And when ANY of those groups start insisting they need to “teach” my children or others about how “awesome” their mental illness is, I’ll be glad to call that bullshit out too.
Great! Please let us know how often this has happened. Details or it didn't happen, cutie.
No they don't. I know several married Episcopal priests, and woman Episcopal priests. Where are you getting your information?
Yeah! We won't be "controlled" and "manipulated" by women, either! They only represent a little over half the population. Or by black people! They only represent--what--30%? Or by the elderly! My "% of population" goalpost is easily moved, and those below that % aren't allowed to "control" or "manipulate".
Oil companies? Sure. They represent a lot more by lobbyist dollars. Car companies? Ditto. Meat packers' unions? Not as much, but they aren't allowed because "meat packing".
Obvious troll is obvious. Buh-bye.
And the law does not say anything about conservation of energy: the law is "in a closed system, the energy is constant".
That is what "conversation of energy" is. You've contradicted yourself in the same sentence, which is almost impressive.
I don't know if I'm affected, really. But my property isn't on served by a public water utility; nor are half of the people in this county. Perhaps that's what you mean.
>the scientific method
Science and climate hysteria should not be used in the same sentence
True! But "science" and "climate fact" are welcomed in the same sentence, cutie.
Literally? That *would* be a nice April Fool's trick.
You miss the point. The *drug* contained in the preparation is the same; the preparation is NOT the same.
Water contained in a household preparation of ammonia is just water. But you might be ill-advised to buy a bottle of ammonia because you're thirsty for water.
Hint: Do NOT drink ammonia because you're thirsty.
Thanks for the response. I did the same searching and found the same [apparent] claim online. Various sites claim "no hono[u]r among thieves" as the meaning of Proverbs 1:16, but that seems highly iffy. Good ol' Biblical bull!
Is that the actual Proverbs 1:16 text (even amongst its many translations)?
Read what I *wrote*, about the concurrencies.
It was a rushed job that had to get done, because a Chinese lab intentionally let an engineered virus onto their people. This is not disputed anymore [...]
Nope. It's not disputed anymore. You're just mistaken about it.
You might want to re-read the Brandenburg v. Ohio concurrencies. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is given as an example of a rare case where such speech *can* be prosecuted, because it is "a classic case where speech is brigaded with action."
Why is it so difficult to use explicitic wording?
If I knew what that is, I might try.
You're using a keyboard! How quaint!
