Prove there's a god.

[UR BS]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never tried, but if you like, I will:
How can you justify charging somebody with grand theft auto for driving away in the car that you are allowed to drive at will? The answer is the same.
<quoted text>
I don't have a well-formed opinion there. You might be correct.

Not their car and that brings us to my second point. If it is because it is not their child then at best it should be a property crime and nothing more.

[UR BS]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I am pro-limited government. Some of the things that you do in your home are my business. Having a meth lab comes to mind first.
<quoted text>
I support a woman's right to choose. I do advocate for prenatal care for pregnant women that want their babies, and for government funding of such care where helpful.
Do we need more adoption agencies? If so, I'm all for their creation.
<quoted text>
Great. Some people will be interested in those options. They should be available to them. That's what choice means.

The problem with your answer here is that you start by saying you are for limited Government but then everything you mention expands Government.
My suggestion is for private funding or replacement of many of the services that are paid for with my taxes now.

[Aura Mytha]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-si tes/iczn/code/
<quoted text>
Crickets. I don't know what that means, especially "the fetus of a parasite."
The genus and species of a human fetus is Homo sapiens. It's on the primate branch of the mammalian branch of the vertebrate branch of the animal kingdom.
I really don't understand why this is such an emotional issue for so many. Why would anybody object strenuously or emotionally to anybody calling a fetus a parasite, even if that were incorrect? What if I called it a snowball? How much effort would you expend refuting that?

Really again it doesn't matter except if your hypothesis were true , then all placental mammals are a form of parasite. That would change all of biology in fact there would be no mammals no eutherian just more on this list.

http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/az/index.html

[UR BS]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, no, look who's back.
It's bad breath BS.
Must you?

OH NO look who's responding it is the LONG BEACH LOON!

[Catcher1]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with your answer here is that you start by saying you are for limited Government but then everything you mention expands Government.
My suggestion is for private funding or replacement of many of the services that are paid for with my taxes now.

OK, thanks for your input.

We will consider your suggestion.

[UR BS]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, thanks for your input.
We will consider your suggestion.

Still responding I see.

There are gaps in my posts because my life does not revolve around topix. I have to work, as much as I know that is an alien concept to you I do have to work so I can have more of my money redistributed to broke a$$ states like California and deadbeats that stay on topix rather than work.

[nanoanomaly]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, bitter and unlikeable.

Why would I want someone I despise to like me?

You misspelled "unlikable", you nitwit.

[BadBreathBruce]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't reply to your posts because your name is so horrible.
You should change your name.
Or if not, just go somewhere else.
No offense. It's not you; it's your name.

I made up my username to MAKE YOU LAUGH!! LOL!! I've had other names such as "StinkyCheese" and "Rudeness" in my previous attempts to make other people laugh. Anyway, you've got me thinkin' now, tho. Okay, I'll change it (hmmmmm......I'll be on this thread with my NEW NAME tomorrow). Catch ya Catcher1!!

[nanoanomaly]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
It thinks it can change reality just by wishing ... but that never works, that's why Nano is like that, it just faces disappointment every day.

Says the nut pretending to be a woman. Are you still using that voice modulator in your vlogs? You'll never be a real woman, O' Deluded One, just because you do a little more than wishing. Technological artifice will get you nowhere but frustrated and possibly on a watch list.

[nanoanomaly]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do ylou find it not offensive?
Are you soo insecure that you have to attempt to denegrate other people to nake yourself feel better?
No you are the person that is being insecure here. When you can not even have the courage to not remove the humanity from someone simply because you disagree with that persons position.
I am sure you would not appreciate being dehumanized because your opinions are seen as not agreeing with anotherv poster.
If you can not understand this then possibly it is you that should be referred to as an IT.

You'll notice the freak calls me a "proven liar" yet can't show the "proof" of that claim.

[nanoanomaly]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Please if you wonm't be honest with the people on this forum at least be honest with yourself.
You know that the usage of IT to describe a person is offensive and you meant as such. Do not be such a wimp that you won't admit that it was indeed ment as an insult, if it wasn't then you need somone to help you understand the written language better.
Your insecurity is showing throiugh not mine. You called the otherv poster an IT that does not reflect humanity when directed at a person if you are too ignorant to ubderstand that then I pity you.

Did I miss something here? Did that fudgeugly tranny call ME an "it"?

[UR BS]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Did I miss something here? Did that fudgeugly tranny call ME an "it"?

Yes she did that was a large part of our argument that she somehow along with IANS don't seem to see anything wrong with it while I look at it as being ultra insulting and a demonstartion of no class.

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You'll have to tell me what you think this means. Are you supporting me, contradicting me, or neither?

Nobody would accept that risk? What is the population of the U.S.? What are the odds of getting shot by an "accidental discharge" of a firearm if it only occurs on average of 851 times in a year?
The same can be said for the 8,583 total firearm homicides.
As for the 19,766 Intentional self-harm (suicides) by discharge of firearms, it was their choice. If not a gun it would have been something else.

Why would I support you? Don't you have a job?

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

http://www.topix.com/forum/top stories/TOCO8TEGNA8I5JT63/post 581618
<quoted text>
Imma gonna hafta guess once again which of my points (see link above) you were addressing, and what your point with regard to it is - whether you agreed or disagreed.
I'm guessing that the comment that you didn't like was, "We call the value that represents this the p-value," that the part of your link that was on your mind was, "Number of deaths for leading causes of death - Heart disease: 599,413," and that the link between them is you would have liked to see a p-value for that data.
How did I do? Not so good?
You could improve communication tremendously if your next post is more than an adverb and a link juxtaposed against an unedited comment comprising several claims. Sentences work very well for that - sentences like "I disagree that ... because of the fact that ... which you can verify and read more about at [link]."

Close.
I could be clearer in my presentation but I figured that you were a smart guy...

[nanoanomaly]

UR BS wrote:

Pretty straight forward. This is the Law and it says CHILD.
"In the U.S., the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes an unborn child as a legal victim, if s/he is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. Pursuant to 18 USCS § 1841, the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
Notice, "Unborn Child", "Child in Utero", "Child who is in Utero".
Now last time I checked if you were in Utero you were not born yet but somehow the Federal Government has recognized these as "Children", not Fetuses, Zygots or any other name.

Scott is appealing...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/21/laci.peters...

...of course. Maybe he should hire one of the psychos here to argue his case. I doubt their cold-blooded, dehumanizing of the child would go over well as a defense. >;)

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought that there was a Bushmaster involved, that that was a semi-automatic rifle like the M-16 I fired in basic, and that that was considered an assault weapon. I don't know much about guns, so I'll defer to you. What does this mean to you?:
"Bushmaster .223: Weapon Used in Newtown Shooting a Lightning Rod in Gun Debate"
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaste...
Even if you were correct, would that change the argument other than to increase the enormity of the problem?
<quoted text>
I guess it's time for me to divine what you are thinking once again - the reason why you posted that. Let's see how this could possibly matter. Maybe you think the gun was supplied by Rodia. And maybe you think that matters.
If not, sorry - I give up. I'm all out of ideas. I'll consult my Ouija board and Magic 8-Ball to see if they know what you were thinking here while waiting for your answer.
[CONT.]

Now I am seriously disappointed in your deductive reasoning skills.
The M-16 rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire. An AR-15 is semi-auto only. Which doesn't even matter when the AR-15 was not found in the school. Which means that it was not used in the shooting. The shooter did not leave the school put the assault rifle away and then go back in side to shoot himself.

[nanoanomaly]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Close.
I could be clearer in my presentation but I figured that you were a smart guy...

He's nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. His ego precedes him. xD

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm guessing pseudoprinciple here. Did you see the post on that? In case you missed it, here it is:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
The way we can decide is to see if you uniformly object to prohibitions because of the black markets that they engender. How do you feel about a prohibition on abortion, and the underground abortion clinics that would spring up? Do you object on that basis?
How about the prohibition on heroine and meth? There are black markets for both of those as well. Can we put you down for legalization of them. After all, as you said, "2. Prohibition = Blackmarket, period." If a "meth head" wants a pound of meth, "they can get one or make their own," right?

Are you retarded? A prohibition on assault rifles will work as well as the prohibiton on drugs. Yes, I am for the legalization of meth. There does that help. So, why would I want a prohibition on abortion? Try and think sh1t through next time.

[nanoanomaly]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes she did that was a large part of our argument that she somehow along with IANS don't seem to see anything wrong with it while I look at it as being ultra insulting and a demonstartion of no class.

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAHA....

OMG! That's hilarious!

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree. Your posting suggests otherwise. You are aware of the cost of having guns in the home, and you refuse to acknowledge the data or care about it.
<quoted text>
You're a class act, and a great illustration of the power of your god and of your faith. I'm sure that wherever you go, people ask themselves, "What has he got, and how can I get it, too."

Frach it, nevermind. I have other things to do than point out your inaccuracies all day.