 |
Re: OFF TOPIC - Do Not Respond if the Subject Matter Offends You
Author: Albert Einstein
Date: 06-22-2022 - 12:38
< Rudi Toot Toot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I have no objections to the words "under God" being part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
> Big deal, but you obviously haven't figured out yet that none of us value your opinions, particularly the ones designed to stir up non-RR s**t.
And you speak on behalf of everybody? Was this an elected position or did you appoint yourself? With all the advance warnings that this was an off-topic discussion thread, why did you respond? We can probably be guaranteed that you won't address the above three questions. You're good at that.
>> Do you? If so, why?
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ". This means all religions, including the monotheistic revealed religions (known as Jewish, Christian, Moslem, and Bahai). Monotheism is inherently intolerant; it even says so in the Old Testament.
This country was founded on Christian religious principles. The Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution. They weren't atheists or Hindus.
>>If someone has no problem with the words "In God We Trust" on our money, does that make them a McCarthy-esque Right Wing Nut Job?
> You are dumber than a box of rocks. It's the McCarthy-ists and the conservotards who actively promote this sort of religiosity in the Gubmint.
Just for a change of pace, try answering one of my questions with a simple "yes" or "no" answer. If you were testifying on a witness stand, you'd be cited for contempt of court for insisting on making speeches and providing non-responsive answers.
** This is the third time I've posed the question of whether or not an objection to the words "In God We Trust" makes a person a McCarthy-esque Right Wing Nut Job, and you consistently refuse to answer the question.**
>> For the life of me I don't know why it's so important to you that I make posts using a screen name.
> Don't make them in the first place.
Don't make responses on discussion threads where ample advance warning is offered indicating that the discussion is off-topic and those finding it offensive should scroll on by.
>> Tell us your thoughts on the fact that 96% of the political campaign contributions from Cornell faculty went to Democrats, as was revealed in those Fox News links I gave you and that you cowardly shied away from.
Faux News? Well well, this explains a lot about you because Faux, which is owned by an immigrant to the US, subscribes to the principle of a sucker like you being born every minute. All Murdoch is interested in is *money*.
I can't believe you're this stupid.
The statistic that 96% of the political campaign contributions from Cornell faculty goes to Democrats was compiled by a journalism student there, NOT FOX NEWS, but you're apparently too stupid to connect those dots and, if you did, it would mean you might have to address that issue instead of just taking the easy way out and continuously throwing barbs at Fox News. By the way, that student was harassed and threatened because she had the guts to look into the matter. Does any of this register with you or did your eyes glaze over as soon as you read "The statistic . . . "
** This is the third time I've had to solicit your thoughts on the matter of 96% of political campaign contributions from Cornell faculty going to Democrats, as you completely skirted around that fact in your previous two responses. Can you address it this time around?**
>If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Don't make responses on discussion threads where ample advance warning is offered indicating that the discussion is off-topic and those finding it offensive should scroll on by.
>> Didn't you read my advance warnings? What difference does it make whether or not I'm making postings, even if I make 10,000 of them and even if they're off-topic?
> Change your handle to "Clueless at the Keyboard".
I've got a new one I think you'll like!
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I have no objections to the words "under God" being part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
> Big deal, but you obviously haven't figured out yet that none of us value your opinions, particularly the ones designed to stir up non-RR s**t.
And you speak on behalf of everybody? Was this an elected position or did you appoint yourself? With all the advance warnings that this was an off-topic discussion thread, why did you respond? We can probably be guaranteed that you won't address the above three questions. You're good at that.
>> Do you? If so, why?
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ". This means all religions, including the monotheistic revealed religions (known as Jewish, Christian, Moslem, and Bahai). Monotheism is inherently intolerant; it even says so in the Old Testament.
This country was founded on Christian religious principles. The Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution. They weren't atheists or Hindus.
>>If someone has no problem with the words "In God We Trust" on our money, does that make them a McCarthy-esque Right Wing Nut Job?
> You are dumber than a box of rocks. It's the McCarthy-ists and the conservotards who actively promote this sort of religiosity in the Gubmint.
Just for a change of pace, try answering one of my questions with a simple "yes" or "no" answer. If you were testifying on a witness stand, you'd be cited for contempt of court for insisting on making speeches and providing non-responsive answers.
** This is the third time I've posed the question of whether or not an objection to the words "In God We Trust" makes a person a McCarthy-esque Right Wing Nut Job, and you consistently refuse to answer the question.**
>> For the life of me I don't know why it's so important to you that I make posts using a screen name.
> Don't make them in the first place.
Don't make responses on discussion threads where ample advance warning is offered indicating that the discussion is off-topic and those finding it offensive should scroll on by.
>> Tell us your thoughts on the fact that 96% of the political campaign contributions from Cornell faculty went to Democrats, as was revealed in those Fox News links I gave you and that you cowardly shied away from.
Faux News? Well well, this explains a lot about you because Faux, which is owned by an immigrant to the US, subscribes to the principle of a sucker like you being born every minute. All Murdoch is interested in is *money*.
I can't believe you're this stupid.
The statistic that 96% of the political campaign contributions from Cornell faculty goes to Democrats was compiled by a journalism student there, NOT FOX NEWS, but you're apparently too stupid to connect those dots and, if you did, it would mean you might have to address that issue instead of just taking the easy way out and continuously throwing barbs at Fox News. By the way, that student was harassed and threatened because she had the guts to look into the matter. Does any of this register with you or did your eyes glaze over as soon as you read "The statistic . . . "
** This is the third time I've had to solicit your thoughts on the matter of 96% of political campaign contributions from Cornell faculty going to Democrats, as you completely skirted around that fact in your previous two responses. Can you address it this time around?**
>If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Don't make responses on discussion threads where ample advance warning is offered indicating that the discussion is off-topic and those finding it offensive should scroll on by.
>> Didn't you read my advance warnings? What difference does it make whether or not I'm making postings, even if I make 10,000 of them and even if they're off-topic?
> Change your handle to "Clueless at the Keyboard".
I've got a new one I think you'll like!
