IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion

Reply
Old 16th September 2022, 11:00 PM   #2041
Leumas
Philosopher
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,948
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You incorrectly complained about me making straw man arguments and now you are making a straw man argument. Do you even know what a straw man argument is?
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Uh-huh. Look at all the parts you didnít cherry-pick in highlights that are exactly arguing what you called a straw man.

Thanks for admitting that parts of your post were indeed strawmanning and thus proving that your statement that I incorrectly complained is not true... appreciate the admission!!!
__________________
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2022, 11:13 PM   #2042
Leumas
Philosopher
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,948
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
^ that is the problem. Precedent and established law means exactly nothing in the face of this SCOTUS. Any law would have been flipped every time a single party ran the government. Before this court, codifying bodily autonomy would have been redundant and, thus, not a priority in light of all the other things that it takes to run a country.

There are only two possible solutions: a constitutional amendment or anti-choice politicians getting voted out en masse because of their anti-choice policy.

Do you know what the SCOTUS' function is in the three branches system of the USA governance???

Quote:
Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases
If the rights to bodily integrity and choice for one's freedom and pursuit of happiness were codified as LAW instead of leaving it as a SCOTUS opinion whim ruling ... then the SCOTUS would not be able to do anything other than "interpret and determine the constitutionality" of it... instead of being able to change their ruling on another whim.

And it would have been a lot harder for any pretend zealot cult members inserted into the SCOTUS to deem the rights to bodily integrity and choice unconstitutional than it is for democrats to codify those rights into law.

So your false dichotomy has a third option... for the democrats to have codified the right to choice as a law...

Passing things into law is not easy but it is what the legislative branch is supposed to do... it is their job... and fear of the opposition opposing them is not a rational or valid apologetic for them not having done their job.
__________________
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Last edited by Leumas; 16th September 2022 at 11:19 PM.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2022, 05:37 AM   #2043
Tero
Master Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 2,739
I think democrats should go ahead and vote on a bill that allows abortion. I had some ideas above about "allowing" by blocking bans to 15 weeks. But 20 weeks would be fine.

It would then be law. Challenges to the law would be difficult. You can get surgeons to refuse to abort or pharmacists to dispense pills. That is as far as it would go. No person suing the government over the law would have any standing in court. The law does not force YOU to have an abortion. Your sister having an abortion and that hurting your religious views? No, not your right.

Where it would go from there is states vs the USA. If states claim they have this right, the Supreme Court would then have to rule that states do have the right on abortion. Then that at least would be established. We are then back to abortion tourism.
__________________
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Parody: http://karireport.blogspot.com/
Poll: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...proval-rating/
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2022, 05:50 AM   #2044
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,162
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
I think democrats should go ahead and vote on a bill that allows abortion. I had some ideas above about "allowing" by blocking bans to 15 weeks. But 20 weeks would be fine.

It would then be law. Challenges to the law would be difficult. You can get surgeons to refuse to abort or pharmacists to dispense pills. That is as far as it would go. No person suing the government over the law would have any standing in court. The law does not force YOU to have an abortion. Your sister having an abortion and that hurting your religious views? No, not your right.

Where it would go from there is states vs the USA. If states claim they have this right, the Supreme Court would then have to rule that states do have the right on abortion. Then that at least would be established. We are then back to abortion tourism.
As I understand it, Lindsey Graham's bill would allow individual states to have stricter requirements but not allow them to have broader than 15 week restrictions. It's identical to the Lost Cause concept of States Rights. "You can have em' so long as the states do what we say."
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2022, 05:58 AM   #2045
Susheel
Master Poster
 
Susheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 2,862
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
I think democrats should go ahead and vote on a bill that allows abortion. I had some ideas above about "allowing" by blocking bans to 15 weeks. But 20 weeks would be fine.

It would then be law. Challenges to the law would be difficult. You can get surgeons to refuse to abort or pharmacists to dispense pills. That is as far as it would go. No person suing the government over the law would have any standing in court. The law does not force YOU to have an abortion. Your sister having an abortion and that hurting your religious views? No, not your right.

Where it would go from there is states vs the USA. If states claim they have this right, the Supreme Court would then have to rule that states do have the right on abortion. Then that at least would be established. We are then back to abortion tourism.
That might be ok. But there are other factors. Do those who need it have access to low-cost healthcare providers who can provide them with good consultancy. Will it be complemented by efficient birth-control services. We are talking about a nation that upholds the rights of pharmacists and sundry medical professionals to deny birth control products or services to those who need them because it "hurts their religious fe-fes." A frightened minor girl cannot even buy birth control without parental permission.
Lindsey Graham knows that ultimately all this doesn't matter when they can easily ensure access to birth control products or abortion services can be made difficult.
__________________
I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon
Susheel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2022, 07:31 AM   #2046
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
If the rights to bodily integrity and choice for one's freedom and pursuit of happiness were codified as LAW instead of leaving it as a SCOTUS opinion whim ruling ... then the SCOTUS would not be able to do anything other than "interpret and determine the constitutionality" of it... instead of being able to change their ruling on another whim.
Quote:
Oh, goodness! We never could have guessed when we started looking at this but this law is unconstitutional for [insert made up reason here].
Yes, I can see how it would be very difficult to overturn.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2022, 07:33 AM   #2047
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You incorrectly complained about me making straw man arguments and now you are making a straw man argument. Do you even know what a straw man argument is?
The style of argument on this forum certainly is different.

A: [Makes an argument]

B: That's outrageous! How could you suggest that....

A: That's only a strawman version of my argument!

B: 'Tis not! Furthermore, your characterization of my argument as a strawman argument is, itself, a strawman argument!

A: If everyone calls your argument a strawman argument, maybe there's something to it?

B: I know you are, but what am I? Besides, that was an argumentum ad populum!

A: The fact that you would suggest I would do such a thing is insulting! That makes it an Ad hominem!

[ad infinitum]
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2022, 10:47 AM   #2048
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,162
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
The style of argument on this forum certainly is different.

A: [Makes an argument]

B: That's outrageous! How could you suggest that....

A: That's only a strawman version of my argument!

B: 'Tis not! Furthermore, your characterization of my argument as a strawman argument is, itself, a strawman argument!

A: If everyone calls your argument a strawman argument, maybe there's something to it?

B: I know you are, but what am I? Besides, that was an argumentum ad populum!

A: The fact that you would suggest I would do such a thing is insulting! That makes it an Ad hominem!

[ad infinitum]
Thatís why I decided to no longer engage
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2022, 06:40 PM   #2049
Leumas
Philosopher
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,948
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Quote:
Oh, goodness! We never could have guessed when we started looking at this but this law is unconstitutional for [insert made up reason here].
Yes, I can see how it would be very difficult to overturn.

Who are you quoting in that quote? Or did you just make it up?
__________________
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2022, 04:37 PM   #2050
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,146
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
I think democrats should go ahead and vote on a bill that allows abortion.
They already did. It passed the House and was killed in the Senate, 51-49. Famed lovable scamp Joe Manchin was the sole dissenting Democrat. The party line is we're all supposed to roll our eyes at him and go "Oh, Joe!" and then go vote harder or something.
Beelzebuddy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2022, 08:06 PM   #2051
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,636
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
They already did. It passed the House and was killed in the Senate, 51-49. Famed lovable scamp Joe Manchin was the sole dissenting Democrat. The party line is we're all supposed to roll our eyes at him and go "Oh, Joe!" and then go vote harder or something.
Had Manchin stayed onside the cloture vote would've failed by ten instead of eleven, as it did.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 18th September 2022 at 08:08 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2022, 06:44 AM   #2052
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Who are you quoting in that quote? Or did you just make it up?
Just made it up. It was meant to show how I thought the general gist of overturning the law would sound like. Maybe I shouldn't have used the quote markdown for it?
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2022, 12:43 PM   #2053
Leumas
Philosopher
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,948
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Quote:
Oh, goodness! We never could have guessed when we started looking at this but this law is unconstitutional for [insert made up reason here].
Yes, I can see how it would be very difficult to overturn.
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Who are you quoting in that quote? Or did you just make it up?
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Just made it up. It was meant to show how I thought the general gist of overturning the law would sound like. Maybe I shouldn't have used the quote markdown for it?

It is not that simplistic... there are laws and a constitution... and this country is alleged to be a country of laws... if it were that facile this country would be a lawless insane asylum where whenever power is exchanged the whole legal system is toppled topsy turvy .... oh... wait... hmmmm!!!

Well... now that might explain why the democrats have not bothered to do their jobs as representatives of the people and law makers for the last 50 years... why bother when it is a den of lunatics anyways...

Or... this could be another explanation for their lack of any meaningful action...

__________________
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2022, 01:33 PM   #2054
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 5,111
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
^ that is the problem. Precedent and established law means exactly nothing in the face of this SCOTUS. Any law would have been flipped every time a single party ran the government. Before this court, codifying bodily autonomy would have been redundant and, thus, not a priority in light of all the other things that it takes to run a country.

There are only two possible solutions: a constitutional amendment or anti-choice politicians getting voted out en masse because of their anti-choice policy.
It's not redundant. There is a huge difference.

Being anti-abortion wasn't the dominant position in the GOP pre-Reagan. If Congress during the Carter administration passed a comprehensive women's healthcare act that protects the right to abortion and bases it on both protecting the rights in Roe as well as the commerce clause, it would be a massive diversion from our present timeline. A single party change wouldn't be significant because they'd need the presidency and a filibuster proof majority.

A law protecting abortion rights and defining what those rights would preclude state regulation. It would take even more than a wholesale overturning of Roe for a state to at all restrict abortion. With the commerce clause as a justification they'd also have to tinker with the basis for almost all federal legislation.

These rights are personal in nature but a nation where women have total control over their reproductive choices is going to be a wealthier less reactionary nation than one where they do not. Preventing the chipping away of abortion rights in our timeline not only makes ending those rights a harder sell, it also allows us longer benefit of those rights.

Less women trapped in abusive relationships for economic reasons, less overwhelmed single mothers, etc. The societal benefits would have a compounding effect and change things in ways hard to fathom.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2022, 01:53 PM   #2055
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,162
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
It's not redundant. There is a huge difference.
In a reversal, you are making a difference with no distinction.

This SCOTUS does not care how unpopular their ruling is or how ingrained it is in law, precedent, or society. They have made that abundantly clear. Literally nothing you wrote makes it any harder for them to strike down women's rights with the stroke of a majority opinion.

We can erect as many legal walls and barriers to protect women's rights as we can think of, but without a Constitutional amendment or re-aligning the composition of SCOTUS, it wouldn't change anything.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2022, 02:48 PM   #2056
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 5,111
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
In a reversal, you are making a difference with no distinction.

This SCOTUS does not care how unpopular their ruling is or how ingrained it is in law, precedent, or society. They have made that abundantly clear. Literally nothing you wrote makes it any harder for them to strike down women's rights with the stroke of a majority opinion.
It certainly does. I'm not exactly an optimist when it comes to the depravity of the present Court, but overruling Roe is a way simpler thing than what they'd have to do to overturn a federal law justified on commerce clause grounds. It would totally give away the game. Even the most appeasement minded Democrat would be forced to concede that the Court had gone totally rogue. It's a massive escalation.

Even to get to that point this all assumes we'd still have forty years of allowing the GOP to drive all abortion discourse and the entrenched right to abortion not affecting policy. The political landscape would be so different that assuming present conditions would be a stretch at best.

Conservative states would in the 80s and 90s be floating restrictions and having them unceremoniously spiked on supremacy clause grounds. No Casey v. Planned Parenthood. It would take a ton of change to manage to even get to the point where Roe could be directly challenged. It is more likely that abortion rights stop being an issue than conservatives muster the kind of support they would need to make outlawing abortion seem attainable.

The Court becomes the least of their worries. Roe would be a side issue. Getting five justices willing to overturn Roe has been a reasonable quest since Reagan, but getting five that would be willing to totally blow up the foundation of the vast majority of federal legislation would have been unthinkable and undesirable for even the GOP.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2022, 09:41 PM   #2057
Leumas
Philosopher
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,948
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
It certainly does. I'm not exactly an optimist when it comes to the depravity of the present Court, but overruling Roe is a way simpler thing than what they'd have to do to overturn a federal law justified on commerce clause grounds. It would totally give away the game. Even the most appeasement minded Democrat would be forced to concede that the Court had gone totally rogue. It's a massive escalation.

Even to get to that point this all assumes we'd still have forty years of allowing the GOP to drive all abortion discourse and the entrenched right to abortion not affecting policy. The political landscape would be so different that assuming present conditions would be a stretch at best.

Conservative states would in the 80s and 90s be floating restrictions and having them unceremoniously spiked on supremacy clause grounds. No Casey v. Planned Parenthood. It would take a ton of change to manage to even get to the point where Roe could be directly challenged. It is more likely that abortion rights stop being an issue than conservatives muster the kind of support they would need to make outlawing abortion seem attainable.

The Court becomes the least of their worries. Roe would be a side issue. Getting five justices willing to overturn Roe has been a reasonable quest since Reagan, but getting five that would be willing to totally blow up the foundation of the vast majority of federal legislation would have been unthinkable and undesirable for even the GOP.

Indeed!!!

And not to mention Amendment 14 of the current constitution as it is without any further change needed.
__________________
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2022, 09:47 PM   #2058
Leumas
Philosopher
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,948
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
In a reversal, you are making a difference with no distinction.

This SCOTUS does not care how unpopular their ruling is or how ingrained it is in law, precedent, or society. They have made that abundantly clear. Literally nothing you wrote makes it any harder for them to strike down women's rights with the stroke of a majority opinion.

We can erect as many legal walls and barriers to protect women's rights as we can think of, but without a Constitutional amendment or re-aligning the composition of SCOTUS, it wouldn't change anything.

So because it is hard the democrats never bothered to do anything about it whatsoever for 50 years despite having had full out power for 10 years out of these 50 and most of the power for 14 more years... total of 24 years out of the 50... nary a whimper of an attempt???
__________________
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2022, 09:55 PM   #2059
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
So because it is hard the democrats never bothered to do anything about it whatsoever for 50 years despite having had full out power for 10 years out of these 50 and most of the power for 14 more years... total of 24 years out of the 50... nary a whimper of an attempt???
Incorrect.

Dems never had a majority of members willing to codify Roe.
They still don't.
__________________
"The only true paradise is paradise lost"
Marcel Proust
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2022, 12:38 AM   #2060
Leumas
Philosopher
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,948
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Incorrect.

Dems never had a majority of members willing to codify Roe.
They still don't.

I agree because as I said...

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Given the current ethos of the USA, science and scientific facts are an anathema... and given that most of the "law makers" (on all sides of the isles) are avowed and averred and practicing religionists and with even many ZEALOTS... they are never going to let pesky facts of science deter them from advocating for their irrationalities.

Not to mention this fact too....

__________________
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2022, 08:46 AM   #2061
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,886
From https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1572246813163548672

Quote:
CAUGHT ON TAPE: GOP Michigan attorney general nominee Matt DePerno says Plan B should be banned.

ďYou have to stop it at the border. It would be no different than fentanyl.Ē
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2022, 11:38 AM   #2062
Leumas
Philosopher
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,948
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Just made it up. It was meant to show how I thought the general gist of overturning the law would sound like. Maybe I shouldn't have used the quote markdown for it?
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
It is not that simplistic... there are laws and a constitution... and this country is alleged to be a country of laws... if it were that facile this country would be a lawless insane asylum where whenever power is exchanged the whole legal system is toppled topsy turvy .... oh... wait... hmmmm!!!

...


But....... here is the REAL way they do it.... which in the end boils down to the image above.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.