This is the kind of thing that happens when a society accepts homosexuality

Says the guy that not only can't spell dummy, but starts a 3 word sentence without a capital.

Read that again and follow your own advice.

Ok...so you used an abbreviation for "by the way", but it was the beginning of a sentence and you didnt capitalize(again), and then you put a period on the end of it ending the sentence, then started a new sentence without first capitalizing AGAIN!

So next time you criticize someone, make sure you make LESS errors than them, otherwise you look like the bigger "dimmy".

LOL

 

The word dimmy is a dyslogistic expression for someone who is dim. Like dummy would be for dumb. Get around more you titty.

But really is that all you have? Jem quite obviously neither understands the arguments he struggles to make, nor the words he uses to not make them, or how to spell the words . He’s learning it all here on ET.

Are you seriously trying to pick apart common shorthand and an un-capitalized add on at the end of a piece and compare it to the fundamental ignorance Jem displays?

So you dance and flap around like a pansy boy, limp wristing your way to getting even on his behalf. How gay.

But like him, you have no real support for any of the religious bullshit deceit at the heart of all this, which you're always trying to pretend is so much better than the self-righteous crap it makes you both puke out.

That will be what a christian education in religious superstition does. You can keep it

 

I checked who introduced those scientists and physicists to me. It wasn’t you.

OMG Lol. That is too infantile. You want me to check how many times you spelled Nobel correctly when in your ignorance you’ve typed noble about 10 times on so many different occasions.

You can’t even understand what the Constitution states or what the Supreme Court has never done, when the facts are put right in front of you in this and other threads.
How the hell are you going to comprehend what a physicist is saying?

Susskind said the universe isn’t designed in his video, which you clumsily gave as evidence for the universe looking designed.
The reason why he says it doesn’t look designed, is inconsequential. There are numerous reasons it doesn’t and they are not all his anyway.

The fact is, you are being dishonest as usual , as with the Constitution and Supreme Court stuff. Repeating the same misrepresentations over and over, content in a confusion to mislead yourself as much as anyone.

That will be the Christian way.

 

I'm not into religious debate as I can't be bothered with the nonsense, but this came across my email today so I've copied it and pasted....
..............................................................................................

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following
response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which
was posted on the Internet. It's very funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to
all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.
20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian

 

-- why don't you show us who brought them to your attention just search et and show us...
you fricken liar.

- You childishly acted like I could not spell nobel - all you have to do is run a search to see that I did spell in correctly dozens of times. I can see you do not understand logic.

-- you argued with the Supreme Court on this thread and lost. Now a page or two later you claim victory. you have no integrity. You are a troll.

-- why don't you produce that link so all can see what a liar you are. you know damn well what susskind says.

but I will leave with a quote that proves your entire thesis wrong.

 

this really is over your head - I am sorry you do not understand articles such as these....
http://www.newscientist.com/article....html?full=true

This is the second paragraph...

"But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem. He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours."


and the last paragraph

question

"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

response from susskind:

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."
----------

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8

"Random, statistics, law of physics" is what he think happen.

 

Whatever it is that's making you an idiot is definitely working.

Apparently it's a psychotic belief in religious superstition which has you trying to sound like an authority, claiming to be a lawyer when you continuously couldn't spell cite.

In a sad denial about the actual wording in the Constitution, and on things to do with Supreme Court Law, claiming there is law, where there is none. In ignorance to lose, and fantasize by it, that others have lost.

Then in a continuous epic fail, attempt to put your clumsy hand to more deceit on subjects you clearly know little about, repeatedly calling a physicist a "noble" prize winner time after time, when already brought to your attention on numerous occasions, the physicist is not a Nobel prize winner.

You should maybe ask yourself what has you saying it is me arguing with the Supreme Court, when all the time you're arguing the Supreme Court has made law, for which no law has ever been made.

From that superfluity of self-importance, straining unremittingly to teach others a desperately hapless dumb understanding of things, you dimwittedly refer to a physicist's own vid, where he can be seen and heard to say the exact opposite of what you maintain. You call anyone who points these things out to you a liar.

So why are you floundering in such a desperate sate of ignorant denial, repeating the same utter garbage again and again.
I suspect it's all that religious superstitious pre-conditioning infecting your thinking enough to slip into to a sort of hallucination, that being wrong can be right in the name of it.

 

Yes Jem, it is over your head.
trendlover also points out why, but that will be over your head too.

But the above shows why Susskind says the universe looks designed but isn't. Right back to you posting stuff you thought was in support of the daft arguments you make. but in fact isn't. Incredible you can be so dim.

Attempting to suggest Susskind is saying only that " the universe looks designed" , when you must know all the time it is simply a false and deceitful quote and in your case for using it so much, makes it your lie. That's the point.

Now you can go full circle in a hopelessly muddled confusion to grant Susskind another "noble" prize, repeat endlessly the thing he doesn't state, ignore words of the Constitution, pretend there is Supreme Court law where there is none, and call others "fricken liar" whilst you lie.

All in the desperate defense of an infantile superstitious religious belief.


Never mind, at least you know there is one mindless religious freak to support you, who bases his reasoning on the same religion stuff you do ....

...that's sick but....


.....not to worry , at least Jesus Loves you......

 

below is all you need to know that stu is delusional.

Stu -

1. Is this a U.S. Supreme Court case?

2. Does it cite state Supreme Court Case law and State Constitutions.

3. If your answer is yes - than you were delusional. If you answer is no you still are delusional.