something wrong.

        Your making this shit up. I have never assumed that I am infallible. Nothing which I have said in this thread suggests that I believe this. The fact that you think that I do demonstrates what a moron you are. Your logic is atrocious.

        What is it you are trying to say about my not respected (i.e. “Your not respected …”), moron.

        I don’t believe that I am above everyone else or that the world owes me something. The fact that you’ve come to believe that about me demonstrates what a complete moron you are. I do, however, believe that I am better than a despicable partisan bigot like you. That’s not saying much.

        Your stark raving mad. You are a consummately quixotic personality, convincing yourself that you’re vanquishing great forces, when all that you are doing is fencing windmills.

      • Nemisis

        “Colombia is a country, moron. I doubt very much that they sing about me down there.”

        You said you graduated from Columbia in New York and they gave you a Phd. In math.
        (Address: 116th St & Broadway, New York, NY 10027)
        You lied about that didn’t you?

        You claim to attend a university and then do not know where it is located. Despite that I’m sure Columbia, the country, has a rather nice building filled with halls that have people signing your accolades. If they don’t they should, your magnanimous deeds are heralded the world over.

        I’m now up another $100 because you think I was talking about the country. $155 in one day.

        This reversal of my decision to end this discussion become rather lucrative.

        “I am eminently respected.” so you keep saying.

        That is still not evidence of my wrongness.

        “What the hell does it mean to say: “No, your are not…”

        I rest my case on that point entirely. Thank you.

        You were told, “No.”

        You were told, “You’re wrong.”

        What is it you are trying to say about my not respected (i.e. “Your not respected …”), moron?
        Ah…I left out an “are”. My mistake, I can see how that would confuse you. Being as you are easily confused, I do apologize for that. I was not diligent in taking into account your limited ability to infer the word “are”.

        “My writings have a celebrated reputation of being excellent. They would not be published in some of the best mathematical journals in the world
        if they were not. I can provide references if you so desire. But, you would not have a clue as to what these writings are about, moron.”

        Provide references, please. Let us all, celebrate.
        I’m really surprised you desired to wait for me to ask. Logically one should have expected me to ask and just provided the references.

        Just curious, how long did you search to come up with quixotic? I’m actually impressed that you would use a “qu” word. Bravo. You’ve used it improperly, but bravo for effort. Thank you for the compliment.
        Your statement has a few meanings. I choose to take the one that you specifically do not intend.
        I do so because I know it will infuriate you.

        Respond carefully, I just made a double or nothing. bet based on your response. I am counting on you.

      • mosquito

        You’re a total moron. The university in question is not in the country Colombia. That university and Colombia have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

        You’re full of crap up to your ears. I know precisely where is the university from which I received my Ph. D. You’re a fucking liar. You just make up liars and then present them as if they were fact.

        You’re a moron. You speak of a country called Columbia. There is no such country. My God, if you’re going to pull a con job trying getting at least one of your facts straight. You are pathetically moronic.

        You wrote: “I’m now up another $100 because you think I was talking about the country. $155 in one day.” You’re stark raving mad. You were talking about the country. In the previous paragraph, you wrote: ” Despite that I’m sure Columbia, the country, has a rather nice building
        filled with halls that have people signing your accolades.”. That’s talking about the country, moron. You need to be forcibly admitted to a psychiatric ward for observation.

        You wrote: “What is it you are trying to say about my not respected (i.e. “Your not respected …”), moron?
        Ah…I
        left out an “are”. My mistake, I can see how that would confuse you.
        Being as you are easily confused, I do apologize for that. I was not
        diligent in taking into account your limited ability to infer the word
        “are”.” Obviously what your saying here is that the desired correction is “Your are not respected.”. My God, you are a fucking moron.

        You write: “Logically one should have expected me to ask and just provided the references.” My God, are you a fucking moron. That does not follow logically at all. You have not got a clue about logic. You’re a complete ignoramus when it comes to logic.

      • Nemisis

        “Colombia is a country, moron. I doubt very much that they sing about me down there.”

        “You’re a moron. You speak of a country called Columbia. There is no such country”

        Could you repeat that for the 38.2 million residents of Columbia, the 28th most populous “no such country” in the world. I don’t think they could hear you. Try saying it Spanish “No existe el país.”

        “You just make up liars and then present them as if they were fact.”

        I do not create liars. I am offend in that you would libel me in such a manner. Furthermore I would never present a liar as a fact. People can be liars, however they can never be a fact. People can be factual, but that does not mean they are a fact.

        “You’re full of crap. Not all democracies have arisen from the Magna Carta. You’re making this shit up as you go along.”

        Name one democracy existing today that can not be traced back to Magna Carta.

        “There is absolutely no logical fallacy involved in what you describe. You are just mindlessly declaring that there is one. You don’t know
        about what the fuck you’re talking. With each and every one of your posts you add more and more proof that you are a complete ignoramus and a
        fraud, who tries to pass himself off as an expert on any number of topics.”

        Veritable wordsmith, you are.

        “There is no such word as trollish, asshole.
        You are such a moron that you’ll never learn that making bald, unsubstantiated assertions accomplishes absolutely nothing. By doing that you are simply spinning wheels, which is quite a moronic activity. ”

        trollish : adj. Resembling or pertaining to a troll.

        Once again you make sweeping proclamations about how great you are, when everybody knows your a tiny, little, insignificant, twit of a person who adds nothing of value to the collective works of mankind. Other than the proliferation of fail.

        Dance marionette, dance.

      • mosquito

        You are obstinately incorrigible. There is no such country as Columbia. You can say that there is until the cows come home and the only result will be that many people will know that you’re a moron, who is incapable of being corrected. As the Scripture says, fools despise correction.

        You write: “”You’re full of crap. Not all democracies have arisen from the Magna Carta. You’re making this shit up as you go along.”

        Name one democracy existing today that can not be traced back to Magna Carta.” This shows that you are a moron. I don’t have to name any democracies existing today that can not be traced back to the Magna Carta to disprove your explicit moronic statement that all democracies (get it, you said all democracies) can be traced back to the Magna Carta. You are pathetically moronic. Someone should take pity on you and put you in a critical ward for mentally deficient people.

        Like I said, there is no such word as trollish. The fact that some people use a fictitious word does not imply that the word is not fictitious, moron.

        What are you trying to say about my a tiny (i.e. “your a tiny”)?

        I have not failed at anything in this thread. You are just mindlessly saying that I have. Aren’t you tired of saying vacuous things? You’re not getting anything at all from saying such things. What is your attraction to them? I know. You’re a moron. All your taste is in your mouth.

      • mosquito

        You are a thoroughly indecent person. After each and every one of your posts, I have proved by irrefutable logical argumentation that you are a moron. Yet, you never, like a gentleman, concede that I have proven my point. You just childishly pretend that I did not do that. You really are a pathetic excuse for a human being, without a single bone of decency in your body.

      • Nemisis

        I am still waiting for your celebrated writings.

        Problem with googling someone else’s works?
        Afraid, that you will be found out for the little mind you really are? You’re fixated on trivial conversations and informal commentary because your tiny little brain’s core can not sustain thought long enough to solve word problems.

        By the way. I checked again.

        Grammaticalize, is still a word.

        Stop using spell check as a lexicon.

      • There is no such country as Columbia. Don’t venture into geography. You have not got a clue about the breadth of geography.

      • It is pathetic to watch a grown man writhe against the grip of word magic.

      • mosquito

        I not only have knowledge, but I have the discipline to use it. I have been doing precisely that in this thread, and succeeding fully. I have also done it in my research, including my research in this decade. So, once again you’re full of crap. You are just spewing forth whatever thoughts about me come into your diseased brain. Your statements about me are fully borne of spite. You couldn’t possibly substantiate them, they are just pure drivel.

      • mosquito

        I don’t feel that I have to lash out and hate. I just make it my mission in life to expose blowhards like you, frauds like you, ignoramuses like you that go around browbeating people, pretending to be experts at things of which you have no understanding. I am not a hateful person. It’s just that I despise such people, because they are utterly despicable. That’s right, asshole, I’m talking about people like you.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you write: “Correct me where you think I error.” That’s quite interesting. I did not know that you could do a noun. Is “I error.” something like “I sidewalk.”? I’m not correcting you where I think you err. I’m correcting you where you err. Every time I corrected you, I pointed out the error. So, there is no doubt that you committed the error, there is no wiggle room for you to present the fact that you committed an error as just being my opinion on the matter. You’re quite self-deluded. Your a petty twerp, shielding yourself from the evidence of your failure, the evidence that you are a pseudo-intellectual, that you are a fraud.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you write: “I know you have not been writing papers on mathematics for 30 years. I
        would not be surprised if your “peers” described them as chicken
        scratches or something a trained monkey would accidentally type out.” Like I said earlier, I can provide the references if you desire. You cannot squirm out of this like the snake you are by pretending that I am not an accomplished mathematician. Everyone can see that this is sheer posturing on your part. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re a fraud.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you wrote: “No the real reason you lash out at me is because you are intellectually an infant.”

        You’re quite a pathetic individual. All of these bald, unsubstantiated assertions against my character and my accomplishments are transparently self-serving on your part. You’re so self-deluded that you actually believe that someone other than yourself puts credence in them. You really need to seek professional help. You’ve totally deceived yourself.

      • Nemisis

        Your continual need for artificial inflation of your status is really tedious at best and serves only as a minor distraction form the established fact, one you have established, that you know very little of the English language and it’s complexity, let alone the concepts behind civil discussion.
        You fail to recognize the difference between formal and informal discussion. You make broad conclusions based only on your limited understanding of how people communicate.
        You use an alluded to “smarter than you” argument and offer only your words as evidence.
        Those words you choose range from “moron” ,
        to “fucking liar” to “you’re an asshole, asshole.”
        There is the apex of your arguments, and the entirety of your intelligence.
        You arguments fail to meet even mediocre criteria for validation and are a mirror of your own self.

        You claim “grammaticalize” is not a word and then continue to state your superiority.
        Fine let us just assume you are correct and we can throw this definition out.
        The only way facts can support your arguments is if we alter facts.

        grammaticalize
        Line breaks:
        gram|mat¦ical|ize
        Pronunciation: /ɡrəˈmatɪk(ə)lʌɪz

        / (also grammaticalise)

        verb
        [with object] Linguistics Change (an element) from being one having lexical meaning into one having a largely grammatical function:

        That is directly from the Oxford Dictionary.
        Maybe you missed that because you went to “Columbia in New York” where they gave you a “doctorate in math”. I’m not impressed that you obtained a “highest level of education”.
        You should seek a refund.
        Yet another “bald assertion” you’ve made has come back haunt the premise of your arguments.

        The mistakes you’ve made are based in the use of language, actual words, the proper use of grammar, the improper use of logic versus knowledge, and the continuous improper use of “bald assertions”. Which is compounded by the fact that you are committing the very act you are claiming that I am. While every time I refute your claims, I once again affirm that I am not making bald assertions which according to logic means you’ve made a bald assertion, or to utilize your vernacular “you are full of shit”.

        Once again you fail.
        Try to learn something from your mistakes.
        Fortunately for you, there are plenty.
        Should you accidentally learn something here,
        then the world will be better for it.

        Dance some more little marionette

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, once again you have demonstrated that you are a moron. You’ve done this repeatedly and I have proven that you are a moron each time that you did it. Hence, your statements are totally worthless.

        I don’t make broad conclusions. Every single one of my conclusions was deduced by sound logical argumentation. Any competent logician will confirm this. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether you are impressed. After all, you’re a moron.

        You’re a bald faced liar. I don’t offer only my words as evidence. I gave irrefutable arguments. Try refuting a single one of my arguments. You’ll be wasting your time. They cannot be refuted.

        You’re a sleezeball. You wrote: “Grammaticalize that one entire run-on sentence for us.” There is no such word, grammaticalize, as you are using in that sentence. The word which you found in the Oxford Dictionary has absolutely nothing to do with the fictitious word, grammaticalize, in your sentence. So, your Oxford Dictionary word is totally irrelevant to my criticizing your use of your fictitious grammaticalize in your moronic sentence.

        You’re full of crap. I have not made a single bald assertion in this thread or anywhere else. I have been trained, as a mathematician, to never do that. You’re making this crap up as you go along. You feel free to do that, because you’re a fucking liar.

        You’re stark raving mad. You’ve made nothing but bald assertions. You never made even a feeble attempt to substantiate them. So, they are, by definition, bald assertions.

        You’re a consummately quixotic personality. In other words, you’re stark raving mad. You’re suffering from delusions of grandeur, imaging that you’re conquering windmills.

        All of this attacking me is for one purpose. It is a desperate attempt by you to save face after I have exposed you to the reading public as an utter fraud.

      • mosquito

        This post is tortured English. That’s not surprising, you’re a moron. You have not got a clue about how to write decent English.

      • Don’t venture into logic. You have not got a clue about logic. Your implications never hold. You just mindlessly assert them. You’re a bullshit artist, slinging shit all over the domain of your writing. All of my arguments are proofs as any competent logician will confirm despite your bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Your assertions are definitely bald, unsubstantiated assertions. After all, you never, even once, attempted to substantiate any of your assertions. You just moronically assert them. This has been your modus operandi throughout your participation in this thread. This is an irrefutable fact. Just go back and look at each of Nemisis’ posts. Look for an attempt to substantiate one of his assertions. What do you find? You find no attempt to substantiate any of his assertions. Hence, all of his assertions are bald, unsubstantiated assertions. That’s what it means to say that an assertion is a bald, unsubstantiated assertion. It means that the speaker did not substantiate his assertion.

      • Stephen Barlow

        11Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.11

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you write: “You can’t begin to wrap that tiny core around it.” My God are you a fucking moron. You don’t wrap cores around things, you wrap things around cores. Be honest now. You’re learning disabled, aren’t you?

        You’re a fraud. You’re trying to pass yourself off as an intellectual. You are no intellectual. You’re mentally deficient.

      • Nemisis

        $10 bucks more.

        “Core” as in neural core.

        So predictable. So limited.

      • mosquito

        You’ve got four sentence fragments none of which are sentences. You failed English, didn’t you? You’re learning disabled, aren’t you? It’s okay, you can tell us. Perhaps, we can get you some remedial help.

        But, face it, you haven’t got a clue what the word core means.

      • Nemisis

        Do you even understand the concept of bait?
        You were baited. You bit down hard on that bait.

        You have poor skills at English comprehension, especially when it requires you to maintain attention.

        I provided you two clues as to what I was talking about when I referenced “your core”. You failed to understand because your view and exposure to the world you live in is limited. You can’t wrap your core around what I am telling you.
        Your neural core can not understand because you refuse to learn by conducting simple research of your own.
        Hence, you can’t wrap your core around what I am telling you. I am talking about your brain.

        I’ll dumb it down for you.
        I’m telling you you’re an idiot and you are too ignorant to know it.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, once again, as you have repeatedly done, time after time, you’ve demonstrated that you are an utter moron. You did not bait me at all. You baited yourself. You provided another opportunity for everyone to see that you are a fraud, that you don’t know about what you speak.

        The neural core is not the brain, despite the fact that you moronically think that it is. It’s definitely true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. You haven’t got a clue about just anything that we could discuss. Like any core, you don’t wrap the neural core around anything. Like any core, you wrap things around the neural core. The fact that you don’t understand this simple principle about the meaning of the word core demonstrates that you are a total moron.

        You write: “Hence, you can’t wrap your core around what I am telling you. I am talking about your brain.” These two sentences reveal it all. You’re a fraud. You talk about complex ideas with no understanding about these ideas whatsoever. You’re a fraud.

        Give it up. You’re wasting everyone’s time. Go find something else to do with your time. You’re totally unfit for carrying on an intelligent conversation.

        It does not matter a hill of beans that you say that I am an idiot. I am no such thing. You’re saying that I am is just one of your bald faced lies.

      • Nemisis

        Still waiting for those papers you offered, those publications of your mathematical prowess.

        Hey…if it’s published, just give me the title I can google.

        Trollish behavior is your thing isn’t it.

        Just made another $10 bucks.

        I wonder how much I could make if I just ignore you and watch you detonate your core.

      • You haven’t baited anyone. You’re much too dumb to bait anyone. Your statements are all unsubstantiated and, hence, moronically empty.

      • You’re pathetically addicted to word magic.

      • mosquito

        No, the real reason I expose you is because you’re a blowhard and a fraud, a despicable con artist who tries to pass himself off as some sort of expert on subjects about which he hasn’t got a clue. Exposing people like you is a service to the community.

      • You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic. You are quite a pathetic individual. Keep telling yourself that you have not lost this debate. You’ve earned zero points in this debate because all of your assertions are unsubstantiated. I’ve earned several points since I proved all of my assertions as is easily confirmed by going back and reading my proofs. So, you’ve not only lost this debate but you’ve been pathetically “skunked”. But, go ahead and keep telling yourself that you haven’t lost, you pathetic twerp.

      • Stephen Barlow

        1Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.11

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you write: “Which began with “in my opinion.” “. That’s not a sentence, moron.

        What was it that you were trying to say about my capable (i.e. “your capable”)?

        You are hopelessly self-deluded. I have succeeded in proving every single one of my statement. Any competent logician will confirm this. Your moronic, bald, unsubstantiated assertion to the contrary is a statement of a thoroughly quixotic personality. In other words, it’s the statement of a stark raving mad lunatic.

      • I’ve not read any such books. I’ve learned to construct proofs by doing so for 30 years. You’re a pathological liar. I have substantiated all of my assertions in this thread as is easily checked by reviewing my posts in this thread. You’re hopelessly and pathetically addicted to word magic.

      • You definitely make bald assertions. You have made several assertions and never, not even once, have you made any attempt to substantiate any of these assertions. So, by definition, every single one of these assertions is a bald, unsubstantiated assertion. That is what it means to say that an assertion is a bald, unsubstantiated assertion. It means that the speaker did not substantiate the assertion. This is what is required in a debate, that each speaker substantiate each of his assertions.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.11

      • mosquito

        Nemesis, you write: “I disagree. Getting a law passed that is in it’s nature related to a
        specific religious view is a violation of the first in that it does
        establish a preference in regard to that religion.” You cannot even accurately represent the First Amendment. This amendment says nothing whatsoever about establishing “a preference in regard to” a religion. What it talks about is establishing a religion. You obviously are too moronic to know what it means to establish a religion. Supporting a view of some religion is not establishing that religion. That you think it is shows how ignorant you are of the concept of establishing a religion.

      • Nemisis

        You wrote:
        “You cannot even accurately represent the First Amendment. This amendment says nothing whatsoever about establishing “a preference in regard to” a religion”

        The text of the 1st Amendment, in it’s entirety.
        Unedited and as published in the Constitution and searchable on the internet, reads as follows.

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        There it is in all it’s glory.

        Now. When Scotus permitted Hobby Lobby to exclude it self from law that, Scotus deemed constitutional, it set a preference to corporate religion versus people. In that a company may now extend it’s religious beliefs unto the people that work for it, regardless of the religions or lack thereof of the people it employes.

        Now let’s look at the 1st.
        The 8th word is establishment, and the 10th word is religion. The 1st word through the 7th words are “Congress shall make no law respecting an”
        Focus on “respecting” popular dictionary definition is “with reference or regard to” .

        So. When I say “Getting a law passed that is in it’s nature related to a specific religious view is a violation of the first in that it does establish a preference in regard to that religion.”

        What confuses you?

        “Supporting a view of some religion is not establishing that religion.”

        A view that becomes law is no longer just a view.

        Supporting a law based on the views of any one religion gives preference to that one religion and is exactly establishing a preference and therefore, by the very nature of the act, establishing that religion above others. Any such law is in violation of the 1st.

        Seriously, your not good at this.
        Your closing argument confirms that you believe “establishment” means ” to create ” and you would not be wrong, but in the context of the 1st you are wrong.

        Since you seem to have limited your exposure to the word here is the definition.

        es·tab·lish·ment
        iˈstabliSHmənt/
        noun
        noun: establishment; noun: Establishment; noun: the Establishment

        1.
        the action of establishing something or being established.
        “the establishment of a scholarship renews that personal interest of donors in students”
        synonyms: foundation, institution, formation, inception, creation, installation;
        inauguration, start, initiation
        “the establishment of a democracy”
        archaic
        a marriage.
        plural noun: establishments
        2.
        a business organization, public institution, or household.
        “hotels or catering establishments”
        synonyms: business, firm, company, concern, enterprise, venture, organization, operation;
        factory, plant, store, shop, office, practice;
        informal outfit, setup
        “a dressmaking establishment”
        institution, place, premises, foundation, institute
        “educational establishments”
        3.
        a group in a society exercising power and influence over matters of policy or taste, and seen as resisting change.
        synonyms: the authorities, the powers that be, the system, the ruling class; More
        the hierarchy, the oligarchy;
        informal Big Brother
        “they dare to poke fun at the Establishment”
        an influential group within a specified profession or area of activity.”rumblings of discontent among the medical establishment”
        4.
        the ecclesiastical system organized by law.

        Just for the record, you failed again.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you wrote: “When Scotus permitted Hobby Lobby to exclude it self from law that,
        Scotus deemed constitutional, it set a preference to corporate religion
        versus people.” What the hell is “it self”? What planet did you come from where people talk about “it self”, moron?

        Nemisis, you wrote: “When Scotus permitted Hobby Lobby to exclude it self from law that,
        Scotus deemed constitutional, it set a preference to corporate religion
        versus people.” Why the hell do you have a comma after “that”? I know why you have that. It’s because you are a moron.

        Nemisis, you wrote: “In that a company may now extend it’s religious beliefs unto the people
        that work for it, regardless of the religions or lack thereof of the
        people it employes.” That’s not a sentence, moron.

        I’m doing it again. I’m just going over your post line by line. And I’m not finding a line where you have not done something moronic. That’s irrefutable proof that you’re a moron. That’s not my opinion. That’s the incontrovertible conclusion of the evidence. Do you get it, moron? I don’t suspect that you do. But, who the hell cares whether you get it. You’re vermin.

        Nemisis, you write: “When I say “Getting a law passed that is in it’s nature related to a
        specific religious view is a violation of the first in that it does
        establish a preference in regard to that religion.”” That’s not a sentence, moron. What the hell is the matter with you? You’re incapable of writing an English sentence, moron.

        You write: “So. When I say “Getting a law passed that is in it’s nature related
        to a specific religious view is a violation of the first in that it does
        establish a preference in regard to that religion.”

        What confuses you?”

        You’re hopelessly moronic. Nothing confuses me. I already addressed this question. You say that something violates the first amendment because it establishes a preference in regard to that religion. But the first amendment says absolutely nothing about establishing a preference in regard to a religion. The first amendment is about establishing a religion. You obviously don’t have a clue as to what it means to establish a religion, moron.

        You write: “Supporting a law based on the views of any one religion gives preference
        to that one religion and is exactly establishing a preference and
        therefore, by the very nature of the act, establishing that religion
        above others. Any such law is in violation of the 1st.” You don’t know about what you are talking. You’ve made it abundantly clear by this passage from you that you don’t have a clue as to what it means to establish a religion. You’re a fraud. Your presenting yourself as someone who understands the first amendment when you don’t understand it at all. You’re a blow hard, blowing hot air about something about which you have not got a clue.

        You say that I have lost again. You’re totally self-deluded. I’ve demolished you a long time ago. I won everything that I set out to win in terms of you, showing that you’re a blow hard.

        Nemisis, you write: “Seriously, your not good at this.”

        You’re full of crap. I am excellent at this. I am world renowned at constructing logical arguments. All that you are good at is making bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which is, by the way, a moronic activity.

        Nemisis, you wrote: “Your closing argument confirms that
        you believe “establishment” means ” to create ” and you would not be
        wrong, but in the context of the 1st you are wrong.””

        Your logic is atrocious. My closing argument confirms no such thing. The fact that you think that it does confirm such a thing demonstrates what a moron you are. One thing is abundantly clear. You don’t have a clue what it means to establish a religion. That’s as clear as clear can be.

        Your definitions of establishment all demonstrate that your entire argument is fallacious. So, just for the record, you failed again.

        That’s all that you have done in this entire thread, failed over and over again. Seriously, you’re a total moron. You have not been given the intellectual gifts to carry on an intellectual argument. You’re wasting the time of all the good people following this thread. Do what you were meant to do, clean toilet bowls.

    • Rev. Tom

      A majority voting in a manner that supports ones religion is forcing that religion on others when it is contrary to the religious beliefs of others.

      A prime example of this is the erroneous belief many so called Christians have that based on the Bible they should be in opposition to same gender marriage. Aside from this not being true when the Bible is taken in context as opposed to simply quoting verses, there are religions that do accept and preform same gender marriage.
      Based on the US Constitution we are supposed to have a Republic that limits the democratic process to the rule of the majority only so far as it does not infringe on the equal rights of minorities.
      That freedom of religion is supposed to be a protected right, the laws limiting marriage to only one man and one woman are unconstitutional being as they deny not only same gender couples of a religion that supports them from the free exercise of their religion it also denies the clergy of those religions their free exercise rights.

      • mosquito

        Rev. Tom, I have already refuted your first sentence. Here is the refutation again. The democratic process is not force. It never has been, and it never will be.

        Your “prime example of this” is not an example of this at all. You are just making a mindless, bald, unsubstantiated assertion that it is.

        You write: “Based on the US Constitution we are supposed to have a Republic that
        limits the democratic process to the rule of the majority only so far as
        it does not infringe on the equal rights of minorities.” There is no such principle in the US Constitution. You are just making another one of your bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

        The issue at hand has nothing to do with whether or not something is constitutional or not. Your thought processes are so illogical, that they have you all over the map. While you’re at it, why don’t you tell us what you know about the two houses of our legistlative branch of government?

      • Rev. Tom

        Based on your reply you are a product of the system of indoctrination that has become prevalent in our schools.
        Unfortunately many are trained to regurgitate what they are told without thinking. You are evidently one of these pathetic examples who unless something is specifically written and spelled out so that even a six year old could understand, it is beyond your comprehension.
        I doubt it would be possible to dummy down an explanation so that someone like you would would even have a basic grasp of the principles our founding fathers had in mind when they created our system of government or the US Constitution.
        You do not even have the intellect to grasp that the simple example I used which clearly shows how the conservative ideology disregards the US Constitution when it comes to something that they do not agree with. At the same time they are the same ones who are whining about there being a war against religion because they are being resisted when it comes to pushing their perverted versions of Christianity on others. Perhaps someone else has the interest and patience to create a comic book with lots of pictures for your sort that may be able to get more than two grey cells firing at any one time but that is not something I choose to invest my time in attempting to do. You seem to not even be able to understand that protecting individual rights is another way of saying that the US Constitution limits the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority so I guess I do not have the patience to explain in simple enough terms for you to grasp so now you can go brag to your fellow lobotomy patients that you were able to “win” or whatever you fantasize it meaning if I do not waste any more time with further replies.

      • mosquito

        Rev. Tom, you are thoroughly illogical. You really believe that making bald, unsubstantiated assertions is accomplishing something. Well, it’s accomplishing nothing. In any intelligent conversation, all such assertions are ruled out from the get-go. So, you’ve contributed nothing to this conversation.

        You are quite self-deluded. You think that by beating your chest, and mocking me, you’ve gained a point in this debate. You have not gained anything in this debate, except the advantage of demonstrating that you are an asshole.

        I am not indoctrinated in the least. I have a thirty year career of being eminently logical. You have not got a clue as to what you are up against. As I said, you are quite self-deluded.

        Go fuck yourself, asshole.

      • mosquito

        You write: “You seem to not even be able to understand that protecting individual
        rights is another way of saying that the US Constitution limits the
        majority from infringing on the rights of the minority”. You’re quite a moron. Protecting individual rights is not another way of saying that. Indeed, protecting individual rights is not another way of saying anything. After all, protecting individual rights is not a statement, moron. Furthermore, saying that the constitution protects individual rights is not another way of saying that the US Constitution limits the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority. This is clear, since protection of individual rights has nothing whatsoever to do with a majority or a minority. Furthermore, the Constitution would not be so moronic as to talk about a majority or a minority, since these are meaningless concepts. Let me prove this. 75% vote for A, 80% vote for B, and 40% vote for A and B. Which is this fictitious concept called “the majority”, those that voted for A, or those that voted for B. The Constitution says nothing about majorities and minorities, because there is no such thing as the minority or the majority. The fact that you think that there is demonstrates what a moron you are.

      • mosquito

        Rev. Tom, you write: “Based on your reply you are a product of the system of indoctrination that has become prevalent in our schools”

        You are thoroughly illogical. Your premise does not imply your conclusion. You just mindlessly assert that it does.

        Here’s what you do to construct your posts. You write down whatever thoughts enter your moronic mind. Then you pepper what you’ve written down with logical terminology to make it look like you actually constructed an argument, when in fact, all you’ve got is drivel.

        Give up this poor impersonation of someone carrying on an intelligent conversation. You have not got the intellectual wherewithal to do the latter.

        You’re a fraud. You’re trying to pass yourself off as an intellectual, when in fact you’re a moron. You make the most basic of logical mistakes.

        Find something better to do with your time. something more suitable to your intelligence level, something like cleaning toilet bowls.

      • mosquito

        Rev Tom, you wrote: “You do not even have the intellect to grasp that the simple example I
        used which clearly shows how the conservative ideology disregards the US
        Constitution when it comes to something that they do not agree with.” My God, how did you manage to so butcher the English language, moron? Not only do you not have the intellect to grasp the English language, you don’t have an intellect.

      • mosquito

        That’s very interesting. The US Constitution says that we are supposed to have a Republic that limits the democratic process to the rule of the majority only so far as it does not infringe on the equal rights of minorities. I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a constitution which just tells you the way things are supposed to be. Doesn’t seem like much of a constitution to me. You would think that a constitution would constitute things, not just tell you how things are supposed to be. I’m teasing you. You really are a moron, aren’t you? Come on, don’t be embarassed. I’m sure that we can find something for you to do. That’s interesting. This Republic that we’re supposed to have, but, apparently, don’t necessarily have, since that’s the way a word like suppose works, limits the democratic process to the rule of the majority. Presumably that’s in contradiction to all those democratic processes that aren’t limited to the rule of the majority. Actually, you’re quite confused, the majority doesn’t rule in our democratic process. Indeed, there is no such thing as the majority in our democratic process. I’ll prove that. 75% vote for A and 80% vote for B, whereas 40% vote for both A and B. Which group is the majority, the 75% that vote for A, of the 80% that vote for B. So much for this fictitious concept of “the majority”.

    • Cemetery Girl

      Getting a law passed that supports one religion would be establishing religion. Specifically not allowed by the Constitution.

      • mosquito

        You obviously don’t know what it means to establish a religion. Getting a law that supports one’s religion in no way constitutes establishing religion. Don’t you know that most religiions if not all are against murder. So, our laws that outlaw murder are supporting these religions. According to your moronic “logic”, this means that our government has established all these religions. That’s really strange. If you establish one religion, then you’ve ruled out all competing religions. Yet, you, miraculously, have all of these competing religions established at the same time. You don’t know about what the fuck you’re talking. Find something better to do with your time, more in keeping with your intelligence level, like cleaning toilet bowls.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Many societies and religions have norms against murder. It is not exclusively Christian. Enforced support of a religion is establishing.

      • mosquito

        Cemetery Girl, the fact that norms against murder are not exclusively Christian is totally irrelevant. The fact that you think that it is relevant demonstrates what a moron you are. I already refuted your mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertion about establishing religion. As I said earlier, you obviously don’t know what it means to establish a religion. And you are obviously obstinately incorrigible, since I definitively refuted your assertion about establishing religion previously and you are still asserting it.

  • Julio Fortes

    Ok smart people. I beleive in myself and my family, nothing else, no gods, son of gods, religion, cults……….
    what do you call that???

    • haggrr

      Depends? Are others allowed to believe in a mystical being and based on those teachings, vote their concise?

      • Julio Fortes

        They can vote whatever way they want, as long as I can do the same!!

      • mosquito

        How does one vote his concise? I didn’t know that you could vote an adjective, moron.

    • Nemisis

      Confidence.

  • Julio Fortes

    ………..and I don’t care about what other people’s
    believes are!!!!!!

    • mosquito

      People have believes? I didn’t know that you could have a verb, moron.

  • haggrr

    #1 Freedom of Religion: You’re not protected from folks voting their religious views, unless they are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.#2 Women’s Rights” It doesn’t get more Conservative than getting the Government out of your personal life.#3 Equal Rights: Now you’re just being silly! When you compare Apples to Apples, there is no disparity! Ask the White House when those same bogus parameters are applied!#4 Voting Rights: Poll tax, Poll testing! You did read that part of the Constitution where the founders were very concerned with ‘who’ was entrusted with that right. You would think proving you are an actually citizen would be considered a no-brainer! Anything other is obvious to the oblivious!#5 ObamaCare: What? Even the High Court ruled, in order for ACA to be Constitutional, the term Mandate has to mean Tax!I noticed you conveniently left out the Second amendment that guarantees the Right to bear arms. Or the Fifth amendment that mandated due process, which we are now seeing the lefts true agenda concerning Due Process. How they are so willing to chuck that out the window! Where people and being fired over allegations and not by due process. War on Women!!! And, no way would you touch the Tenth, that pesky States Rights amendment.

    • Nemisis

      #1 The clergy are prohibited from telling their flock who to vote for or what to vote for. It is this prohibition that maintains the churches tax exempt status. This is also the most violated of the laws pertaining to tax exemption and in some cases a deliberate effort to incite a legal battle with the IRS. In those cases I recommend a removal of Tax Exemption and make it retro active to the first suspected date of violation. Hopefully that goes all the way back to 1954.
      In this sense there is protection from religious views, but you are correct our elected officials and appointed for life judges all too often vote their personal views rather than that of their constituents or the flesh and blood people who don’t have the ability to pay for judgement.

      #2 I strongly urge women to keep conservatives out of their vaginas until conservatives can keep the government out of their vaginas.
      It worked in 1919.

      #3 Legislated equality is not equality.
      When people have true equality, there is no need to legislate it.

      #4 I have said many times that there is no need to legislate until a common sense idea must be explained usually with great detail due to a lack of common sense. You like the constitution, well so do I. However when the Declaration of Independence said “All men are created equal” common sense dictates that all men, white, black, orange , 3 foot tall, 500 pounds or even those with a slight lisp are created equal. However, we have to have an amendment in the Constitution to describe what “All men” means, then we have to have laws that enforce that simple concept due to the fact that there is always someone out there that insists on being thick in the skull.

      #5 Even the High Supreme Court ruled that the PPACA met the conditions to be constitutional and therefore was constitutional.
      Which is astonishing given the recent rulings from these High Supreme Court Justices.

      Nobody here, including you, mentions the 22nd Amendment.
      Why no such amendment for Congressmen?
      Congress would never attempt to limit their own power.
      Who would be left to abuse their power if they did?
      What of the Judicial Branch? If Congress removed their lifetime
      appointment who would be left to disagree with or oppose congress?

      Companies are not the government (yet), they are people.
      People have a right to work for who they want to.
      So too then people have a right to hire who they want to work for them and fire who they want to not work for them.
      SCOTUS recently upheld that religious views of a particular person company could be used as grounds for exclusion from legal obligation. In light of that ruling, person companies could fire a biological person for saying things that the inanimate person company doesn’t like said due to their religious beliefs.
      So firing someone for demonstrable sexual insensitivity because
      they said “Boobs on the ground” is justified because if it is prohibited then it is a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
      An act that was intended to prevent persecutional exclusion of religions that are specifically not Christian in nature and was one of the arguments by HL to get SCOTUS to rule in their favor even though no test was conducted to affirm that HL is indeed as religiously conscious as it claims. The act could not be constitutional if it had singled out Christianity and Christians as the perpetrators of the persecutional behavior. Why…because of the first amendment. Which also protects religions from being singled out in legislation.

      The mighty 10th….Twenty-eight words long…and we have been paying for it ever since. The brevity of this amendment has much to do with why there are so many laws about voting rights.

      • mosquito

        Nemesis, you wrote: “An act that was intended to prevent persecutional exclusion of
        religions that are specifically not Christian in nature and was one of
        the arguments by HL to get SCOTUS to rule in their favor even though no
        test was conducted to affirm that HL is indeed as religiously conscious
        as it claims.” I don’t believe I’ve ever seen someone be so long winded and still fail to write a sentence. You truly are a moron, aren’t you?

      • Nemisis

        Why don’t you just parse that out for the boys and girls here?
        C’mon big brain. Parse it out.
        Take what was written and punctuate it.
        Or are you just another asinine flea infesting the internet with assumed knowledge? (informal again)
        Why don’t you? You scared to write something that does not include the word moron?
        Grammaticalize that one entire run-on sentence for us. Remember to maintain the informal writing.

        I don’t think I have ever seen someone try so hard and fail so miserably…except for Stevie Barlow and Rand Paul. By the way thanks for reading my long posts.
        It shows you care.

      • mosquito

        You are truly a moron. There is no such word as grammaticalize, moron. Your long winded garbage is most definitely not a sentence. If you think that it is, then you are more of a moron than I thought. Your logic is atrocious. My reading your long posts does not at all show that I care. The fact that you think that it does demonstrates how moronic is your understanding of logic.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you wrote: “Why don’t you?” That’s not a sentence, moron. You seem to be incapable of posting something in which you don’t do something moronic. Oh, of course, that’s because you are a moron. You wrote: “You scared to write …”. How did you learn such moronic writing? I think I know. It begins with moronic thinking.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you write: “Take what was written and punctuate it.”. If what was written still needs to be punctuated, then what was written is wrong, moron. The depth of how moronic you are is, apparently, without measure.

      • mosquito

        You’re as thick as a brick. It’s not a run-on sentence. Who said it was a run-on sentence? It’s a sentence fragment, an unfinished sentence. It’s not a sentence at all.

      • Your logic. My reading your posts does not in any way, shape, or form imply that I care about them. You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic.

    • Guest

      hagrr, you’re a moron. You write: “an actually citizen”. Actually is an adverb, not an adjective. It modifies verb, not nouns like citizen.

    • mosquito

      haggrr, you’re a moron. You write: “an actually citizen”. Actually is an adverb, not an adjective. It modifies verbs, not nouns, like citizen.

    • mosquito

      You write: “You would think proving you are an actually citizen would be considered a no-brainer!” You’re absolutely correct. Anyone that talks about an “actually citizen” is a no-brainer.

    • mosquito

      You write: “Where people and being fired over allegations and not by due process.”. That’s not a sentence, moron.

    • mosquito

      You write: “War on Women!!!”. That’s not a sentence, moron.

  • horsedoconfb .

    I’m a conservative and I’m all for freedom of choice.

    Abortion represents the most efficient way of killing future liberals.

    • Nemisis

      Your comment is asinine.

      • horsedoconfb .

        Nemisis, you’re obviously ignorant of the Roe Effect. Google it.

      • Nemisis

        Okay, I just finished reading the hypothesis titled
        “Roe Effect”, I am no longer ignorant of it, nor it’s context.

        I disagree completely with the hypothesis.
        I base this disagreement on something RE does not account for. That something is actual data.
        For over 30 years the Guttmacher Institute has been collecting data on exactly who is getting abortions.
        Women to be sure, but other data in addition.
        Data such as age, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, income level, education level, etc., etc.

        I first came across the study while researching material on the evolution of the Catholic church through history, specifically pertaining to it’s global views. What I learned was that the studies by Guttmacher are non-biased, and both sides of the “choice” debate have utilized their reports.

        Some Quick Stats:
        • Half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these end in abortion.

        • About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy, and nearly 3 in 10 will have an abortion, by age 45.

        • The overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate increased slightly between 1994 and 2008, but unintended pregnancy increased 55% among poor
        women, while decreasing 24% among higher-income women.

        • Overall, the abortion rate decreased 8% between 2000 and 2008, but abortion increased 18% among poor women, while decreasing 28% among
        higher-income women.

        • Some 1.06 million abortions were performed in 2011, down from 1.21 million abortions in 2008, a decline of 13%.

        • The number of U.S. abortion providers declined 4% between 2008 (1,793) and 2011 (1,720).

        The number of clinics providing abortion services declined 1%, from 851 to 839.

        Eighty-nine percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion clinic in 2011; 38% of women live in those
        counties.

        • Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

        • A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions:
        58% are in their 20s;
        61% have one or more children;
        56% are unmarried and not cohabiting;
        69% are economically disadvantaged; and
        73% report a religious affiliation.

        While the data on the surface serves to support the Roe Effect, it actually does not.

        The drop in abortions can be attributed to education and access to contraception.

        While the increases tend to be attributed to economic circumstances, although not limited to.

        The Roe Effect Hypothesis.
        1) Those who favor legal abortion are much more likely to get one than those who oppose it.

        2) Children usually follow their parents’ political leanings.

        3) Therefore, pro-choice parents will have more abortions and, hence, fewer children.

        4) Therefore, the pro-choice population gradually shrinks in proportion to the pro-life population.

        5) Therefore, support for legal abortions will decline over time.

        Rebuttals :
        1) That is not a valid argument. There exist a great many people who view legal abortion as right of choice. They themselves would not seek one, yet they would not prohibit one.

        2) Sad but true. However as stated it is a tendency, not a certainty.

        3) logical fallacy. Pro-choice is based on the right to choose and is not pro-mandatory. See item 1.

        4) logical fallacy. See items 3 and 1.
        Additionally, the pro-choice population is increasing not decreasing.

        5) logical fallacy. The data does not support the contention. Inversely the pre-Roe v Wade data indicates in the absence of legal abortions, illegal abortions will increase. It will not change the demographic of who is having abortions.

        What is being missed by PL is that with education, access to proper health care, and access to contraception, abortion rates decline.

        When education and access is removed the result is increased rates of abortion.

        Thanks for the information on the Roe Effect.

    • mosquito

      horsedoconfb, you’re thoroughly moronic. If you use abortion as a way of killing future liberals, then you are going to kill a hell of a lot more future conservatives than future liberals.

  • Eg Kbbs

    Add to the list that for about 5 years now, conservatives have been calling for their red states to secede from the country.

    Cause nothing says I love my country more than leaving it.

    • mosquito

      You write: “Add to the list that for about 5 years now,”. What the hell does that mean?

      • Nemisis

        Simple. EK is stating the call to secede from the Union because President Obama is Hawaiian.

        You are generally confused by conversation.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you’ve proved once again that you are a moron. You did not answer my question. You answered some other question that you made up. My God, you are a bona fide, a number one, moron.

      • Nemisis

        Eg Kbbs • 3 days ago

        Add to the list that for about 5 years now, conservatives have been calling for their red states to secede from the country.

        Cause nothing says I love my country more than leaving it.
        ——
        mosquito~Eg Kbbs
        13 hours ago

        You write: “Add to the list that for about 5 years now,”. What the hell does that mean?
        ——–
        Nemisis~mosquito
        9 hours ago

        Simple. EK is stating the call to secede from the Union because President Obama is Hawaiian.

        You are generally confused by conversation.

        ——–
        mosquito~Nemisis . 3 hours ago.

        Nemisis, you’ve proved once again that you are a moron. You did not answer my question. You answered some other question that you made up.
        My God, you are a bona fide, a number one, moron.

        ====================================

        Clearly, I made up the question you asked of EK.
        So how did I get it to post from your account?
        Maybe, I did it telepathically.

        By the way, it is bonafide. One word no spaces.

        Dance little monkey, give us a show.

      • mosquito

        You failed again, moron. Nothing which you say here demonstrates that I was wrong. Indeed, I was right, moron.

      • Nemisis

        Wrong, again little monkey.
        Everything in that post illustrates your failures.
        The very fact that you re-assert that your failures are not failure is more evidence of your failures.

        Where are your references to your published works that you promised and continue to fail to deliver?

        Either you provide them as you promised or that will be proof of your lies about yourself.
        Which means you failed again.

        Dance little one, you are entertaining the crowd.

        I got real money on your responses, don’t let me down. (hint: BAIT)

      • mosquito

        No, you’re wrong again. That’s not surprising. You’ve been wrong
        about every single one of your posts in this thread. Just go back and
        read each of them and then look at my accompanying irrefutable
        refutation.

      • Nemisis

        Where are your published works?
        You said you would provide them if desired.

        You lied. You lied about posting them or you lied about them being published. You are a liar.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you’ve proven that you are a moron. You’re incapable of formulating a conditional statement where the premise implies the conclusion. That’s because you are a moron.

      • Nemisis

        I can not do as you request because, like your claim to provide published writings, it has yet to happen.

        Liar.

      • mosquito

        No, you are the liar. I have given definitive proofs that you are a moron, a fraud (and, hence, a liar), and a liar.

        Hence, your opinion of me is worthless.

      • mosquito

        No, you’re the liar, as I previously proved, making the assertion that you are a liar a substantiated assertion, unlike your moronic, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertion that I am a liar.

        Since I previously definitively proved that you are a moron, a fraud (and, hence, a liar) and a liar, your opinion about me is totally worthless.

        * web page of the Department of Mathematics at Michigan State University

        * me – John D. McCarthy

        * publications/preprints

        * Curriculum Vitae

      • Nemisis

        FINALLY!!!!

        Off to read the works of J.D. McCarthy.
        There will be a test.

      • mosquito

        You’re a total sleezeball, asshole.

        You’ve lied about me, calling me a liar. And you have not got the decency to apologize for this.

        You deserve to be removed from our society and relegated to a deserted island to live out your life in isolation from the decent people of this land, including myself.

        Once again, I’ve proven by irrefutable logical arguments that you are a moron, a fraud (and, hence, a liar), and a liar. This means that your opinion about me and anything else, for that matter, is totally worthless and totally untrustworthy.

        You won’t be able to understand my papers. You don’t have even half the knowledge it takes to understand those papers. You don’t even know what mathematics is about. You think that it is about doing word problems.

      • Nemisis

        Sorry, I was busy reading the papers you allege to have published.
        They are indeed complex ma thematic works. Though they are collaborative works. I’m still reading them. I find there may be some in the field that have used some of the theories and not cited these works. That could be due concurrent efforts.

        Call the number? Nah, I think one person divulging their identity online is sufficient. If that is truly you then you will be able to answer some test questions. I have already posted one. Though one correct answer will not satisfy me. As it is easy to google just about anything. Except it is hard to google something where the data resides solely in the mind of the creator.
        We shall see.

        By the way. I lost the pool on if you would actually post your name, phone number at work with fax, address of work, and email at work.

        Now, everyone you piss off with the childish behavior you present will know how to contact you.
        If that is indeed you.

        Just a quick note for those playing at home.

        John D. McCarthy
        Michigan State University
        Department of Mathematics
        Wells Hall
        619 Red Cedar Road, C228
        East Lansing MI 48824-1027
        Office Phone: (517) 353-7996
        Departmental Fax: (517) 432-1562
        Email: [email protected]

      • mosquito

        You’re full of crap. You are not reading my papers at all. You are too mentally deficient to be able to read those papers. That is an established fact, established by my numerous valid logical arguments to that affect.

        You’re a complete fraud. You write: They are indeed complex ma thematic works. This sentence proves that you are a fraud. You attempted to present yourself as an intellectual and showed that you’re an intellectual pigmy. There is no such thing as a mathematic work. The fact that you think that there is demonstrates what an intellectual pigmy you are.

        You write: “Though they are collaborative works.” That’s not a sentence, intellectual pigmy. You are, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a fraud.

        You write: “As it is easy to google just about anything.” That’s not a sentence, you utter fraud.

      • Nemisis

        Finish the equation, cite the article.

        ” C subscript 1 ( M, w )[sigma]= ”

        Mr. John D. McCarthy
        Michigan State University
        Department of Mathematics
        Wells Hall
        619 Red Cedar Road, C228
        East Lansing MI 48824-1027
        Office Phone: (517) 353-7996
        Departmental Fax: (517) 432-1562
        Email: [email protected]

      • mosquito

        I’ve already responded to this. As you will recall, I pointed out
        that you are thoroughly moronic in asking this question. If you were a
        teacher and you put this question on a test, the supervisor would drag
        you in and give you a warning that if you did it again, you would be
        fired.

        The inescapable conclusion from your having asked this
        question is that you are certifiably insane. I’m not kidding. You’re
        certifiably insane.

      • Nemisis

        Don’t recognize your own works?

        That is a portion of an equation published in one of the articles by a Mr. John D. McCarthy of;
        Michigan State University
        Department of Mathematics
        Wells Hall
        619 Red Cedar Road, C228
        East Lansing MI 48824-1027
        Office Phone: (517) 353-7996
        Departmental Fax: (517) 432-1562
        Email: [email protected]

        Is that work “thoroughly moronic” as you put it?
        Should Mr McCarthy, I mean Professor McCarthy be fired? Hmmm?

        I’ll give you a clue. the “w” does not display correctly it represents “width”

        “C’mon Man…Answer da bloody question.”

        To quote a wise man, you’re being “trollish”.

        Your statements have the equivalence of “I know you are, but what am I?” repeated over and over with never a shred of the alluded intelligence you keep regurgitating.

        You’re like a tetraodontida.

        bait.

      • mosquito

        You’re as thick as a brick. I’ve already explained this fully. What is it about my explanation that you don’t understand?

        None of my works are thoroughly moronic. If you knew anything about the status of the journals in which they were published, then you would never ask that thoroughly moronic question.

        There is no such word as trollish, moron. But if there were, then I would certainly not be being trollish. My conduct in this thread has been eminently logical, a quality of which you are totally lacking.

        My conduct in this thread has exhibited eminent intelligence. That you are unable to recognize this or unwilling to concede it demonstrates how moronic you are. As my mother would say, some people’s taste is entirely in their mouth.

        Your behavior towards me is driven entirely by malice. You are a thoroughly despicable person.

      • Nemisis

        Trollish, another in the long list of words already covered in your posts, is indeed a word.

        Words do not need nor do they seek your approval or recognition, and apparently there is a list of words that chose not to be passed through mouth.
        They instead travel straight out of your anus and appear here.

        You seem to be having trouble maintaining what you’ve said and when and with comprehension of what you read and write.

        “None of my works are thoroughly moronic.”
        I never said they were, that was you.

        Per your own statement, you imply that your works may be partially moronic.

        Here is a clue, the test equation appears in a published work. It’s really amazing that you have no idea what you are doing. If this thread were rope you would be swinging from it like a pinata.
        There is no malice in what I am doing.
        I am simply taking you away from your important duties as a troll.

        Here is what I do not understand about your excuse for why you won’t finish the equation.

        You keep insisting I wouldn’t understand it.
        I don’t need to understand it. All I need to do is look at it. Apparently that is all you need to do as well.
        Your out of time.

        You are an idiot again and still a liar.
        You are not the esteemed McCarthy.
        You are a plagiarist and possibly, at best, a student that was bounced from his class for being a trollish stain on a pair of FTLs.
        Worthless, insignificant and a lair.

      • mosquito

        You’re obstinately incorrigible. We have gone over your first line before. Again, as I said previously, the fact that people use the fictitious word, trollish, does not imply that there is such a word. There is no such word, no matter how many people use it.

      • mosquito

        You quote me: “”None of my works are thoroughly moronic.” and then say “I never said they were, that was you.”. You’re an utter moron. I never said that you said that my works were thoroughly moronic.

      • mosquito

        You write: “Per your own statement, you imply that your works may be partially moronic.”

        Here is my recommendation. Give up entirely on trying to make a logical argument. You have not once in this incredibly lengthy thread succeeded in doing that. And you just failed again in the above quote. Once again, your premise does not imply your conclusion.

        It really is quite embarassing to see you make such an utter fool of yourself.

      • mosquito

        You’re full of crap. The entire drive behind what you are doing is pure, unadulterated malice. You’re lying through your teeth when you deny this.

      • mosquito

        “Here is what I do not understand about your excuse for why you won’t finish the equation.

        You keep insisting I wouldn’t understand it.
        I don’t need to understand it. All I need to do is look at it. Apparently that is all you need to do as well.
        Your out of time.”

        I am astonished at your total lack of reading comprehension. By statement about your not understanding my papers has absolutely nothing to do with finishing the equation. The fact that you think that it does indicates that you are totally out of touch with reality. You really need to check yourself into a psychiatric ward for observation. I’m not kidding. You are in deep shit.

      • Nemisis

        I do not need to see an entire rope to know that it has a beginning and an end.

        Which means. I do not need to understand what I am looking at to know if it is the correct completion of the equation. I have the equation in front of me, in it’s entirety I can actual feel it, because I have printed the article, and no, not one dime was spent obtaining it through SciNet.

        You are a liar.

      • mosquito

        You’re full of crap. You’ve got nothing. For that is what bald, unsubstantiated assertions are, nothing.

        Again, your opinion about me is worthless and untrustworthy, since, as I proved, you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar.

      • mosquito

        Actually. you do need to see the entire rope to know that it has a beginning and an end. It is possible to make a rope which has no beginning and no end. So, once again, you have failed to construct a true sentence. The reason for this is that you’re a liar. You have no concern for the truth. It’s all about appearances with you. You just want to appear knowledgeable, whether you really are or not. You’re a thoroughly quixotic individual.

      • mosquito

        You write: “You are an idiot again and still a liar.
        You are not the esteemed McCarthy.
        You
        are a plagiarist and possibly, at best, a student that was bounced from
        his class for being a trollish stain on a pair of FTLs.
        Worthless, insignificant and a lair.”

        This is easily settled. Call John D. McCarthy and he will confirm that he is me, mosquito.

        You won’t do it because you prefer to carry on this infantile pretending that I am a liar, something which you have not a shred of evidence to support, something which you just mindlessly assert.

        You really are a pathetic individual. You have absolutely nothing. Your case is completely bankrupt. Yet you carry on this quixotic tilting after windmills.

      • Nemisis

        I won’t do it because I am not satisfied you are he.
        You can begin to dissolve that doubt by finishing the equation.

        Because believe me when I say this.
        I will not inconvenience McCarthy to satisfy your little troll adventure. What I will do though is vet your claims.
        It is what I do. I will be able to ascertain if you are who you claim to be. Based off just the papers, and this garbage you float, you are not he. Based off the language you use and your mannerisms, you are not he.
        You are a liar. Finish the equation.

      • mosquito

        That’s a load of crap. You won’t do it because your a sleezeball, as well as a moron, a fraud, and a liar.

        You are also a complete moron when it comes to logic. None of your premises imply your corresponding conclusions.

      • mosquito

        That’s a load of crap. You won’t do it because you’re a sleezeball, as well as a moron, a fraud, and a liar.

        You are also a complete moron when it comes to logic. None of your premises imply your corresponding conclusions.

      • mosquito

        You’re full of crap. You don’t vet claims. You’re a lying sack of manure. You are lucky if you clean toilet bowls for a living.

      • Nemisis

        Tell you what, I gave you an opportunity to come unglued about telling you the w represented width.
        You neither came unglued or mentioned it specifically.

        You let me down, and I lost $5 bucks. Happy?

        I am required by the rules here to give you the proper name for the symbol which is Omega.

        I am vetting you. In that process all claims you make must also be vetted. Because you have a narrow field of vision you can not see past your abysmal lexicon of word definition. This is not a trait of a learned person.
        It is a trait of someone who is used to failure.

        Vetting:
        The action or process of vetting a person or thing; esp. the investigation of a person’s background and credentials to determine his loyalty or trustworthiness; positive vetting, vetting which includes a search for weaknesses of character or anything else that could render the subject
        vulnerable to exploitation.

        Here is a suggestion for you. Next time you have a question about the validity of a word, it’s use, or the proper structure of a sentence, pick your failing ass up off the chair you are in. Go find someone who has formal training in the use of language and ask them to smack you in the head.

        You failed again monkey boy.

      • mosquito

        Quit lying. You are not vetting me. You are not doing anything with me. I have proven that you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar. You have done nothing here. That’s a fact. You’ve done nothing here.

        I do not have a narrow field of vision. Anyone who has read what I have written here knows that I have a broad field of vision. You, on the other hand, have no field of vision. You are a complete loser who is going nowhere. That’s a fact. You are going nowhere. Anyone who has read the drivel you’ve written in this thread knows that for a certainty.

        Your insane. You think that by asserting something it becomes true. I’m serious. You are certifiably insane.

        Quit wasting your time and mine by writing strings of vacuous gibberish. That’s all that you have written here, vacuous gibberish.

      • Nemisis

        Finish the equation yet?

      • mosquito

        What did I tell you about your moronic test?

        You are a worthless individual. You’ve wasted everyone’s time that has followed this thread. Do us all a favor and stop posting your banal nonsense.

      • mosquito

        You are a moron. When I talked about my works not being “thoroughly moronic”, I was responding to this question of yours: “Is that work “thoroughly moronic” as you put it?”. You cannot even remember what you said in the past few hours, and you want me to remember an equation buried in a number of lengthy papers of mine from several years ago. You are a thoroughly despicable piece of shit.

      • Nemisis

        Not the way you phrased it.
        You should be more careful, you make a lot of mistakes in regards to the proper use of language.
        It makes you look like a….well to utilize your favorite word, a moron.

      • mosquito

        You’re a moron, a fraud, and a liar.

        You’re full of crap up to the top of your head.

        I have phrased everything which I have written in this thread in impeccable English.

      • mosquito

        The Lord is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

      • Nemisis

        Seriously. Stay on topic.

        Finish the equation. Proving you know your own work.
        Further to that point. Such an incredible amount of concentration is required, per Mosquito; you, to even understand that level of Algebra, as I stated it was Algebra confirmed by your statement that it is not algebra as there is a difference between algebra and algebra of that level. Broken down to context and ideas expressed it still remains Algebra.
        Being that it is your claimed work and appears numerous times in published articles by McCarthy. I would expect you to know it, and remember it. I would have accepted any article that contains the equation as the correct article but only the correct finish to the equation.
        Since you can not finish the equation and refuse to stay on topic and continually attempt to deflect with violations of topic constraint you obviously are not McCarthy. More likely you are someone McCarthy has dismissed do to lack of reasonable credibility and inability to communicate beyond the level of a carrot.

        You continue to exhibit a very poor understanding of communication and the use of language.

        I will now tell you why your use of “bigot” and “partisan” are not synonymous in the context that you used them. You used them in the same sentence applied directly to the same subject seperated by a single conjunction thereby establishing to the reader that they are separate and unique in a list of descriptors. Thereby inferring that a separate definition is to be used for each, therefore they are not synonyms in the context of the sentence they were used in. The common interpretation of a sentence dictates the overall accepted contextual definitions of words used within the sentence. At best your sentence is improperly redundant. In that you did not understand that, your assertion of moron-ism on part is a direct indication of your ignorance in the use written language to convey ideas.
        Therefore once again, you failed.
        The weight of your failures is indicative that you are the moron that you have professed others to be.

        Here is some advice. Shut up.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have proved that you are a moron. Don’t try to talk about any topic. You have repeatedly proven that you don’t understand the topics about which you try to talk.

        You make up shit about the topics about which you talk as you go along. Anyone of any intelligence knows that you are bullshitting. You’re a bullshit artist.

      • mosquito

        You’re obstinately incorrigible. The algebra in my papers is not algebra still remaining algebra, as you try to suggest. That’s like saying that the wave nature of light is still a wave, like the wave on the beach. Nonsense. You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking. You’re a fraud.

      • mosquito

        You have no argument that I am not John D. McCarthy. You just keep making a moronic, empty, bald, assertion that I am not McCarthy. You’ve got nothing. Give up. You’ve got nothing.

      • Nemisis

        I have his works, and you have an equation to finish.

      • mosquito

        I have already proven that I am John D. McCarthy.

        There was never any need for me to take your moronic test. Moronic tests are, by definition, moronic.

        What did I tell you about your moronic test?

      • It is pathetic to watch a grown man trapped in the grip of word magic.

      • mosquito

        You write: “You continue to exhibit a very poor understanding of communication and the use of language.” Nonsense, my command of the English language is eminently intelligent. You are just making a mindless, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertion that this is not true. You’ve got nothing.

      • mosquito

        Your paragraph about bigot and partisan is sheer fantastical bullshit. Whether two words are synonyms or not has nothing whatsoever to do with how they appear in any given sentence, such as whether they are separated by a single conjunction. You are a despicable bullshit artist. You have no regard, whatsoever, for the truth.

      • Nemisis

        Because you lack the ability to understand what is written is why you fail.

        If you finish the equation, I will;

        1. Make a phone call or,
        2. Send an email to, or
        3. Fax the math department, or
        4. Call the College to verify the status of McCarthy, or
        5. Put an ad in the University paper seeking confirmation of Mosquito as McCarthy.

        Be sure that I will do exactly one of these things.
        The result of which I will not post. Because, if it turns out that you are not McCarthy, I really have no way of proving it here. If it turns out that you are McCarthy, it has proved nothing other than you are McCarthy and it won’t change the fact that you suck at language, while being really good at McCarthy Algebra. So there really is no need for me to actually do any of that, except I could get a burner phone, using the money I made off you, and make the call. Which is really tempting, because I do so hope you are indeed McCarthy.

        So please. Finish the equation.

      • mosquito

        You are hopelessly self-deluded. I don’t lack the ability to understand and I have not failed once in this entire thread.

        I have demonstrated that every single one of your posts in this thread is moronic. That is really quite astounding. Of all of the numerous posts you have put up in this thread, not a single one of them was intelligent.

        What did I tell you about your unbelievably moronic test?

        You write: “and it won’t change the fact that you suck at language”. You’re hopelessly self-deluded. I am excellent at English. I am excellent at logic. I am excellent at mathematics. That you don’t concede the first two, after seeing me at work in this thread, demonstrates that you are a partisan bigot.

      • It’s painful to watch a grown man addicted to word magic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Nah!! Magic is FUN. What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had.

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • mosquito

        So, now it is time for me to prove that I am John D. McCarthy.

        As I previously did, I suggest that you call John D. McCarthy and he will confirm that he is me, mosquito.

        If I am not John D. McCarthy, then by making this suggestion I set myself up for being revealed as an imposter.

        That implies one of two things, either I don’t understand that I am setting myself up that way or I am indeed John D. McCarthy.

        The first option is false because I just explained that I understand that I would be setting myself up that way, if I were an imposter.

        This leaves only one possible conclusion. Namely, I am John D. McCarthy.

        You’re probably too stupid to understand this irrefutable argument. But, that doesn’t matter, it’s still a proof. I’m sure that many of the readers will follow it and know that you’re a bullshit artist when you act as if you know that I’m an imposter.

      • Nemisis

        Here is the problem with that logic.
        My intent is not to prove to me or you that you are McCarthy. My intent has been all along to prove to all that you are not McCarthy or that you are McCarthy.

        That is accomplished by you providing the rest of the equation. Which is done so that you can not just search the internet for the complete equation and name the article(s) it is published in.
        My method has so far proven you are not able to complete it because you are neither familiar with the works of McCarthy nor are McCarthy.

        I could simply call the university and do an employment check thereby negating what you really want me to do. That does not mean you are McCarthy. McCarthy’s staff web page has not been updated since 2012 which coincides with the time frame of McCarthy’s removal from the university.
        If you are indeed McCarthy there are other methods available to vet you. Such as you being able to cite your own alleged works.
        Since McCarthy has access to his web page and can make changes to it. Why not try that method?
        Why not post a transcript of this conversation on that website? That would go a long way towards vetting you. It does not completely vet you since you may not be McCarthy and have access to his page anyway. So the only way that your going to convince me is you complete the equation.

        Till then you are a fraud, an imposter, and a liar.
        Even if you do prove to be McCarthy, and I hope you do, you still suck at language skills and at word problems. When I say word problems I don’t mean math.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have proved yourself to be a moron. Whether the logic of my argument is valid or not has absolutely nothing to do with your intent. Yet, you moronically suggest there is a problem with my logic because of your intent. Please don’t try to talk about logic. You have not got a clue about logic.

        There is absolutely nothing wrong with the logic of my argument. Any competent logician can confirm that. Hence, that argument proves what it claims to prove, namely, that I am John D. McCarthy. It does not just prove that to you or me. It proves it to everyone.

        Hence, all your assertions that I am not John D. McCarthy have been proven to be false. That implies that they are false. Once again, you are shown to be a liar.

        You write: “which coincides with the time frame of McCarthy’s removal from the university.” You are a bald faced liar. I have never been removed from the university.

        It does not matter a hill of beans whether my proof convinces you that I am John D. McCarthy. How many times do I have to go over this point before it sinks into your thick skull? I have proven that you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar. Hence, your opinion of me is worthless and untrustworthy.

        You’ve lost this debate a long time ago. Your continuance in it has only served to confirm more and more what a loser you are.

        I’ve proven that I am John D. McCarthy. Every person of intelligence reading this thread will follow my proof of this fact and know that you are a liar.

        Goodbye, liar.

      • Your logic is atrocious. Whether or not my argument is a proof has absolutely nothing to do with what has been your intent all along. The fact that you think that it has something to do with that demonstrates how stupid you are.

      • Stephen Barlow

        11 Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion. 11

      • Don’t venture into mathematics. You have not got a clue about mathematics. You continue to be obstinately incorrigible. I have proven that your statements that it is still just algebra is wrong. Yet, you continue to make this moronic statement.

        You’re a moron. Whether two words are synonymous has absolutely nothing to do with how they are used in any given sentence. Your argument is premised on the moronic assumption that this obviously true statement is false. Hence, you’re a moron.

      • mosquito

        You’ve made it abundantly clear that you have nothing.

        All that you ever do is make bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Such assertions are vacuous, deleted from any intelligent conversation. Hence, you have not yet begun to contribute to this conversation.

        How does it feel to have wasted all your time mindlessly spinning wheels?

      • Nemisis

        I offered you a test. The challenge required you to complete an equation taken directly from your body of work. Provided you are who you claim to be. Which is now in serious question due to your inability to provide the rest of the equation. Either you are McCarthy and can complete the equation or you are not McCarthy and have as yet been able to find the equation in 30 years worth of another man’s work.
        Taking claim to another man’s work.
        That is shameful and plagiaristic, the traits of a liar.

        “I’ve already responded to this. As you will recall, I pointed out that you are thoroughly moronic in asking this question. If you were a teacher and you put this question on a test, the supervisor would drag you in and give you a warning that if you did it again, you would be fired.”

        That is what you said of the work of McCarthy.
        You claim to be McCarthy. Therefore you hate yourself enough to fire you because your work sucks, you said it not me.

        Telling you to complete the equation is not really a question, it is an instruction. The result of which would prove you are a liar or raise the bar one more step towards proving you are the man you claim to be.
        So far, chuckles, you have not completed the simple equation, therefore you are a liar.
        You have offered no proof of anything as yet.
        Therefore you are a liar.

        Good luck in life as a liar. You will always be found out and always be second to everyone.

        You should cast your eyes down if a dog looks at you because right now even a lowly cur is your better.

        Finish the equation.

      • mosquito

        You’ve failed my question to you. That’s because you are a moron.

        You quote me and then say “That is what you said of the work of McCarthy.” My dear, you are a pathetically, embarassingly, illogical moron. The quote was about you, you intellectual pigmy. I wasn’t talking about firing me. I was talking about firing you. That is obvious, since the quote speaks of “you”. Get it, it speaks of “you”, that’s you. I don’t believe I’ve ever come across anyone as stupid as you.

        You don’t get to give me any offer or any instructions, you arrogant twerp.

        You are the one that needs to be concerned about people recognizing you as a liar. You are just mindlessly asserting that I am a liar. I, on the other hand, proved that you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar.

        My conscience is as clear as clear can be. Your conscience is burdened by the knowledge that you’re a fraud. You try to pass yourself off as someone who understands logic and you have not got a clue about it. You tried to pass yourself off as someone who can read my papers and you have not got a clue about the meaning of those papers. You are quite a pathetic quixotic individual.

      • Nemisis

        Whine some more monkey.

        “You quote me and then say “That is what you said of the work of
        McCarthy.” My dear, you are a pathetically, embarassingly, illogical moron. The quote was about you, you intellectual pigmy. I wasn’t talking about firing me. I was talking about firing you. That is obvious, since the quote speaks of “you”. Get it, it speaks of “you”, that’s you. I don’t believe I’ve ever come across anyone as stupid as you.”

        Yet you were talking about me, and my test equation put to you. Yes, I would expect Dickens could recognize his works and fill in the blanks. Not now of course, as he is dead. I would expect I could go to Hawking and ask him a question based on a critical component of his research and he could give me an answer that does contain the word “moron” in it. You are nowhere near the greatness of those mean, so maybe it is a bit of a reach to ask someone of your caliber to finish an equation they worked on. It’s critical to the work of McCarthy, which you are not he. If I can find the equation You can, there are not that many papers to go through.

        My understanding of the papers or not is not critical to you not being able to finish the equation.
        If you were McCarthy you should be glad that someone has taken the time to peruse the work.

        I will never need it so I do not need to learn the math involved. All I need the papers for is to see if you are who you claim to be. Since you can not, you are not, and are therefore a liar

        I’ll take the synonym for quixotic. Visionary.
        Thanks for the compliment.

        Your still a liar.

        Hey…since you lie, because you are a liar, then you lied about me being quixotic.

        That is just mean.
        You misspelled “Embarrassingly “.
        Shameful….

      • mosquito

        Once again, you’ve proven yourself to be a moron.

        I cannot whine some more. I haven’t whined yet.

        You’re thoroughly insane about your question. To give another analogy. It would be like having someone right thirty essays, each thirty pages long, then choosing a sentence fragment from one of the essays and asking the person to complete the sentence fragment and say which essay it came from. That is laughable. The fact that you cannot concede that demonstrates what a partisan bigot you are. It demonstrates that you don’t give a damn about the truth. All you care about is getting yourself to look good and me to look bad. As I have already said, you are driven by pure malice.

        Again, we can settle this quite easily. Call John D. McCarthy and he will confirm that he is me, mosquito. If you have any regard for the truth, then you will do this.

        You write: “My understanding of the papers or not is not critical to you not being able to finish the equation.” This is an illogical straw man. No one said that it was. You are confusing my statement that you won’t understand my papers with my discussion about your ridiculous test.

        You write: ” Since you can not, you are not, and are therefore a liar”. Stop pretending to understand logic. You don’t, as is clear from your utter failure with it in this thread and in the quote at the beginning of this paragraph. Your premise, once again, does not imply your conclusion.

        You’re being childish with quixotic. You know damn well that I was not using quixotic in the sense of visionary. Visionary is not a synonym for quixotic. It is only a synonym for one of the usages of quixotic, one which I was not using, one which is irrelevant to my use.

        You write: “Your still a liar.”. Not only are you thoroughly illogical, but you butcher the English language.

        You’re full of crap. I did not misspell embarrassingly.

        Embarrassingly – Merriam-Webster Online

        You really are a thoroughly pathetic individual, a complete fraud.

      • Nemisis

        Well, you asked for. While vetting your claim to be McCarthy. I have come across this assessment.

        “His unexpected breakdown and the fact that he stripped down to just his
        socks while screaming about how stupid everyone was was a tad excessive.
        His point probably could have been proven even if he kept his dick in
        his pants. Maybe he’s just too smart for his own good. ”

        So at this point I sure fucking hope this is you.

      • mosquito

        It is ignorant people like you who are the reason why mental illness still has a stigma attached to it. You are thoroughly ignorant people who deserve to be shunned by all decent people.

        This description of a mental breakdown which I had is inaccurate as other accounts will confirm.

        The fact that someone has a mental breakdown does not imply that he is mentally ill indefinitely.

        Many such persons, with the powerful care available today, recover from such events, as did I.

        There is nothing wrong with me today.

      • Nemisis

        “McCarthy, 57, reportedly shouted about Steve Jobs, God, religion and
        other topics during his Monday afternoon class on Oct. 1, then stripped
        naked and continued screaming in the Engineering Building’s hallway in
        what students called an apparent mental breakdown. ”

        “Don’t try to comment on the papers. You don’t have a clue as to what you are reading because you don’t know what the words mean. For example,
        you see the word algebra and you think it’s talking about the algebra you learned about in school. You have never come anywhere nears the algebra that it is talking about. ”

        In this exercise, we are focused on your ability, please pay attention here, to complete the equation. To put it in very simple terms.

        You. Complete. Equation.

        Is there room for question of the task you are to do?
        When you do that. I will have one more actual question that I will need answered before I will accept that you are McCarthy. I will not divulge this prior to the completion of the equation.
        I will not re-post the equation, dig for it yourself.
        I understand that there are difficulties with posting the equation due to the constraints of Disqus. Use whatever means you can devise to complete the equation. Use the names for symbols speak the equation out if it helps. Don’t worry about my understanding it. I assure you, I can figure out what you are typing and how it relates to the equation.

        Solving the equation puts you on the map of convincing me you are McCarthy.

        The “map” being a metaphor for path.

        Just out of curiosity. If you are indeed McCarthy.
        Why would you want me to call you?
        I have an email address for McCarthy.
        That would be just as easy to do as calling, or faxing the department.

        You see, somethings here just don’t add up.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have proven yourself to be a moron. You keep talking about my breakdown, which is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Also, that breakdown is in my past. I recovered fully from it. So, once again, you are just mindlessly spinning wheels. By harping on it, you are just making it clear to everyone reading this thread that you are a despicable, malicious person. And that is just cutting your own throat.

        You write: “Is there room for question of the task you are to do?” My God, could you torture that English a little more? You haven’t killed the English language yet.

        Again, your logic is atrocious. There is nothing about what I have written in this thread that doesn’t add up. There is an obvious reason to prefer a phone call over an email or a fax. It settles the issue faster than either of those two options.

      • mosquito

        This post confirms what I said earlier, that your attack upon me is driven by pure, unadulterated malice.

      • Nemisis

        You positive you wanna go down this rabbit hole?

        I might be the only person you will ever meet that will give you a chance to back this bus up.

        You have not yet seen the malice I am capable of.

        I vet people, it is what I do. I know more about you
        based on what you write, how you write, and when you write than I do from who you claim to be.

        If you are McCarthy, and I am not yet convinced, then you need the help as evidenced by doing a google search on;
        ” John D. McCarthy math breakdown ”

        Notice the first thing that pops up?
        One of your finest works.

        The attempt to divide by zero leaving your remainder out in the wind.
        That is is a metaphor for zero clothes and waiving your penis about.
        I’m fairly convinced that being fired from the university was the direct result of that and in line with my prediction that your were fired.
        Fired people tend to not be respected when the termination was for losing your mind and brandishing your member through the halls of the work place. What they do give is pity.

        So this is where it is at, right now.
        I still am not convinced that you are McCarthy.
        I am leaning more to you are a former student or someone with an axe to grind against McCarthy.
        An alternate thought is, you are neither McCarthy, nor a student, but just a trollish little monkey flunking your way through life.

        Finish the equation to prove you are McCarthy.

      • mosquito

        You have proven once again that you are a moron.

        You are totally illogical. You write: “If you are McCarthy, and I am not yet convinced, then you need the help as evidenced by doing a google search on;
        ” John D. McCarthy math breakdown ” “. This is totally illogical. I got the help I needed shortly after I had a breakdown. That help allowed me to recover. I don’t need help now. You misssed that option, didn’t you, moron.

        You write: “The attempt to divide by zero leaving your remainder out in the wind.
        That is is a metaphor for zero clothes and waiving your penis about.” Well that is quite a moronic metaphor. Having zero clothes on would have nothing to do with division, moron. It’s amazing how you fail at everything you try to do.

        You write: “I’m fairly convinced that being fired from the university was the direct
        result of that and in line with my prediction that your were fired.” You’re an intellectual pygmy. I was not fired from the university. Why do you think the Mathematics Department of Michigan State University still has my name up on its list of faculty?

        You write: “Fired people tend to not be respected when the termination was for
        losing your mind and brandishing your member through the halls of the
        work place. What they do get is pity.” You are one of the wicked people described in the Scripture of whom it is said that they think that all men are such as they. The people for whom I work are not like you, ignorant and bigoted. They gave me full support during my recovery and they respect me for taking full advantage of my therapy and thus completing my recovery. They are not so pathetically ignorant as to look down upon me for having a breakdown (by the way, I did not lose my mind, as you so ignorantly put it) or disrobing. They know that all of that was a symptom of a sickness which I was suffering. As I said before, ignorant people like you are the reason why mental illness still has a stigma. We need not worry, education will make the voices of people like you vanish into the vacuity of your existence.

        What did I tell you about your ridiculous test? You don’t get it, do you? If so, that’s not surprising. After all, you’re a moron.

        As I have said repeatedly, your opinion of me is worthless and untrustworthy, since, as I proved, you’re a moron, a fraud, and a liar.

        i have nothing to hide. If you show forth more clearly your malice, you are only cutting your own throat. Malicious people are not respected. Their father is Satan, perhaps the most despised creature of all.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’ve got nothing, as you well know.

        That is why you never substantiate your assertions.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’ve got nothing, as you well know.

        That is why you never try to substantiate your posts.

      • mosquito

        So, you failed to accurately report what I wrote you regarding your ridiculous test. Try again. What did I write to you about that? In particular, what was the analogy I used about Dickens, his writings, and a sentence fragment from them?

      • Nemisis

        You, just can’t wrap your little mind around the fact that you are a liar. It’s been established that you lie about words. You lie about who you are.
        You simply are not McCarthy. No one who is as egotistical as you are would refer to them self as a teacher. You would want to be called a professor, nay you would demand it.

        Where is the rest of the equation?
        You don’t have it. Yet is a work of McCarthy.
        You having trouble finding the right equation?
        Seems to me that if this was your work your handwritten journal would be nearby and you could reference it. However since I deliberately chose an equation that is important to McCarthy and you are not he, you can not provide it.

        More fail for you. Caution your reply will be laden with more utter fail. Tonight’s forecast, fail with touch of bullshit right out of mosquito’s head.

        Dirty lying monkey. Now Dance.

      • mosquito

        As I previously observed, you have nothing. Bald, unsubstantiated assertions are precisely that, nothing.

        You have not established anything. All you have done is make empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Those do not establish anything. They are vacuous.

        I don’t refer to myself as a teacher. You must be confusing the teacher in my example with me. You really don’t have a grip on reality.

        What did I tell you about the equation, moron?

        As I have previously observed, since I proved that you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar, your opinion about me is worthless and untrustworthy.

        Give up communicating that opinion to me. You’re completely wasting your time and mine.

      • Nemisis

        “What did I tell you about the equation, moron”
        It is not what you say, it is what you do not say.

        Liar

      • mosquito

        What did I tell you about the equation, moron?

      • mosquito

        You have a vacant cranium.

        You’re very big on meaningless slogans.

        But, the fact of the matter is that what I do not say tells you absolutely nothing. The fact that you think that it tells you something demonstrates that you have not got a clue about logic.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your logic is atrocious. What I do not say tells you absolutely nothing.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’ve got nothing, as you well know.

        That is why you never ever substantiate your posts.

      • mosquito

        You continue to show that, when it comes to logic, you have not got a clue.

        For instance, you write: “The result of which would prove you are a liar or raise the bar one more step towards proving you are the man you claim to be.” You believe in word magic. You believe that by saying something it becomes true. The result of your test would not at all be what you claim it would be. The fact that you think that it would be demonstrates that you’re an intellectual pygmy.

        You write: “So far, chuckles, you have not completed the simple equation, therefore you are a liar.” Once again, you demonstrate that you are a moron. There is no such therefore.

        You write: “You have offered no proof of anything as yet. Therefore you are a liar.” Again, this shows that you are a moron. There is no such therefore.

        Stop trying to pass yourself off as having a functioning brain. It is painfully obvious, by now, that you don’t.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your offering me a test has no significance whatsoever. The fact that you think that it has significance demonstrates how abysmal is your hold upon logic.

      • mosquito

        As I have previously explained, I have previously proven that you are a moron, a fraud (and, hence, a liar), and a liar. Hence, your opinion about me is worthless and untrustworthy. Don’t waste your time expressing your opinion about me. It is totally worthless and totally untrustworthy. It has no significance whatsoever.

      • Nemisis

        Yet, you still refuse to complete the equation.
        This lends credence to the conclusion that you are not who you claim to be. Which makes you a liar, and ultimately a loser.

      • mosquito

        I have already responded to your first line. What is it that you do not understand about my response? I already asked you this question previously and you, like the jerk that you are, ignored this question.

        You’re a complete loser when it comes to logic. My response lends no such credence. You are just mindlessly saying that it does.

        Your logic is atrocious. Even if my response lent credence to the conclusion you indicate, which it does not, it would not make me a liar. People believing something about me does not make me anything. The fact that you think that it does demonstrates what an embarassingly pathetically illogical loser you are.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Nonsense, it lends no such credence. That’s like saying that the fact that Joe has not visited his mother in five years lends credence to the conclusion that he can’t. In other words, it’s not logical. It’s just plain stupid.

      • mosquito

        You are quite a moron. You cannot regurgitate alluded intelligence if all it is is alluded. For, if all it is is alluded, there is nothing to regurgitate. In order to be able to regurgitate alluded intelligence, then there has to be some intelligence to regurgitate. My God are you a moron. You keep blowing yourself up with your own petard.

      • By my valid logical argument, it is now established that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        Just saying your argument is valid does not make it valid. You can not provide reasonable evidence to support your outlandish claim.
        This evidence must be viewable by anyone reading this thread, and then it will be a credible statement, not definitive but credible.

        I will even concede the point of contention. Then provide my second test.

        There are only two tests.
        One is based solely on your works, the other is related but only answerable by McCarthy.

        The equation is the first test. Anyone familiar with McCarthy would be able to finish the equation.
        The second is not going to be divulged until after the first is completed.
        I’m not wasting my time. I am having fun and making buck.

      • Your logic is atrocious. You’ve erected another moronic straw man.

        Besides, you’re lying through your teeth. You know that my argument is valid.

        Not only can I provide reasonable evidence to support my claim that I am John D. McCarthy. I did provide such evidence. It’s called a proof.

        This evidence is viewable by everyone reading this thread, because I posted my proof.

        You are obviously obstinately incorrigible. What did I tell you about your moronic test?

      • Nemisis

        It is not proof. It is only an unverified claim.

      • mosquito

        Nonsense, any intelligent person can easily verify that my arguments are proofs.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        No, my proofs are proof that they are proofs. A proof bears all the markings of a proof and nothing else does.

      • Any competent logician can confirm that all my arguments in this thread are proofs. Your assertion to the contrary is totally worthless. You have not got a clue about logic as you have proven over and over again in this thread.

      • I have never said my argument is valid to prove that it is valid. The argument proves that it is valid. A proof bears all the marks of a proof and nothing else does.

      • Stephen Barlow

        What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had.

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.111

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’ve got nothing, as you know oh so well.
        That is why you never substantiate your posts.

      • By my flawless logical argument, it is now established that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        No, by rules of debate you’ve continued to assert logical fallacies based on bald assertions which are intellectual deceptions. You prove you are McCarthy when there is corroborative information that is unchallengeable.

        Tell you what, since McCarthy is pretty much a desk jockey at MSU and not an actual teacher I’ll cut you some slack. Update McCarthy’s MSU personal web page.
        That hasn’t been done since 2012. I will accept that as a moderate level of proof.
        It does not establish that you are, it just lends more credibility.
        I will still need the rest of the equation.

      • You’ve just demonstrated that you are a moron. The rules of debate do not determine what is a logical fallacy and what is not a logical fallacy. The fact that you obviously think that they do, demonstrates that you have not a clue about logic.

        I proved that I am John D. McCarthy, period, without qualification.

        You’re a liar. I am not pretty much a desk jockey at MSU. You are just making this shit up as you go along. You’re a pathological liar.

        It does not matter a hill of beans what you need or even what you think you need. That is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. That you don’t recognize this fact demonstrates what an idiot you are.

      • Nemisis

        “I proved that I am John D. McCarthy, period, without qualification.”
        Are you McCarthy without qualification?
        You have no qualifications?

        The problem is you are easily distracted from topic.
        You only said, not proven, that you are McCarthy.

        Google King Leonidas. That’s me. Only I’m not dead.

      • Your command of the English language is abysmal. The phrase “without qualification” modifies “proved”, not “John D. McCarthy”.

        No, I did not only say that I am John D. McCarthy. I proved this. And you know it. You are just too childish to concede this fact. You don’t have the decency to admit defeat.

      • Nemisis

        WP, send that fiver back.

      • You’re a pathological liar. You’re not betting on my posts.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’re quite confused. The rules of debate don’t determine what is or is not a logical fallacy.

      • Your logic is atrocious. Rules of debate do not determine what are logical fallacies. Logic determines what are logical fallacies. I have not made any bald assertions. All of my assertions have been substantiated by eminently logical arguments.

        There is no such thing as a “moderate level of proof”. Either something is proven or its not. You have not got a clue about what it means to prove something.

        It is pathetic to watch you writhe in the grip of word magic.

      • Nemisis

        “There is no such thing as a mathematic work”
        I will assume you mean mathematical works don’t exist.
        Or are you nit picking a typo, which is entirely in line with your trollish behavior.

        I notice you have not corrected my use of “trollish” even once. Having been corrected in your remedial denial of the word’s validity, clearly indicates that you do have the ability to learn, although it has yet to be formally confirmed.
        Do you deny your own works?

        Are they the tinder for which you must be fired?

        Answer the question. Do we really need to go four days before you answer the question?
        That is the current bet. It’s worth $5 dollars due to the simplistic nature of the expected response.

        Like a puppet, on a stage, dance.

      • mosquito

        You are a complete sleezeball. Sure thing, “ma thematic work” is just a typo. That’s either a bold faced lie or you are so moronic that you don’t even know what is a typographical error.

        What did I tell you about your moronic test?

      • By my incontrovertible argument, it is now established that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        I have given rise to quite a bit of doubt to you being McCarthy, thereby defeating your claim of incontrovertibly. You can keep telling me you are, but unless you finish the equation then you are not.

      • Once again, you’ve proven you don’t understand logic. It does not matter a hill of beans how much doubt you have about my being McCarthy. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I am John D. McCarthy. The fact that you think it has something to do with that, demonstrates that you are a moron when it comes to understanding logic.

        Also, your statement that unless I finish the equation then I am not McCarthy is thoroughly illogical. The premise of this statement does not imply the conclusion. The fact that you don’t know that demonstrates that, when it comes to logic, you are a moron.

      • Nemisis

        My doubt arises from your inability to quote your own work. My beliefs aside. That is an established fact.
        I’ll be taking that point of contention and leaving you with a fail.

        You can not or won’t. McCarthy would.
        His works convey that to me. McCarthy is all about proof. Especially when yammering on about how great he is. You just yammer on about how you are McCarthy. That is not the same as actually being McCarthy.

      • You’re lying through your teeth. You have no doubt that I am John D. McCarthy. Why not? Because, you know that I am John D. McCarthy. How do you know this? Because, I proved that I am John D. McCarthy. Nothing you can say can vanquish that fact.

        You’re a complete moron when it comes to logic. McCarthy’s works cannot possibly convey that to you. McCarthy’s works don’t have anything to do with that. So, once again, you’ve proven that you’re a liar.

      • Nemisis

        I have every doubt that you are not McCarthy.
        You are not McCarthy. You only claim that you and when asked for proof you provide a website for McCarthy.

        Well I’m the United States Secretary of State.
        Google the website, and call me and I will most assuredly tell you that you are not McCarthy.

        I assure you I am.
        I am indeed.

        For all you know I could be McCarthy.
        Google the MSU website.
        There you will find my department website.
        Ask anyone there they will tell you that Nemisis is definitely McCarthy.

        You’ll also find a reference page that links to my body of works. Go on read them, but you won’t understand them because you are a moron and morons can’t understand so don’t even try a control test. I save you the time. I am McCarthy. There proven and irrefutable.

        That, is the absurdity of your argument. That is it’s entire body of evidence and proof.
        It boils down to “Because I said so.”
        You are arrogant enough, but I have my doubts, as does everyone reading this. Which I doubt there are any other than the small pool of people betting on your responses.

      • WIth this post you have made a complete ass of yourself.

        It is nothing but one big straw man. You actually believe that you’ve proven something by erecting a straw man. That’s how pathetically moronic you are.

      • You have just made a complete ass out of yourself.

        This entire post is one big straw man. You really believe that you’ve proven something by constructing a straw man.

        This straw man has absolutely nothing to do with my proof as anyone who has read my proof can affirm.

        You’re quite a sleezeball.

      • You say that you have every doubt that I am not McCarthy. This means that you doubt that I am not McCarthy. In other words, it means that you are inclined to believe that I am McCarthy.

      • Why are you still posting to this thread? I have proven that every single one of your posts in response to me has been moronic. So, what is the point of your continuing to put up posts in this thread?

      • Nemisis

        Well, is it not obvious? I am generating a positive cash flow based on your responses. I have not hidden this from you. I have been very forthright with this information.

        You claimed to be a well respected leader of the big brain society.
        I never asked for this information you offered it and stated you provide proof. Then you took sometime to provide some “evidence” of your claim. That “evidence” would have been readily available to the person who you claim to be. This person referenced turns out to be a person that has had some mental stability issues and is no longer an active teacher. This casts doubts but does not disqualify the evidence.
        You can not or will not finish an equation based on the works of the claimed person and offer only “You can’t expect me to remember that.” as your excuse.
        You are easily distracted by non-topical minutia.
        So much so that the amount of time spent proving a word is not a synonym used in the context it was used in, began a debate on this end about the proper usage of the words and the result was consensus here that the definition of words used in the context of their use determine the definition of the word at it’s time of use. Thereby rendering the state of synonym-ism to be voided in order to prevent redundancy. In other words, they had your back defending you from redundancy. Unfortunately the successful defense was for naught, as it betrayed the error you made in insisting they were synonymous .
        There is numerous reasons I continue to post, beyond monetary gain.
        They shall remain a mystery to you as that is not topical to this discussion.
        In that you ask why, I proffer that you can not help yourself.
        Most trolls never last as long as you do. They simply give up and go away. You on the other hand have some stamina. Brought about by your ego and the fact that you’ve probably been told your wrong before people you encounter just give up because you are like the infallible “Sheldon” from Big Bang Theory, except your not likable.

        My take on McCarthy;
        McCarthy appears to have a brilliant mind when it comes to mathematics. In communicating these ideas he is not the best.
        His early works are actually better than his latter works in that his earlier works are more informative, while his later works while more complex in nature are harder for him to describe. Which maybe why there are more collaborative works later.
        McCarthy’s reviews are a bag of mixed nuts. High marks with low marks. His student reviews which end in 2012 nearly two years to the date, coupled with the news reports of McCarthy detailing his mental instability and the resultant disciplinary action by the college, confirm a progressive degeneration of McCarthy’s ability to function rationally.

        My take on you;
        You start with the inability to redress perceived errors in written communication. You fail to distinguish formal from informal.
        You fail to accept that a discussion forum is not meant as a debate forum. You do not recognize when you make an error and fail to take steps to eliminate the continual use of the error. You instead rely on your ability to ignore the obvious. As mentioned before you are easily distract and thus manipulated. Your patterns are well established, and quite predictable. An analogy of this is, you would make the same moves at the start of every game of chess.
        Your continual attempts to refute by defamation is the result of your arrogance and bemoans your lacking ability to communicate intelligibly.

        In that mannerism is the only trait you share with McCarthy.
        That alone does not equal you to McCarthy and thereby providing definitive identification.

        The fact that you read all of my posts, no matter the brevity or lack of indicates to me more than anything is that you must always be correct even at the expense of being actually correct.
        Relegating your responses from intelligent debate to childish bullying tactics rather than relying on fact.

        This is only my assessment of our encounter and should not be confused with informed analysis due to this being the internet and your trollish behavior on it.

      • mosquito

        You write: ” This person referenced turns out to be a person that has had some mental stability issues and is no longer an active teacher.” This is a bold faced lie. I am still an active member of the faculty, which means that I am an active professor (which you seem to prefer to call a teacher).

        You are obstinately incorrigible. I explained to you that whether or not two words are synonyms has absolutely nothing to do with how they are used in a sentence. Yet, you moronically insist that it does. You don’t have a clue as to what it means to say that two words are synonyms. That is an established fact.

        You’re full of crap, bigot and partisan are synonyms. Find yourself a good Thesaurus and confirm this.

        You write: “His early works are actually better than his latter works in that his
        earlier works are more informative, while his later works while more
        complex in nature are harder for him to describe. Which maybe why there
        are more collaborative works later.” This is complete fraud on your part. You have not got a clue as to how to compare my works, or to determine how hard it was for me to describe my works.

        You write: “and the resultant disciplinary action by the college, confirm a
        progressive degeneration of McCarthy’s ability to function rationally.” There was no disciplinary action by the college and there has not been progressive degeneration of my abilities. This is all an utter fantasy concocted in your degenerate mind.

        I am quite capable of recognizing when I made an error. That is how I was able to write flawless papers, by catching my errors and correcting them before submitting the papers for publication.

        I am known for being a person who pays careful attention to detail. This means that I do not miss the obvious, as you suggest that I do.

        You’re hopelessly self-deluded. Anyone following my posts in this thread knows that I have relied entirely on facts.

      • You’re a pathological liar. You are not betting on my posts.

      • Why do you have a comma after “That” in “That, is the absurdity of your argument.”? You’re learning disabled, aren’t you?

      • Nemisis

        That, comma, is what is called bait.
        I baited you because I knew you would focus on the minutia of anything other than the actual subject matter. I utilized a common error to illistrate my point to the persons observing this thread who are betting against my predictions. This was merely a demonstration to a newcomer who does not want to view the entire thread. Her loss. My task is to prevent you from finishing the equation. Their task is to hamper my attempts by casting rules upon my responses.

        For instance. I was required to use improper punctuation to illicit direct response to the punctuation, rather than rebuff the rest of the post.

        Had there been genuine betting I would have earned more money. As it was a demonstrative post I only earned a “Damn, that’s good.”

        Have you learned anything from any of this?
        Likely not, as you continue to make the same mistakes over and over. Finish the equation.
        Prove me wrong. Proving that you can finish the equation will cost me some money.

      • Your opening line is transparently a lie. The comma is not bait, it’s a result of your abysmal hold upon the English language.

        What is this word you made up: illistrate?

        Stop lying about earning money off of my responses.

      • I have proven that each of your posts in response to me is moronic. So, why are you still putting up posts in response to me?

        Answer this question or I’ll just ignore your banal posts.

      • What did I tell you about your moronic test?

        Did you learn anything from what I told you?

      • You are not baiting anyone. You are too dumb to be able to do that.

      • Every argument which I have given in this thread is a proof. Any intelligent reader can confirm this fact for himself. He does not need your help to do this.

        Whether my arguments are proofs is not a subjective issue. It is an objective issue. Hence, it is a settled issue. Any competent logician will confirm that these arguments are proofs.

        Since, as I have proven earlier, you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar, your opinion on this matter is worthless and untrustworthy. So, just keep your opinion to yourself. You’ll be wasting time if you share it with the rest of us.

      • Nemisis

        Continuing to say the same thing over and over is not an argument it is merely repeating the same mistake you made the very first time.

      • This is another one of your moronic straw men.

        i have only stated my proof once.

        Any intelligent reader can confirm that my argument is a proof.

        Your opinion on the matter is worthless and untrustworthy.

      • This is an embarrassingly obvious straw man. I have never made an argument by stating something over and over again. I have made a valid argument. Then I have appealed to its result over and over again. That is one of the reasons for making a valid argument, so that you can use it in future arguments to prove other assertions.

      • Nemisis

        Not till you complete the equation. It is not a matter of logic, it rather a matter of facts.

        The equation being finished establishes a fact.
        Your continual claim to have proven something that you have not done renders your argument void fact.

        The fact remains you can not complete the equation.
        Since McCarthy could complete the equation and you can not the logical conclusion, rendered by elimination is that you are not McCarthy.

        Go on, claim I am the liar, again. Say you have proven that you are McCarthy by doing something that anyone could have done, again.
        The fact is you have not proven anything.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you’ve demonstrated that you’re a moron. The only way that finishing the equation can establish a fact is by the use of logic. Yet you say “It is not a matter of logic…”. I truly have never met anyone as stupid as you.

        My arguments are proofs as any competent logician can confirm. There is no “Not till” involved. It’s already settled.

        I told you a long time ago that bald, unsubstantiated assertions accomplish nothing. That’s what you’ve got here, nothing.

        You’re a moron. You have no proof of either of your assertions. You have no proof that I can not complete the equation and you have no proof that McCarthy could complete the equation. All you have is bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which is nothing.

        The fact is that I have proven that I am McCarthy as any competent logician can confirm. All you have is a bald, unsubstantiated assertion that I didn’t do this. That is, you have nothing.

      • mosquito

        You write: “Since McCarthy could complete the equation and you can not the logical
        conclusion, rendered by elimination is that you are not McCarthy.” This conclusion, if it were valid, would not be “by elimination”. Elimination would be used after ruling out everyone else as being McCarthy to then conclude that the remaining person is McCarthy. Once again, you demonstrate that you have not got a clue about logic.

      • Nemisis

        No, you nickle plated fucktard, elimination starts with the people who claim to be McCarthy. You are the only one claiming to be McCarthy so I started with you. If someone else were to try to make the same claim I would have to verify their claim as well.
        Why start with you? It takes less time than to eliminate everyone else.
        However since you insist.

        The equation could be completed by McCarthy. The first person to complete the equation will have the most substantial claim to being McCarthy. There, you magnanimous failure. Everyone who is not McCarthy is now eliminated.

        Once again, you have been schooled. I should send you a bill.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you have once again proven yourself to be a moron. You have not got a clue as to what proof by elimination means, as I demonstrated by my post just before this post of yours. By your comment here, you obviously moronically think that proof by elimination means that you eliminated someone. That demonstrates what a moron you are.

        Your logic is atrocious. There is absolutely no reason why “the first person to complete the equation will have the most substantial claim to being McCarthy”. That assertion is patently false, which, once again, shows what a moron you are.

        I have never been schooled by you. I’ve proven every single one of your posts to be moronic.

      • Nemisis

        In the real world, where the rest of us live. There are many ways to eliminate someone. In this case the elimination referred to is the massive group of person claiming to be McCarthy. Since you are the only person claiming to be McCarthy, you are the only person who needs to be eliminated. Which has been accomplished.

        Since, you are not McCarthy and no one else is claiming to be McCarthy that means my task is over. I have made another ten bucks off your very predictable mental excrement. Coincidentally excrement is another form of elimination, and your only form of thought.

        You continue to prove only that you are worthless to society.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you’ve demonstrated what a moron you are. “In the real world, where the rest of us live.” is not a sentence, moron.

        You’ve again demonstrated that you don’t know what is proof by elimination. You obviously think that it means that you eliminated one or more people.

        You’re also quite moronic. You think that because I am the only person you know of who is claiming to be McCarthy that that implies that I am the only person claiming to be McCarthy. You’re quite a narcissistic idiot.

        You have also once again demonstrated that you have nothing. For that is what bald, unsubstantiated assertion is, nothing.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’re obviously missing the point. You are laboring under the stupid misconception that proof by elimination means that you have eliminated one of more things.

      • mosquito

        What a moron you are. Someone who is a magnanimous failure is magnanimous and, hence, not a failure. My God, you cannot do anything without failing.

      • mosquito

        You’re quite deranged. You believe that by saying “Everyone who is not McCarthy is now eliminated.” that everyone who is not McCarthy is now eliminated.

      • Nemisis

        I called you a magnanimous fucktard, you illiterate pissbag.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have demonstrated what a moron you are. A magnanimous fucktard, among other things is magnanimous. Hence, he is not a failure. Moreover, he’s not a fucktard. My God, you’re lacking a functioning brain.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Yes. So, in particular, you said that I am magnanimous. After all, a magnanimous fucktard is magnanimous, just as a green car is green. So, you called me magnanimous. Well, if I’m magnanimous, then I’m not a failure and I’m not a fucktard.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You obviously don’t understand what is proof by elimination. You clearly think that proof by elimination means that you have eliminated one of more things.

        You’ve got nothing, as you undoubtedly know.

        That is why you never substantiate your posts.

      • Yes, indeed, you are a liar. I proved that earlier.

        My proof that I am John D. McCarthy is not something anyone could have put forth. Only John D. McCarthy could have put forth that proof. If anyone else tried to put forth that proof, they would fail for one of two reasons. Either they would not understand that they were setting themselves up to be revealed as a fraud. Or, they would want to be revealed as a fraud.

        So, you’re full of crap.

      • Nemisis

        No, you said that earlier, it is not a proven thing.
        I however continue to prove you can not finish the equation, providing a strong base to the support the facts. You are therefore not as you claim.
        You are not McCarthy and you are not anything other than a troll.

        Go soak your head in petroleum, and have a smoke.
        That is the closest you will come to having a bright head on your shoulders.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have proven yourself to be a fool. You either cannot understand or refuse to acknowledge that all of my arguments in this thread have been proofs. Either way, you’re a fool.

        You have not got a clue as to what constitutes a proof. I have refuted every single one of your arguments. In particular, you have not proven that I can not finish the equation. All that you have done is make bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amounts to doing nothing.

        Your beating of your chest accomplishes nothing other than giving you a chance to demonstrate what an asshole you are.

      • Nemisis

        None of your arguments could ever be mistaken as proofs because they proof nothing. If your intention is to prove you are a trollish dumbass, then you have not failed.

        The equation, still not completed is your downfall.

      • mosquito

        Nonsense, any competent logician would readily confirm that all of my arguments are proofs. That you are either unable or unwilling to confirm that my arguments are proofs demonstrates what a moron you are.

      • mosquito

        You write: “they proof nothing.” “Proof” is not a verb, moron.

      • mosquito

        You write: “The equation, still not completed is your downfall.” Could you butcher the English language a little more? You have not destroyed it completely yet.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’re hopelessly self-deluded. My arguments are proofs. They all prove precisely what they aim to prove.

        I have no need of the equation, which is imbecilic. I have proven that I am John D. McCarthy. That settles that issue.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        It is definitely a proven thing, as any competent logician can confirm.

        You have no proof that I cannot finish the equation. All that you have is a bald, unsubstantiated assertion that I cannot. In other words, all you have is nothing.

      • Nemisis

        Maybe you should put down the crack pipe.

      • mosquito

        I have no crack pipe to put down, moron.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        I don’t have a crack pipe to put down.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        I’m glad to hear that you have every doubt that I am not McCarthy. That means that you doubt the statement that I am not McCarthy. In other words, you are inclined to believe that I am McCarthy. I’m glad to hear that. That represents real progress in our discussion with one another.

      • I’m glad that you have every doubt that I am not McCarthy. That implies that you doubt that I am not McCarthy. That implies that you are inclined to believe that I am McCarthy. That’s great. This represents real progress in our relationship.

      • Nemisis

        “You’re lying through your teeth. You have no doubt”

        As I stated before, I have doubts.

      • mosquito

        Nonsense. You know that my arguments are proofs because it is clear that they are proofs. You are just childishly denying that they are proofs.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        It doesn’t matter how many times you state that you have no doubts. I have previously proven that you are a liar. So, whatever you say, it has no significance.

      • Yes, I know that you stated it before. You were lying then and you’re lying now.

      • Stephen Barlow

        New? NO!

        What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had.

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • You have no proof that I am unable to complete your equation. You are just mindlessly asserting that I am unable to do that. When did you hear McCarthy “yammering on about how great he is”?

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your logic is atrocious. It doesn’t matter how much doubt you’ve raised. That never proves anything. The subjective state of people’s minds has no bearing whatsoever on whether an argument is valid or not.

      • You’re quite illogical. It does not matter how much doubt you give rise to you. This never defeats my claim that my arguments are proofs. Your logic is banal. You’re also addicted to word magic.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’ve got nothing whatsoever, as you know.

        That is why you have never substantiated any of your posts in response to me in this thread.

      • mosquito

        Call the number, sleezeball. Stop giving totally bogus excuses for doing what you know will shut your slimehole.

      • Nemisis

        Finish the equation & cite the article.

        ” C subscript 1 ( M, w )[sigma]= “

      • mosquito

        I’ve already responded to this. As you will recall, I pointed out that you are thoroughly moronic in asking this question.

      • mosquito

        You’re a lying package of manure. However, it’s obvious that you are this.
        You’re so stupid that you cannot even make up a credible lie.

      • By my proof, it is now established that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        You’ve proven you can’t finish the equation. That does not establish you as McCarthy.

      • You’re a moron. This last post is a straw man, a basic logical fallacy.

      • Nemisis

        Since the topic of this debate is “Are you McCarthy”
        It is not straw man at all. It is demanding proof of your pedigree. If you are McCarthy, you should be an expert on McCarthy. You have demonstrated through lack of ability that you are not.

        I am King Leonidas.
        Did that make me King Leonidas?
        King Leonidas is dead.
        That is the popular rumor, I assure you I am not dead.

        Under your arguments, using your logic, I have established two things of fact. I am not dead, and I am King Leonidas.

        Now, can we cut the bovine excrement and address the equation without further distraction?

      • It is most definitely a straw man. If you are too ignorant of logic to recognize it as such, that’s your problem, not mine.

        This last post of yours is also a straw man. You haven’t got a clue about logic.

      • You obviously don’t know what is a straw man. That’s not surprising. You have not got a clue about logic. You’re addicted to word magic.

      • When it comes to logic, you’re a moron.

        The fact that I have not finished your equation, does not imply that I can’t. That you missed this, demonstrates what a moron you are.

        Your second sentence is a straw man, one of the most elementary logical fallacies. The fact that you erected a straw man demonstrates how abysmal is your hold upon logic.

      • Nemisis

        When it comes to fact, logic is second place always.
        The facts are;
        You can not complete the equation.
        You have not completed the equation.
        You remain ignorant of McCarthy’s works to the point that you can not cite the article(s) the equation appears in.

        That is not logic, that is fact based solely on rules of observation. You are not McCarthy.
        When you add logic into the equation (get it) the sum is you are not McCarthy.

      • There is no argument that I can not complete the equation. You are just mindlessly asserting that I can’t do that.

        You have once again demonstrated a complete ignorance of logic. Your premise does not imply your conclusion.

      • Nemisis

        Actually that you do not complete the equation is a fact and a contention of mine to the argument of whether or not you are McCarthy.
        The continual use of “debate” terms established by you dictate that there is indeed a debate on the issue of you being McCarthy.
        The validity of your claim is critical to the debate.
        You can not or refuse to support your claim. Ergo, you are not McCarthy.

      • mosquito

        Your logic is abysmal. Your premise does not imply your conclusion. Don’t attempt to make a logical argument. You fail every time that you do.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your logic is atrocious. Your premises never imply your conclusion. That’s quite pathetic.

      • You’re very confused. The fact that I have not completed the equation has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I am McCarthy. The fact that you think that it does demonstrates that you have an abysmal hold upon logic. Your hopelessly addicted to word magic.

      • You’re very confused. You cannot establish the facts without using logic. So, logic is most definitely not second place. You’re hopelessly and pathetically addicted to the superstition of word magic.

      • Nemisis

        when it comes to completing the equation you have proved you are ignorant of the works of mccarthy and are not mccarthy by default

      • mosquito

        Your logic is abysmal. Your premise does not imply your conclusion.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your logic is atrocious. My not finishing the equation proves absolutely nothing about what I know about the works of mccarthy. Saying it does is like saying that the fact that Joe didn’t drive to Detroit proves that he knows nothing about Detroit. In other words, it’s not logical. It’s just plain stupid.

      • Guest

        Once again, you’ve proven that you have not got a clue about logic. Your premises never imply your conclusions. You’re brain dead.

      • Your logic is atrocious. I have not proven that I am ignorant of the works of McCarthy. You are just mindlessly asserting that I have. You’re addicted to word magic.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your logic is atrocious. My not finishing the equation proves absolutely nothing about whether I can finish the equation.

      • Your logic is atrocious. I’ve proven no such thing. Not finishing an equation in no way, shape, or form implies inability to finish that equation. The fact that you think that it does demonstrates what a moron you are.

      • I have not proven any such thing. You are just making the pathetically obvious logical mistake of concluding that not finishing something implies that you cannot finish it. You are quite stupid. You are also addicted to word magic.

      • mosquito

        You are a complete fraud.

        You write: “They are indeed complex ma thematic works.”

        Who do you think you’re fooling? You have not got a clue as to whether or not they are complex mathematical works, not a clue. You’re just putting on airs, as though you did.

        What a pathetic twerp you are.

      • Nemisis

        Dude, some of this shit is just algebra.

      • mosquito

        Don’t try to comment on the papers. You don’t have a clue as to what you are reading because you don’t know what the words mean. For example, you see the word algebra and you think it’s talking about the algebra you learned about in school. You have never come anywhere nears the algebra that it is talking about.

        Like I told you, you won’t be able to read the papers. That’s a fact, not my elitist opinion. How can you read a paper, when you don’t know the meaning of the words used in the paper?

      • Nemisis

        It’s still Algebra, with Physics duct-taped over the name. Okay, It’s Physics. Since you need it to sound better than what it is.

        Still no answer except that you ridiculed your own equation.
        Good job there professor.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you are a sleezeball. When you said algebra you meant the algebra which you learned in school. The algebra in the paper has nothing to do with that. Quit trying to make it look like you did not say something ignorant.

        You’re a moron. The algebra in the paper is not Physics. Mathematicians don’t do physics, moron.

        You’re a moron. I did not ridicule my own equation. You don’t know about what you are talking.

        You are a complete fraud. You keep trying to make it look like you know about what you are talking. But every time, I prove that you don’t. You’re a fraud. Quit committing fraud.

      • Nemisis

        “Mathematicians don’t do physics, moron.”

        Hmm…
        So these guys are full of shit too?

        Prominent mathematical physicists:

        Prominent contributors to the 20th century’s mathematical physics
        (although the list contains some typical theoretical, not mathematical, physicists and leaves many, many contributors out) include (ordered by birth date) Arnold Sommerfeld [1868–1951], Albert Einstein [1879–1955], Max Born [1882–1970], Niels Bohr [1885–1962], Hermann Weyl [1885–1955], Satyendra Nath Bose [1894–1974], Wolfgang Pauli [1900–1958], Werner Heisenberg [1901–1976], Paul Dirac [1902–1984], Eugene Wigner [1902–1995], John von Neumann [1903–1957], Sin-Itiro Tomonaga [1906–1979], Hideki Yukawa [1907–1981], Lev Landau [1908-1968], Nikolay Bogolyubov [1909–1992], Mark Kac [1914–1984], Julian Schwinger [1918–1994], Richard Feynman [1918–1988], Arthur Strong Wightman [1922–2013], Chen-Ning Yang [1922– ], Rudolf Haag [1922– ], Freeman Dyson [1923– ], Martin Gutzwiller [1925–2014], Abdus Salam [1926–1996], Jürgen Moser [1928–1999], Peter Higgs [1929– ], Michael Atiyah [1929– ], Joel Lebowitz [1930– ], Roger Penrose [1931– ], Elliott H. Lieb [1932– ], Sheldon Lee Glashow [1932– ], Steven Weinberg [1933– ], Ludvig D. Faddeev [1934– ], David Ruelle [1935– ], Yakov G. Sinai [1935– ], Vladimir Arnold [1937–2010], Arthur Jaffe [1937– ], Roman Jackiw [1939– ], Leonard Susskind [1940– ], Rodney J. Baxter [1940– ], Stephen Hawking [1942– ], Alexander M. Polyakov [1945– ], Barry Simon [1946– ], John L. Cardy [1947– ], Edward Witten [1951– ], and Juan M. Maldacena [1968– ]. The roots of mathematical physics can be traced back to the likes of Archimedes in Greece, Ptolemy in Egypt, Alhazen in Iraq, and Al-Biruni in Persia.

        I guess those assholes are just being mean and malicious. Doing stuff you say doesn’t happen.

        You suck at everything except sucking.
        So suck on it liar. “it” being truth.

      • mosquito

        Nemisis, you’re a complete fraud. Stop pretending that you understand things that you don’t.

        Mathematical physicists are not mathematicians. They are physicists. You might have gotten a clue about that, moron, when you read their title, mathematical physicists. Get it, they are physicists.

        My God, don’t you even know that Stephen Hawking is a physicist. I thought everybody in the civilized world knew that, moron.

        Come on. Stop this charade. You have not got a clue about just about anything. Go and clean some toilet bowls.

      • Nemisis

        So, you refuse to finish the equation based on the splitting of hairs of who does math. Okay.
        Back to the Algebraic Equation.

        So what if you think I could not understand the equation. It’s an equation you supposedly wrote.
        By the way the way the w is not a w it is the symbol for width in equations used in physics. So hence my confusion about it being algebra used by physics. Probably why you can’t remember what the equation is. Your not a mathematician. Your obviously not McCarthy. Just give it a rest. Liar.

      • mosquito

        You’re totally out to lunch. No, I do not “refuse to finish the equation based on the splitting of hairs of who does math”. What did I tell you about your ridiculous test?

        You write: “So hence my confusion about it being algebra used by physics.” My dear, if that’s your reason for being confused than you are more of a moron than I thought. Your skimming, not reading, a paper in a completely different discipline and you think that it might be talking about physics. That’s real brilliant, moron.

        As I have mentioned previously, since I have proven that you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar, your opinion of me is both worthless and untrustworthy. Is there something that’s escaping you about that fact? If not, then why do you keep wasting your time telling me your opinion of me?

      • mosquito

        You’re totally out to lunch. No, I do not “refuse to finish the
        equation based on the splitting of hairs of who does math”. What did I
        tell you about your ridiculous test?

        You write: “So hence my
        confusion about it being algebra used by physics.” My dear, if that’s
        your reason for being confused than you are more of a moron than I
        thought. You’re skimming, not reading, a paper in a completely different
        discipline and you think that it might be talking about physics. That’s
        real brilliant, moron.

        As I have mentioned previously, since I
        have proven that you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar, your opinion of
        me is both worthless and untrustworthy. Is there something that’s
        escaping you about that fact? If not, then why do you keep wasting your
        time telling me your opinion of me?

      • Nemisis

        You flat out refuse to finish the equation. Whatever my theory for the why of it is is irrelevant to the condition. The condition is you can not finish the equation.

        I don’t care if the formula is about making maps or explaining the drift of pollen in a slight breeze. I really do not need to understand what I read in the papers to recognize a particular equation that appears multiple times across a multitude of papers.
        Some would call it pattern recognition. To wit: I did not write the papers, I am not a mathematics scholar, yet I have the memory to recognize a repeating equation. So much so that by your own acknowledgement , that you could not possibly be expected to remember, I am more of an expert on the works of McCarthy than you, the self-proclaimed author of the works.

        Never the less, Algebra is still Algebra no matter how complex it is or is not.
        If you want a fancy name for it fine we shall call it McCarthy Algebra.
        According to McCarthy Algebra, finish the equation.

      • mosquito

        Your logic is abysmal. Your premises do not imply your conclusions. You’re just mindlessly asserting that they do.

        What did I tell you about your moronic test?

        You’re obstinately incorrigible. No, algebra is not still algebra no matter what. That’s as moronic as saying that a wave is a wave no matter what, whether it is light or water. I’ve explained this before to you and you remain as ignorant as you were before I explained it to you.

      • I gave a valid logical argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        No, you did not. You gave the same argumentArgumentum ad nauseam.

        Argumentum ad nauseam is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough.

      • You’ve just demonstrated that you are a moron. I gave an elementary proof and you cannot recognize that fact or you will not recognize that fact. Either way, you’re a moron.

      • Nemisis

        No, you have done nothing of the sort.
        Are you stomping your feet when you say “I am John D. McCarthy”? I would love to see that.

      • I need no childish tantrums. I proved that I am John D. McCarthy. And you know it. You are just childishly denying it.

      • Nemisis

        No, I am clearly stating my doubts. Your childish comprehension of my statement my be what is the root of the problem.

      • mosquito

        Nonsense, you are childishly denying that I proved I am John D. McCarthy. You know that I did this, because it is clear that my argument is a proof. But, you childishly deny this fact.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        No, you know that I proved what I proved. You’re just being a poor loser.

      • It is a sad thing, indeed, to watch a grown man sell his soul to the “demon” of word magic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!! Yada yada nada! What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had. You only have ONE response to EVERYTHING. You psychopathetic genderless robot.

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        I have no need to stomp my feet. My logical skills serve me perfectly.

      • You’re addicted to the superstition of word magic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        111What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had.

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        That’s completely false. I have not repeated a single one of my arguments in this thread. Using an argument repeatedly to prove different things, is not repeating an argument. If that were true, we could only use the associative law once to prove things.

      • Note that Argumentum ad nauseam is not the process of repeating a proof. A professor does that semester after semester. Argumentum ad nauseam is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong in repeating a proof. What is wrong is believing that this makes what you are proving true, rather than that the proof which is being repeated making it true. Once again, you’ve proven that you have not got a clue about logic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had.

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        No, algebra is not still algebra no matter how complex it is. That’s like saying a wave is a wave no matter whether it is a wave on the beach or a wave of light. The two things are not the same thing. They are only analogous.

      • You have no proof that I cannot finish the equation. You are just mindlessly asserting that I can’t. You’re addicted to word magic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        1 Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion. 1

      • I gave a flawless logical argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        No, I do not “refuse to finish the equation based on the splitting of hairs of who does math”.

      • I gave a flawless argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’re silly. All of these names are names of mathematical physicists. So, they are physicists. You might have gotten a clue about that from their title, mathematical physicist.

        So, these names are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

        My dear, I thought everyone knew that Stephen Hawking was a physicist.

      • I gave an airtight argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        Now you’re just going through and posting that same lazy argument.

      • Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I only posted my proof once.

      • Nemisis

        Your memory is lax.
        You just keep saying you are correct because you said so.

      • mosquito

        Nonsense, I have never said any such thing. You’re making this shit up as you go along. You’re a pathological liar. The reason why I’m correct is because I proved that I’m correct. Any intelligent person can verify that my arguments are proofs.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your lying. I never once tried to establish something by just repeating.

        I have established assertions and then used them subsequently. After all, that is one of the reasons for establishing an assertion; so that you can use it later in arguments.

      • Your memory is lax. I have never said that I am correct because I said so. My position on my correctness has been consistent throughout this thread. Namely, I have pointed out that any competent logician will confirm that my arguments are proofs. You’re a pathological liar.

      • You’re a pathological liar. You know that I never did any such thing. My position on the correctness of my proof has been consistent. Namely, I have said that any competent logician can readily confirm that all of my arguments in this thread are proofs.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Is this new? NOT!!!!

        What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had.

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        I’ve not posted any lazy arguments.

        You’ve got absolutely nothing. You’re position is entirely bankrupt. You never get a single one of your posts right.

        Give it up. It’s pathetic watching you make a complete fool of yourself.

      • I have made no lazy argument. You’re addicted to word magic.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        No, it’s not physics at all. You are just taking stabs in the dark in a futile effort to make it look like you know about what you are talking. You don’t have a clue about what you are talking.

        You’re silly. I didn’t ridicule anything except you.

      • I gave an incontrovertible argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You don’t have a clue about what you are talking. You think that the paper is talking about the algebra you learned in school. The algebra in the paper has nothing whatsoever to do with the algebra you learned in high school. To identify these two usages of the term algebra is as stupid as identifying an actual

        wave with light considered as a wave. The two things are merely analogous, not of the same nature.

      • mosquito

        You are quite moronic. You write: ” I find there may be some in the field that have used some of the theories and not cited these works.” Once again, you’ve proven that you are a fraud. There are no theories in my papers. You’re a lying sack of manure.

      • I demonstrated by an incontrovertible argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • You’re a pathological liar. My published papers are not collaborative works. Only some of those papers are collaborative works. You’re a pathetic sleezeball.

      • You’re a pathological liar. You are not reading my papers. You cannot read my papers. You don’t know what the technical terms in these papers mean.

        You write that these papers are indeed “complex ma thematic works”. There is no such thing as a “ma thematic work”. Moreover, you don’t have a clue what would make a mathematical work complex.

        You’re just putting on airs, trying to make yourself look like you know about what you are talking. You have not got a clue about what you are talking. That’s a fact.

        Here’s confirmation of that fact. You write: ” I find there may be some in the field that have used some of the theories and not cited these works.” There are no theories in these papers, moron.

        You write: “That could be due concurrent efforts.”. Overlooking the fact that this is tortured English, this is a thoroughly ridiculous attempt at an explanation.

        I don’t believe that I have ever before met someone as stupid as you.

      • mosquito

        Go back to the web page of the Department of Mathematics at Michigan State University.

        Look up the phone number for John D. McCarthy.

        Call that phone number.

        John D. McCarthy will confirm that he is the mosquito who has been posting to this thread on Disqus about the topic that liberals are more constitutional than conservatives.

      • Nemisis

        Always talk about yourself in the 3rd person?

      • mosquito

        I’m talking about John D. McCarthy because you are so filled with malice toward me that you don’t believe that I am him. You’re a thoroughly despicable person, driven by totally unprovoked malice.

      • Nemisis

        You have not proven you are him.
        Finish your own equation.
        That is not so tough to do, if you are indeed McCarthy. Since you are not, you can not.
        That makes you a liar. There is no malice in that.
        It’s just a fact. The world needs liars so the honest people can say, “I sure am glad I’m not a liar.”

        “unprovoked malice”
        Again there is no malice. Malice would imply that I am doing this out of revenge or anger. I’m not mad at you. Even when you call me “moronic, ignoramus, an asshole, a fucking asshole, a fucking liar, a bigot, a partisan.”
        That last one I just don’t get often points to you for originality.

        Yep, I think we’re here done till you finish the equation. Till then little liar, enjoy the stares.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you’ve proven that you are a moron with your strings of illogical assertions.

        You are also showing that you are a liar. Your malice is transparent, despite your lying about not having malice toward me.

        That you don’t understand my calling you partisan, but you do understand my calling you a bigot demonstrates how moronic you are. The two words are synonymous.

      • Nemisis

        “That you don’t understand my calling you partisan, but you do understand
        my calling you a bigot demonstrates how moronic you are. The two words
        are synonymous.”

        You claim moronic and partisan are synonyms?

        That is what you appear to be saying.

        You are truly a ignorant person when it comes to words. A synonym is word that means the same as another word. Those two words have no relation to each other at all. The don’t even have the same origins.

        New instruction set.

        Here is your data set.

        089 111 117 032 102 097 105 108

        Your task is to convert the ascii codes to text.

      • mosquito

        You’re a moron. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I said that bigot and partisan were synonymous, moron. That fact comes directly from a Thesaurus.

      • Nemisis

        How are you dealing with Literal now meaning figurative as well, it’s literally a paradox.

        Now I can say, “You literally are an ass.” and it could mean anything.

        Your arguments are not only off topic they are intellectually dishonest.

        The equation awaits your completion.

      • mosquito

        Literal does not now mean figurative as well. And the suggestion that it is is no paradox, it’s just childish nonsense.

        No, you cannot say “You literally are an ass.” unless you want to make clear what is true, namely, that you’re an ass. And, if you said it it would not be that it could mean anything; it would just be nonsense.

        My arguments are not at all intellectually dishonest. Yours on the other hand are most definitely intellectually dishonest. You try to deceive everyone into believing you have a functioning brain when it is an established fact that you don’t. That’s quite dishonest of you.

        What did I tell you about your unbelievably moronic test?

      • mosquito

        You’re a lying sack of manure. But, you’re so stupid that it’s obvious that you are lying. You’re too stupid to make a credible lie.

      • mosquito

        Literal does not now mean figurative as well. And the suggestion that it does is no paradox, it’s just childish nonsense.

        No,
        you cannot say “You literally are an ass.” unless you want to make
        clear what is true, namely, that you’re an ass. And, if you said it it
        would not be that it could mean anything; it would just be nonsense.

        My
        arguments are not at all intellectually dishonest. Yours on the other
        hand are most definitely intellectually dishonest. You try to deceive
        everyone into believing you have a functioning brain when it is an
        established fact that you don’t. That’s quite dishonest of you.

        What did I tell you about your unbelievably moronic test?

      • I proved by an elementary argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        You’ve proven nothing.

        You have proven that you do not know that ropes have a beginning and an end. You can make a rope seem continuous yet it still has a beginning and an end. Steel rope may have the ends welded but still there is a beginning and an end. Let’s play semantics some more.

        Face it you have word problems.

        Pop quiz just for fun. A different type of word problem.

        You are given 10 data sets, each set contains an odd number.

        what is the result of any calculation on the data sets.
        You may chose any operator. That operator is applied to all the sets.

        Show your work please. Proof your results.
        Kinda anal, but if you are McCarthy there is no chance you have not victimized your students with that.

      • Once again, you have demonstrated that you are a moron. Every time you put up a post, you demonstrate that you don’t know about what you are talking.

        I have proven everything that I tried to prove. Any competent logician will readily confirm this fact. So, you’re full of crap.

        You lost the argument about ropes having a beginning and an end.

        You’ve devised another moronic test.

        You’re a moron. You write “Proof your results.” Proof is not a verb, moron.

        Your assertion about what I would have done to victimize my students is embarrassingly moronic.

      • You’re obstinately incorrigible. It is possible to construct a rope with no beginning or end. There is nothing semantical about this fact.

        You’ve got nothing, as you well know.

        That is why you never substantiate your posts.

      • You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic.

        You’re obstinately incorrigible. It is possible to make a rope that has no beginning or end. This is obvious.

        This has nothing whatsoever to do with semantics.

        You’re addicted to word magic. I never give my students such puzzles. All of my classes are devoted to what is in the textbook. These textbooks don’t include any such puzzles.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’ve got nothing, as you know for certain.

        That is why you never try to substantiate your assertions.

      • I gave an irrefutable argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        Cut & paste the code into a search engine.

        McCarthy could finish the equation.
        You refuse to or can not finish the equation.
        Your refusal casts doubt, lending credence to “you can not” therefore you have been refuted.

      • What did I tell you about your unbelievably moronic test?

      • Nemisis

        You have said much and done little.
        Finish the equation. Then you will have said much for such a little thing.

      • You’re hopelessly self-deluded. I have done much. I have refuted every single post you’ve put up in this thread.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        No, you are the one who has said much and done little. In fact, you have said much and done nothing. Everything which you have said in this thread, in response to me, is now in the trash bin, having been ruled illegitimate, since it is unsubstantiated. So, you have yet to contribute anything to this discussion.

      • No, you have said much and done nothing. For bald, unsubstantiated assertions and straw men amount to nothing. You’re addicted to word magic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had.

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.1

      • Even if doubt has been cast lending credence to you can not, your therefore would be moronic. Your therefore basically says what you’ve tried to assert before, that if people think that I’m lying, it follows that I’m lying. Even an idiot knows that that line of reasoning is moronic. You’ve not refuted anything that I have said. That you don’t realize this demonstrates that, when it comes to logic, you have not got a clue.

      • Nemisis

        We’ve reached an impasse. You are not McCarthy and refuse to offer viable evidence by citing your own work.
        Everything you’ve “established” falls to credibility of witness. You offer no testimony other than “take my word”. You have not proved you are McCarthy.
        Given ample time to do so, your refusal to do, stems from the logical conclusion, reachable by any common person, that you are not McCarthy.
        Therefore, you are not.
        Which is what makes you a liar.
        Finish the equation. That removes a contention of mine.
        That act would shift the balance to your favor on this point. I suggest you take this premise down the hall, and seek a Doctorate in English to smack you in the head. I am positive there are a few waiting who would gladly oblige you.

      • No, we have not reached an impasse. I defeated you soundly a long time ago.

        I am McCarthy as I proved definitively earlier in this thread.

        Nothing I’ve established can fail in its credibility. Such is the nature of a proof.

        No logical person could beliieve that I am not John D. McCarthy once they have read my proof that I am.

        Nothing which I have written in this thread implies that I am a liar. You are just mindlessly asserting that I am..

        You’re quite a moron. No Doctorate in English could smack me in the head. No Doctorate in any subject could smack me in the head. Once again, you’ve proven that you don’t know about what you are talking. Also, no Doctorate could be waiting for me. Doctorates are incapable of waiting, as are all inanimate objects, moron.

        Just stop talking. You haven’t got a clue about what you are talking.

        Why are you still posting to this thread? Every single post which you’ve posted has been proven to be moronic. So, what’s the point?

      • Nemisis

        If you are mccarthy, then why do you continue to exhibit the same unintelligible method of communication

      • mosquito

        You’re hopelessly confused. There is nothing unintelligible about my communication. If you don’t understand me, it’s because you are stupid, not because I am unintelligible.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        There is nothing unintelligible about my method of communication. If you don’t understand what I write, it is not because of any failure on my part to communicate. Rather, it has something to do with your intellect.

      • My communication is eminently intelligible. If you don’t understand it, then that is because you are incredibly dumb.

      • We have not reached any impasse. I won this debate a long time ago. And you have not scored a single point in this debate, since all your assertions are unsubstantiated.

        A Doctorate in English cannot smack anyone in the head. Inanimate objects are not capable of smacking anyone in the head.

      • Nemisis

        Wrong, I do not think you are lying, I am convinced. Thereby morphing thought to belief. It’s fundamental.

      • mosquito

        You missed my point entirely. You really are quite stupid.

      • mosquito

        You are not at all convinced that I am lying. On the contrary, you know that I am not. You know this, because it is as clear as can be that my arguments are proofs.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’re such a bullshit artist. Belief is thought.

      • You’re quite stupid. Belief is thought.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your logic is atrocious. My not finishing the equation does not lend any credence to the assertion that I cannot finish the equation. That’s like saying that the fact that Joe hasn’t visited his mother in five year lends credence to the conclusion that he cannot visit his mother. In other words, it’s not logical. It’s just plain stupid.

      • You have not refuted anything. Even if you had cast doubt on my statement, that would not refute me. You have not got a clue about logic. You’re addicted to word magic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        1What’s painful is being humiliated in the only safe place you thought you had.

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I was obviously talking about partisan and bigot being synonymous.

      • I proved by an elementary argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • I proved by a simple argument that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Since you bear so much malice toward me that you don’t accept my claim to be John D. McCarthy, I talk about John D. McCarthy rather than just me.

      • I established incontrovertibly that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        Finish the equation, cite the article.

        ” C subscript 1 ( M, w )[sigma]= ”

        Bear in mind this is very ugly due to the constraints of the formatting options on Disqus.

      • mosquito

        You’re an unbelievably moronic person.

        You have not got a clue as to what it takes to prove an original mathematical theorem. It takes tremendous concentration. Once finished, it does not take long before one loses the train of thought that went into proving the theorem. To ask someone several years later to recall that train of thought is ridiculous.

        It would be like taking a sentence fragment out of Dicken’s Great Expectations and asking him to complete the sentence and cite the work. In other words, it’s laughably idiotic.

        You have never in your life come anywhere near formulating such a complex train of thought. You can’t even write down one sentence which is logically correct, never mind a thirty page proof.

        Go back to the web page of the Department of Mathematics of Michigan State University. Look up the phone number for John D. McCarthy. Call that number. He will confirm that he is mosquito.

      • mosquito

        You’re a lying package of manure. But, it’s obvious that you are this. You’re so stupid that you cannot even make up a credible lie.

      • I deduced without any error that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • mosquito

        That’s very strange. You say that my claim hasn’t happened. If my claim hasn’t happened, then how do you know about my claim. When did I make this claim? Well, that’s when my claim happened. Boy, you really are quite stupid, aren’t you?

      • Nemisis

        Do you not understand the concept of time?
        Let me cover the basics for you.

        Time a function of nature to prevent the simultaneous occurrence of everything.

        It is quite clear and unmistakeable that most people who can read understand that this post is a reply to your post. This post is posted some time after your post. At the time of this writing your post is five hours ago. Your post is a reply to my post of 3 days ago.
        Hence the astonishing wrongness and utter failure of your post.

        Now be quiet I am working on something you will love or hate dependent on if you are McCarthy.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you’ve shown yourself to be a bullshit artist.

        There is no such thing as the simultaneous occurrence of everything. Your thinking that there is demonstrates that you have not got a clue as to what the word occurrence means.

        By the way, moron. “Time a function of nature to prevent the simultaneous occurrence of everything.” is not a sentence. And you tell me that I have problems with the English language.

        When I post my posts has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the posts are right or wrong. You are so full of shit, it’s unbelievable.

      • I demonstrated that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • You’ve got nothing, as you certainly know.

        That is why you never make even a feeble attempt to substantiate your assertions.

      • There is no such thing as the simultaneous occurrence of everything. You obviously don’t know what the term occurrence means.

      • I gave a proof that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • mosquito

        You
        write: “The very fact that you re-assert that your failures are not
        failure is more evidence of your failures.” This assertion demonstrates
        that you’re a moron. The premise of this assertion does not imply the
        conclusion of it. The fact that you think that it does demonstrates that
        you are a moron.

      • mosquito

        You wrote: “Either you provide them as you promised or that will be proof of your lies about yourself.
        Which
        means you failed again.” Once again, you’ve proven that you’re a moron.
        The premise of this assertion does not imply its conclusion. The fact
        that you believe that it does demonstrates that you are a moron.

      • mosquito

        You are a deeply disturbed individual. You keep coming back for a pummeling. What pleasure do you get from being pummelled?

      • mosquito

        Stop
        lying about getting money from betting on my responses. You’re not
        getting any such money. Your assertion that you are is another one of
        your bald, unsubstantiated assertions and, moreover, a bald faced lie.

      • Nemisis

        $25 bucks more because you think I’m not winning, “getting money”, bets based only on your predictable responses. Interesting on this is I did not win the pool on how long before you rejected the betting.

        Liar, where are the writings?
        Did your dog eat them and excrete them?
        Did you forget what journals they were in?
        Let me help you with that.
        Your writings are published in i-ˌma-jə-ˈnā-shən Daily.

        Do you always lie, or do you only lie when your awake? Nah, I bet you lie about sleeping too.
        You lay awake and think about the next moment you will be able to call someone a moron. Which makes you feel better. However since you lie, and you call people morons, they really are not morons are they?
        They are not morons, because you lied about that too. Since most liars lie to deflect the truth every time you call someone a moron you are deflecting your true feelings of admiration. That’s kinda weird.

        Maybe if you got a high colonic you could produce those writings.

        Dance some more, give us a show tiny dancer.

      • mosquito

        As I have pointed out previously, what you think about me is worthless since, as I have proven previously, you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar.

        My statement that you are a moron cannot be a lie because I proved that statement. The fact that you are too moronic to follow my proof does not imply that it is not a proof. It is a proof, as are my proofs that you are a fraud and a liar, as any competent logician can confirm.

        You are thoroughly self-deluded, a pathetically quixotic individual.

      • mosquito

        You write: “Since most liars lie to deflect the truth every time you call someone a
        moron you are deflecting your true feelings of admiration.” This conditional statement isn’t even close to being valid. Your premise says absolutely nothing about true feelings of admiration. So, the conclusion cannot say anything about true feelings of admiration. I’m not kidding. You are truly a moron. I’m not just saying this to hurt your feelings. I’m being totally honest. You are truly a moron. Find something else to do with your time. You have absolutely no ability to construct a valid argument. I’m serious. I’m not exaggerating. You have absolutely no ability to construct a valid argument. Your IQ is around 51-70, right? You’re learning disabled, aren’t you? Your reading comprehension is abysmal. You’ve never scored well on reading comprehension, have you?

      • Nemisis

        Let’s not bring my I.Q. into this as it would be unfair to you since you’ve established that you have the intellect of a carrot. Your acceptance of the implication was construed by your no contest to it the first time I broached your vegetative state.

        Actually my premise does say something about your true feelings of admiration. Your using deflection statements via lying to deflect their detection.

        There is a distinct possibility that should you be McCarthy, you will or you won’t like what I am setting up to see if you are McCarthy.
        Since you refuse to finish the equation.

        If your not McCarthy…Well then random fun.
        If you are McCarthy, there really is no way you will not comment in this thread and then I will know.

        Dance little monkey.

      • mosquito

        You’re hopelessly self-deluded. I have not established that I have the intellect of a carrot. Anyone of any intelligence comparing our posts in this thread would necessarily conclude that I am a man of eminent intelligence and you have an abysmally low IQ.

        Once again, you’ve shown that you have not got a clue about logic. You cannot construe that I accepted your moronic implication by my not challenging it the first time you made it. No such implication follows from that, despite your moronic, empty, bald, unsubstantiated assertion.

        Give it up. You never have anything.

        By the way moron, “Your using deflection statements via lying to deflect their detection.” is not a sentence. You fail at everything you try.

        You’re thick as I brick. You already know that I am John D. McCarthy. Yet you speak as if you don’t know. That demonstrates what a liar you are.

      • Nemisis

        Actually, it is a sentence. It’s actually proof that you have word problems. I got another fiver because you responded to the carrot intellect thing,
        ( Happy WP? I accept paypal)

        Have fun being a desk jockey.

      • No, it most definitely is not a sentence. Take a closer look, idiot. You’re also a liar. You got no “fiver”. I am no desk jockey. You’re a pathological liar who believes that by saying something he makes it become true.

      • Nemisis

        “You’re a pathological liar who believes that by saying something he makes it become true.”

        “I deduced that I am John D. McCarthy.”

        Hmmm. You might have a point there.
        I really must insist you refrain from helping me defeat you.

        WP, I’ve sent the fiver back. You were right.

      • I’m not helping you defeat me.

      • It is pathetic to watch a word magic addict.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        There is no proof that I have word problems.

      • You have not got a clue about proofs. You have not offered anything remotely resembling a proof. You’re not betting on my posts. You are just moronically claiming that you are. You’re addicted to word magic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        11

      • I deduced that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        You deduced? Indubitably So? Are you positive?
        What if you’ve made an error?
        Is that the equivalent of “I think therefore I am.”
        Determinately so.
        Therefore, you think you are McCarthy.
        Have you ever been Napoleon?

        Say something only McCarthy would say.

        Like finish the equation related to his works.

        Do his voice while you do it.
        It’s al al al al always a la la laugh.

      • Yes, I’m positive. It is a very brief argument. It’s not rocket science to check its validity.

        I have been checking proofs for validity for thirty years. I know what I am doing.

      • Nemisis

        Then why do you keep making the same mistakes?

      • I have not made any mistakes.

      • Nemisis

        your very first post was your very first mistake

      • mosquito

        Nonsense, I have not made any mistakes in this thread.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I have not made any logic mistakes in this thread.

      • I have not made any logical mistakes in this thread.

      • I have made no logical mistakes in this thread. You’re sadly and hopelessly addicted to the superstition of word magic.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        Yes, I deduced it indubitably. My dear, the proof is about four to five steps long. It’s not exactly rocket science to verify its validity. Well, for you it’s rocket science, but I’m talking about people with a brain.

      • Yes, I deduced the result in question indubitably. I am positive. Give me a break. The proof is about five lines long. It’s not exactly rocket science to check its validity. You’re hopelessly and pathetically chained to the superstition of word magic.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        I’m correct, right. Your I.Q. is around 51-70? And, you’re learning disabled.

      • You’re pathetically addicted to word magic.

      • I established that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • Nemisis

        No published writings still. Liar.

      • mosquito

        No, as I proved earlier, you are the liar.

        Again, your opinion of me is worthless, because you are a moron, a fraud, and a liar, as I have definitively proved previously.

        Go to the web page of the Department of Mathematics at Michigan State University.

        Look up my web page under me, John D. McCarthy.

        From that web page look for publications/reprints. This will take you to the list of my publications.

        Also, from that web page look up my Curriculum Vitae. This will confirm that I got my Ph. D. from Columbia University and served as a Postdoc Moore Instructor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

      • I gave an irrefutable proof that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        You’ve got nothing, as you very well know.

        That is why you never substantiate your posts.

      • Nemisis

        You wrote:

        “My writings have a celebrated reputation of being excellent. They would not be published in some of the best mathematical journals in the world if they were not. I can provide references if you so desire. But, you would not have a clue as to what these writings are about, moron.

        I am eminently respected.”

        Wrong, because you lied. Nobody respects a liar.
        I assert, that you are a liar. I offer you as my proof.
        You fail again to provide the promised writings in the best mathematical journals in the world.
        Are they “In the world” and that’s why you can not get them? They surrounded by the Earth’s mantel?
        Or did you mean “on the world”? Never mind,
        that was a rhetorical question because you are a liar.
        Your not a Phd., you never went to Columbia, you are at best a hack, spell check is your dictionary, you are not respected because you are trollish and a liar.

        As a human, you suck. As a sentient life form, you suck. Your only friend lacks choice. You lied to me, my little marionette. You lied to everyone. The longer you go without posting your alleged writings the more people reading this come to accept that you are a liar.
        Logically since liars lie, they can not ever be trusted to be telling the truth. Therefore everything you have stated is a LIE. You will never be a real boy.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have proven yourself to be a moron.

        You write: “Wrong because you lied.”. Nothing which I have written in this thread implies that I am a liar. Yet you say that I lied. This implies that you are a liar. You have no conscience. You will accuse someone of being a liar even though you have no airtight case that he is a liar. So, I have proven that you are a liar. Anyone who bears witness to something that he is not a witness of is a liar. So, you’re a liar. That’s not my opinion. That’s an established fact, established by the proof which I just gave.

        You write: I assert, that you are a liar. Why do you have a comma after “assert”, moron?

        This is not surprising. This is the same logical mistake that I have been pointing out to you throughout this entire thread. You’ll never learn.

        Your opinion about me and, for that matter, about anything is totally worthless. I have proven repeatedly that you are a moron and a fraud (and, hence, a liar) and I just proved above that you are a liar. So, your opinions are totally worthless and totally untrustworthy.

        So, your entire post just got thrown into the trash, with all other empty vacuous meanderings.

      • mosquito

        You’re a total moron. You could not make a logically correct argument if your life depended upon it. Your argument above is totally illogical. Even if I were a liar, which I am not, it would not follow, as you claim it does, that everything which I have stated is a lie. You are totally inept at logic.

      • I definitely proved that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        The references which I have for my works leave you in the dust. Your opinion about my works is not worth anything.

      • Nemisis

        Where are your published works?
        You said you would provide them if desired.
        I desire. Post them monkey.

      • mosquito

        Visit the web site of the Mathematics Department at Michigan State
        University and look up me, John D. McCarthy. When you get to my page you
        will find relevant things like my Curriculum Vitae and my publication
        list (reprints). The Curriculum Vitae will confirm that I got my Ph. D.
        from Columbia and that I served as a Postdoc at the Massachusetts
        Institute of Technology.

      • I actually proved that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • I proved that I am definitely John D. McCarthy.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        No, I’m correct.

        You’ve got nothing, as you well know.

        That is why you never substantiate your posts.

      • mosquito

        You’re wrong again, moron.

        Bona fide – Merriam-Webster Online

        You’re thick as a brick. You never answered my question. You answered another question that you made up. That’s a fact. You never even came close to answering my question. If you weren’t so infatuated with your own thoughts, then you would figure out what was my question and then see that you never answered it. But, you’re too occupied with contemplating your navel, you narcissistic moron.

      • I proved that I am John D. McCarthy.

      • jamesfitzgerald

        My correction to you was valid. Your attempt at refutation is gibberish.

      • mosquito

        Visit the web site of the Mathematics Department at Michigan State University and look up me, John D. McCarthy. When you get to my page you will find relevant things like my Curriculum Vitae and my publication list (reprints).

      • U N Owen

        The same John McCarthy that ripped off his clothes and ran out of the classroom screaming ‘There is no fucking God?’ That would explain sooooo much.

      • mosquito

        You wrote: “The same John McCarthy that ripped off his clothes and ran out of the classroom screaming ‘There is no fucking God?'” That’s not a sentence, moron.

        It is fucking bigots like you who are the reason why mental illness still has a stigma attached to it. Your ilk is thoroughly ignorant.

        People who have mental breakdowns quite often, with today’s powerful care, recover from the event as have I. There is nothing wrong with me.

        You’re comments are just incredibly ignorant taking of a cheap shot. Moreover, they demonstrate that you are thoroughly illogical, since your premise does not imply your conclusion, moron.

      • I1dirY

        I apologize for the snide comment. It was uncalled for. My niece happened to be in that class and was rather traumatized by the event. I do hope you are doing better.

      • mosquito

        I accept your apology.

        I am sorry that my behavior traumatized your niece.

        Why do you characterize my behavior in this thread as though it were that of a madman? My involvement in this thread has been consistently characterized by giving valid logical arguments to establish every assertion I make. That’s hardly the stuff of a madman. It’s the stuff of a thoroughly rational individual.

      • I1dirY

        Again, it was a stupid comment and a lame attempt at humor. I should know better as I myself struggle with depression. I in no way would consider you a madman. I may not appreciate your propensity to berate the intelligence of others and your overuse of the word moron but that may just be your style. I have enjoyed a few of your papers and it’s likely we have more than a few mutual acquaintances. I am not in the mathematics field myself but I do love the maths. I have not been fortunate enough to have received formal training but am currently pursuing self study in differential geometry and am familiar with some of the work you’ve done with Prof Wolfson. Again, I apologize for my callous remarks and sincerely hope you are doing well.

      • mosquito

        Are you studying with Prof. Wolfson? Who are our other mutual acquaintances, or who do you think are our mutual acquaintances?

      • I1dirY

        I am studying on my own. I just suggest that we may have mutual acquaintances as I know a few people at MIT that may have been colleagues of yours David Jerison, Sanjay Mahajan and Roman B.

      • mosquito

        I don’t go around berating the intelligence of others indiscriminately. I only go around exposing blowhards and frauds by demonstrating that they are not the intellectuals they try to pass themselves off as being. I think that blowhards and frauds are despicable people and deserve to have a dressing down.

      • You’ve shown yourself to be a partisan bigot. People like you are the reason why mental illness still has a stigma attached to it. You’re quite pathetically ignorant.

      • mosquito

        No, Nemisis, you’re the one who’s confused by conversation. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. EK is not stating any call.

      • I proved that I am John D. McCarthy

      • pcChuck

        The answer to your question is self evident, but I’ll explain it to you since you don’t seem to get it. The topic is “Five Ways Liberals Are Much More Constitutional Than Conservatives.” Eg Kbbs stated “Add to the list (of ways that liberals are more Constitutional than conservatives) that for about 5 years now” (A measure of time taken by the earth to occupy the same position in space relative to the sun for more than 4 but less than 6 times. The modifier about makes this an approximation of that time which (coincidently?) corresponds to the length of time Barack Obama has been president.), “conservatives have been calling for their states to secede from the country.” (people that hold generally regressive and anti-liberal views are suggesting that the physical states (I shall refrain from commenting on their mental states) in which they reside should divorce themselves from the United States of America.)
        Now I will admit that there has always been talk of secession by some people. For most of the last 150ish years however, this talk has been considered an idea of crackpots and fringe elements. In the last 5 or so years, the idea of secession has become a more widespread, almost mainstream conservative meme. One really never hears of liberals endorsing secession. Although many would not really complain if certain states (Oddly, never their own and I won’t mention any names) could be culled from the pack. Secession would still be almost unanimously considered unconstitutional by liberals and by the majority of conservatives as well I’m sure.

        Anyway, I’m pretty sure that’s what the hell Eg Kbbs meant.

      • mosquito

        pcChuck, you basically did the same thing that Nemisis did. Namely, you answered a question which you made up. You did not even begin to answer the question which I asked. Is your reading comprehension really that poor that you don’t even know what I asked? I was as explicit as one can be about my question. How did you end up out to lunch about my question?

      • I1dirY

        I think that pcChuck is pointing out that the rest of us are commenting on a Forward Progressives post that’s titled “5 Ways Liberals are More Constitutional Than Conservatives” in which there is a list. In that context, the meaning of EgKbbs post is rather clear.

      • mosquito

        I’ve waited for a while now and no one has answered my question. My question is: what does “Add to the list that for about 5 years now,” mean? People have told me what Eg Kbbs’ post means, but they have not told me what the above phrase means. Now, I know what it means to say “Add to the list that John is fat,”. But I have not got a clue as to what it means to say “Add to the list that for about 5 years now,”. I’ll give you a hint. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s a child of tortured English on the part of Eg Kbbs. This English can be easily repaired but it’s nonsense as it is written.

      • I’m pretty sure that this is the intended sentence:

        Add to the list that, for about 5 years now, conservatives have been calling for their red states to secede from the country.

        A properly placed comma makes a world of difference.

      • Allan Finkelstein

        As demonstrated by the Missing Comma in the 2nd Amendment!!!

    • reversalmushroom

      Well, yeah, when liberals start changing everything and taking away things that you love and putting in a bunch of things you hate, that’s the natural reaction. Liberals say they love America too, but if that’s true, why are they always trying to get rid of the things that make America America?

      • Bill_Clement

        That’s a truly inane thing to say. Please name one thing. Please.

      • SOMEGUY7893 .

        Remember, Conservatives want us to follow 200 year old laws and realize what that means. They hate change.

      • reversalmushroom

        Well, you’re always trying to get rid of traditional values, and traditional values are America.

        Because Christians are over 70% of the population, that means we dominated society and that society catered to us, and you’re always trying to take our power away from us. I don’t like losing my privilege, and I want to have it forever. Because I used to have it, that means I always have to have it. The majority should get to rule the country. You don’t think that the Jews running Israel is wrong, or Muslims running the other Middle Eastern countries, Hindus running India, or Buddhists running Tibet. America should be no different. The majority of a country should rule the country. And before you accuse me of wanting everyone to live in a Christian theocracy, I don’t. I just want everything to be the way it was in the 90s. Medieval times were a Christian theocracy. The 90s were not a Christian theocracy. Gays not being allowed to get married is not a Christian theocracy.

        You’re also always trying to instill political correctness and abridge the 1st amendment and punish the people who say things that offend you. I want to forever be able to say all the things that I could in the 90s.

        You’re always trying to restrict the 2nd amendment and ridiculing people who don’t want it restricted, and the 2nd amendment is another one of those things that’s America. If you hate the 2nd amendment, you’re unAmerican. I hate new laws that tell me that I can’t do something that I used to be able to do before. I’m sick of all the constant mockery that me and all other gun enthusiasts get from your side.

        You’re always shitting all over this country and shitting all over the people who like it.

        You can’t truthfully claim to be patriotic or “constitutional” and that you don’t hate America when you’re always trying to take away traditional values, incessantly talking about what a bad country America is, and trying to take all the power away from the Christian majority, trying to restrict freedom of speech, and saying that we shouldn’t have the 2nd amendment.

      • Christopher Jensen

        I can admire your passion and I will defend your right to say what you feel and believe by there was just so much in your statement that was just absolutely wrong. I’ll just leave you with this in reference to you comments about change always being able to do what you used to do:
        “…we may as well expect a men to wear still the jacket that fitted him as a boy than to expect him to stay ever under the thumb of his barbarous ancestors.” -Thonas Jefferson, one of the most constitutionally minded people to ever grace this land.

  • Stephen Barlow

    Better measures: integrity, honesty, PATRIOTISM…

    the REST can be manufactured.

  • Julio Fortes

    Really, is that all you could bring to the discussion??

  • Pedro De Oliveira Verissimo

    Come on Allen Clifton, you have to admit, ”more constitutional than conservatives” is not a very high benchmark to achieve…

    Just as when beliefs turn into organized religions, power and the control of said power quickly becomes more important than the actual message. At least the USA constitution has a system by which the current situation can be compared to the beliefs as formulated in the source text, and when failing, has to adjust to closer adhere to the values of that source text. It is not a perfect system, such as when the supreme court uphold the ”separate but equal” bulsh*t of the Jim Crow-laws, but the last 5 decades it generally has managed to combat the hypocritically old status of white Christian privilege. It is that privilege that the Conservatives truly want to return to, not the Constitution!

  • AlexZane

    another crock posting by some deluded liberal.. 1.) the constitution says “freedom of” not “freedom from”. Nowhere does it say there is any separation of church and state in the constitution, if it does please point that exact wording.. or is that a liberal “interpretation”? 2.) the argument is over regulations of facilities and education.. not weather or not a woman can have a abortion. 3.) Writer does not understand that states the rights under the constitution and a federal argument about gay marriage is a mute point. Gay couple wants to enter into a contract to be married, fine, find a state that will do it and where the voters accept it. Trying to force everyone in the country to accept it is a oxymoron to the point the write is trying to make. 4.) Voting rights are in place but the requirement to prove who you actually are is the issue at hand. Requiring a picture Id is not a burden and anyone who claims that it disenfranchises minorities is actually saying minorities are too dumb to get one. You idiots would probably complain about having your finger dipped in purple ink as some kinda civil right infringement. 5.) The issue is that 5 million lost insurance coverage with the individual mandate, coverage that was affordable and chosen by those individuals. Supposedly you liberals are all about freedom of choice and opinion but skip that when it comes to healthcare, hypocritical. Plus the supreme court held up that it was a tax, not a mandate, and the latest round was because democrats did not do due diligence because of their haste to get the legislation out before reading it.

    You all need to wake up and articles like this should actually try and have some sense of truth behind them, that sure would be nice

  • Mo Reno

    2) is a bit off. Roe v. Wade didn’t grant the right to an abortion. It said that the government had no compelling interest to justify interfering with the right to privacy involved in medical decisions. While there is no per se right to abortion, there is a right of privacy between patients and their doctors that the government doesn’t have the power to breach. This concept originally stems from Griswold v. Connecticut and is usually referred to as being among the “penumbra of rights” protected by the First Amendment.

    Shorter: Butt-out, nunya bizness, #youarentmydoctor.

  • Far from socialist, Obamacare included a federal mandate for the purchase of a privately owned service (insurance) which compels citizens to enter the marketplace and tolerate its absurdities and inadequacies or face fines. If anything, Obamacare is unconstitutional because it is a violation of people’s basic right to reject a broken, capital-driven, exploitative system when they can scarcely afford any more burdens. IF ONLY, in my wildest dreams, Obamacare had been socialist in origin or concept, we’d be seeing a tax based dismantling of the viciously profit driven, woefully inefficient, private market for medical care…killing the insurance middlemen who have drained us like parasites for generations now. Alas…nothing that noble, decent, humane, thoughtful or worthwhile will ever survive exposure to congress…no matter whose hands its in.

  • Gage

    1) Agreed. People have the right to practice religion… They have the right to not practice religion.

    2) The Supreme Court ruled on it so it is constitutional? Really? What about when the Supremes upheld internment and slavery? Should those issues have been the “end of the story”? Pretty weak argument if you ask me. I dare a liberal to break this argument. Where in the Constitution do you find a federal government power over abortion? Answer… It is NOT there… Therefore the 10th amendment applies.

    3) You’d have to be more specific on this one… And I have a simple solution for the gay marriage issue… Get rid of marriage licenses. If straights want to marry, great! If gays want to marry, great! Nobody is stopping either one of them unless a specific State makes or has a law against it. The federal government should completely stay out of the issue because they havr no power over marriage (it isn’t mentioned as a federal power)

    4) They aren’t stopping anyone from voting… An ID is EASILY attainable for everybody and applies to everybody. NOBODY is being singled out.

    5) Where in the Constitution do you find a federal government power concerning healthcare? I’d really like to know…

    I like how you were trying to convince readers that liberals are constitutional, yet you didn’t provide any text from the Constitution to back up your positions….. Get back to me when you can do that…..

  • By The Way

    Idiot liberals just want CHRISTIANS to shut up about their religion. It is a lie that CHRISTIANS want to force their religion on anyone. Liberals don’t want to hear from anyone how immoral they truly are.

  • reversalmushroom

    What if I don’t like the individual mandate?

  • reversalmushroom

    We have the 2nd amendment, and yet we can heavily regulate it. I don’t see why abortion can’t be treated the same way. You just treat the 2nd amendment that way because you don’t like it, and treat abortion the other way because you do like it, making you a hypocrite.