Donald Trump's 3 positions on abortion in 3 hours

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by wtfrom

how you know jj83924(1983) is a pussy? he/she is alway out ... look like the rest of you are pussy

Are you trying to make a lame point under the influence douche bag?


Jim

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is that the same "Science" that has confirmed the climate change you fuckers refuse to accept?

Your idea of "Science" is colors and shapes, EDdie.

You have no clue about Science, so sit your ignorant ass down.


Jim

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is that the same "Science" that has confirmed the climate change you fuckers refuse to accept?

Your idea of "Science" is colors and shapes, EDdie.

Actually, climate change is based on meteorological and other physical sciences, and so far is just a theory. However, babies being born prematurely and surviving actually happens, many times a day, and they survive at earlier and earlier stages. So it's not the same science as "climate change", AssupIgnorant. It's established science. Hell, your sainted Hillary knows they're babies. She said so herself. Of course, she might be lying, and I know how much you respect her for that.

[Yssup Rider]

Snarky bullshit, whiny.

I find it incredibly disingenuous when people scream and yell about getting government out of their lives yet clamor for more government control over so-called moral issues.

I think if more pussies had guns...

[CuteOldGuy]

Who's arguing for more government? I was simply pointing out that you once again paraded your gross ignorance in an inane response to a serious post. That happens frequently when you fail to comprehend what is being discussed. You're an ignorant asshole, AssupIgnorantAsshole. Own it! Put it next to your Dipshit Emeritus award.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So it's not the same science as "climate change", AssupIgnorant....

I see COG has coined a winning new moniker for our favorite eccie dipshit - Assupignorant!

Ya gotta love the way it has the word PIG in it!

[CuteOldGuy]

Assup uses snicks and snorts and snarky comments to hide the fact that he, like LittleLiberalEva, can't generate an original thought or a coherent reply when they've been challenged. When BigIdiot joins them, they are truly the Three Amigays.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Assup uses snicks and snorts and snarky comments to hide the fact that he, like LittleLiberalEva, can't generate an original thought or a coherent reply when they've been challenged. When BigIdiot joins them, they are truly the Three Amigays.

Another useless post by dull knife the fact less Trumpazoid. He thinks his opinions trump facts. So how can you reply, except by snick.

[Yssup Rider]

I wonder what crawled up Whiny's ass. Or who.

I knew he was a closet Trumpazoid. Just like we've always known he was a Republican.

Reality is that Whiny and his pals on the RWW reject science unless it suits them. They reject medicine unless it suits them. They reject freedom and personal liberty unless it suits them.

But ignorance and hypocrisy ALWAYS suit them. That's why they're gripping so hard as Trump disappears - kicking, screaming and Tweeting - down the chemical toilet that is the remains of the GOP.

At least they're not making it personal. Right, dipshits?

Or are you just trying to wrap your tiny little minds around the idea of a Ted Cruz candidacy?

Jesus.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Assup uses snicks and snorts and snarky comments to hide the fact that he, like LittleLiberalEva, can't generate an original thought or a coherent reply when they've been challenged. When BigIdiot joins them, they are truly the Three Amigays.

I think this properly and succinctly illustrates the long time pattern of these miscreants.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by DSK

I think this properly and succinctly illustrates the long time pattern of these miscreants.

And which are your three favorite handles, Sybill? Don't be Daft!

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, climate change is based on meteorological and other physical sciences, and so far is just a theory.

Gravity is "just a theory" too. Do you worry that the next time you stand up you may fly into space? Or do you agree that the evidence is so strong that there is no reason to worry about such things?

While I wouldn't argue that the evidence supporting AGW is anywhere near the evidence supporting the action of gravity, the idea that, scientifically speaking, if something is "just a theory" it isn't well-supported shows that you don't understand what a scientific theory is. You are probably, like most people who make the mistake, confusing "hypothesis" with "theory" (again, speaking scientifically). A hypothesis is something you are throwing out to test. A theory is when the evidence so strongly supports a hypothesis that it is now considered the current explanation for something, or at least one of the major ones. This is not to say it can't be wrong. That's the beauty of science, it is open to the fact that any previous theory may be wrong. This is why we don't call them facts. So everything in science is "just" a theory.

However, babies being born prematurely and surviving actually happens, many times a day, and they survive at earlier and earlier stages.

Yes, due to doctors following the scientific method and applying the scientific theories developed by the experts in their field on how to help these younger and younger newborns survive.

The equivalent position of your denial of climate change would be a doctor refusing to use what the field has developed because he believes they are all are wrong, despite the fact that that doctor keeps failing and everyone else is having great success. It would be near criminal of him.

It's established science.

Considering how overwhelming the agreement among experts is about AGW, the reality is that it is probably far more "established science" than how to deal with premature babies. I am sure there are a number of different methods out competing to see which will become the established practice for newborns of a certain gestational age. Every time you have a newborn earlier in gestation, there are a new host of problems you have to deal with. . .and we are constantly pushing the boundary of who can survive, and thus it is constantly in new, uncharted territory. This is not the case for AGW. We have plenty of data to look at and we can see the obvious trend.

I understand that there is no way to convince people, via scientific argument, that AGW is the real deal. But keep in mind you are rejecting the opinion of the vast majority of experts in the field. Why? I've heard a lot of ridiculous reasons. One of the major ones is that there is some conspiracy among scientists from different organizations, across the world in order to make themselves, or other people money.

If that is the case for you. Ask yourself the simple question and answer it honestly. If you were to conspire to use scientists to deceive the public on a certain issue. What would be easier? Manipulating the overwhelming percentage of the scientists across the global across numerous scientific bodies? Or by promoting/encourgaing the few that disagree?

[southtown4488]

Trump clearly just makes up shit as he goes along for a lot of these issues, only a damn fool believes hes put real thought into this.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Gravity is "just a theory" too. Do you worry that the next time you stand up you may fly into space? Or do you agree that the evidence is so strong that there is no reason to worry about such things?

While I wouldn't argue that the evidence supporting AGW is anywhere near the evidence supporting the action of gravity, the idea that, scientifically speaking, if something is "just a theory" it isn't well-supported shows that you don't understand what a scientific theory is. You are probably, like most people who make the mistake, confusing "hypothesis" with "theory" (again, speaking scientifically). A hypothesis is something you are throwing out to test. A theory is when the evidence so strongly supports a hypothesis that it is now considered the current explanation for something, or at least one of the major ones. This is not to say it can't be wrong. That's the beauty of science, it is open to the fact that any previous theory may be wrong. This is why we don't call them facts. So everything in science is "just" a theory.


Yes, due to doctors following the scientific method and applying the scientific theories developed by the experts in their field on how to help these younger and younger newborns survive.

The equivalent position of your denial of climate change would be a doctor refusing to use what the field has developed because he believes they are all are wrong, despite the fact that that doctor keeps failing and everyone else is having great success. It would be near criminal of him.


Considering how overwhelming the agreement among experts is about AGW, the reality is that it is probably far more "established science" than how to deal with premature babies. I am sure there are a number of different methods out competing to see which will become the established practice for newborns of a certain gestational age. Every time you have a newborn earlier in gestation, there are a new host of problems you have to deal with. . .and we are constantly pushing the boundary of who can survive, and thus it is constantly in new, uncharted territory. This is not the case for AGW. We have plenty of data to look at and we can see the obvious trend.

I understand that there is no way to convince people, via scientific argument, that AGW is the real deal. But keep in mind you are rejecting the opinion of the vast majority of experts in the field. Why? I've heard a lot of ridiculous reasons. One of the major ones is that there is some conspiracy among scientists from different organizations, across the world in order to make themselves, or other people money.

If that is the case for you. Ask yourself the simple question and answer it honestly. If you were to conspire to use scientists to deceive the public on a certain issue. What would be easier? Manipulating the overwhelming percentage of the scientists across the global across numerous scientific bodies? Or by promoting/encourgaing the few that disagree?

Gravity is a theory????? Talk to Sir Isaac Newton about that one....

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And which are your three favorite handles, Sybill? Don't be Daft!

Fuck you Uncle Han!!!