How to become a Congressman?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jem, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. pspr

    pspr

    #31     Dec 5, 2012
  2. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Did the founding fathers even intend being a congressmen to be a full time occupation, with Cadillac benefits and a pension after serving only one term?
     
    #32     Dec 5, 2012
  3. pspr

    pspr

    I can see Thomas Jefferson at the table with the other framers saying, "There was something else I wanted in the Constitution but I can't remember what it was. Oh well, I hope it wasn't important."

    TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS! How could you forget?!
     
    #33     Dec 5, 2012
  4. stu

    stu

    No 'if ' about it.
    Why not deal with the consummate lie in this thread which you've repeated for the umpteenth time.
    You know, your generic form of lie. The one where you alter wording. Fabricating other peoples' statements to represent something they have not actually said, in the hope of giving a wrong impression.

    Lol. "we will.." will "we"? Egotist too. Better and better, Mr how to become wannabe congressman.
    But you'd have to be able to talk a more convincing lie than you are obviously capable of writing to stand any chance of getting your snout in the champagne congress trough.

    That'll be yet another non starter of an idea from the many in your over 12,700 posts then.
     
    #34     Dec 6, 2012
  5. jem

    jem


    There it is in a nutshell.

    All stu has to do is show us proof of life evolving from non life and he would prove I am incorrect. (he told us there is plenty of proof)

    But he would rather lie.

    Note. I do not have to alter others statements... because every scholar on the subject knows we have no known pathway from non life to life. There is no exception to that statement.

    The first person who shows a pathway for non life to life in a peer reviewed manner will be exalted to the level of scientists like Pasteur and Einstein.

    Stu... what scientists is known for proving or even showing a full pathway of life evolving from non life.
    Go on you lying troll. Tell us.
     
    #35     Dec 6, 2012
  6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But vitalism is not the answer.
     
    #36     Dec 6, 2012
  7. stu

    stu

    There it is, in a nutshell, indeed. Lying again about something I have not said. As a consummate liar you can't help yourself.

    No, you don't have to alter statements. But you do.

    Here is a known pathway ....
    • "Dr Clarke said: "There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living -- everything up to that point is chemistry.

      "We are trying to understand the chemical origins of life. One of the interesting questions is where carbohydrates come from because they are the building blocks of DNA and RNA. What we have achieved is the first step on that pathway to show how simple sugars -- threose and erythrose -- originated." Science Daily
    A known pathway (one of many) and a scientific step achieved along it.

    Now you can start altering some more wording, lie about something in it that has not been said, change meaning, be willfully ignorant about what IS being said, just to mindlessly try and protect your personal vain beliefs like a madman.

    No they won't. Such things are not on the scale of discovery as Pasteur and Einstein. Shows how much you understand.
    It's a given in all common sense terms, and scientific explanation leaves no rational doubt, that non life to life is all about chemical reaction. In that regard there is nothing that special to discover. It is not about an imaginary magical wizard.

    Scientists don't convince creationists how evolution is a fact.
    Scientists don't prove to flat earthers how the Earth is not flat.
    Scientists don't explain to consummate liars such as yourself of pathways to do with how life can come about from non life.

    Nothing does those things.
    So come on Jem. Tell "us" how YOU are not a troll.
     
    #37     Dec 7, 2012
  8. stu

    stu

    Bingo!
     
    #38     Dec 7, 2012
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    Not to mention that should the consensus become that viruses are alive, we can simply move "back" one entity to continue the argument, perhaps to prions.
     
    #39     Dec 7, 2012
  10. jem

    jem

    The question to stu was...


    Stu... what scientists is known for proving or even showing a full pathway of life evolving from non life.
    Go on you lying troll. Tell us.

    stu comes back with this...


    "But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living -- everything up to that point is chemistry."

    Stu you just trolled again..
    You presented proof of what I have been saying.
    You were the troll who said you had plenty of proof life evolved from non life.

     
    #40     Dec 7, 2012