No.

I apologize if you took my use of the term anti-Christ as being more than euphemistic. In many other circles the term "anti-Christ" is analogous to "anyone who is the embodiment of evil, regardless of religious affiliation (or absence thereof)". From what you have written so far, particularly in light of the conspiracy theories you love to share regarding him, that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama.

Nonsense. The entire building up of the borgeois as an object of envy and hatred is a refined, elaborate play to human coveting. You claim to be so wise, and you fail to grasp this? Or are you irate that the lid is so easily blown off your game?

You just watch your filthy mouth there, you. ;-)

I'm confident that you know fully well that I've never made this claim; indeed, I recognize BHO's occasional Christian affectations. I forgive you this deliberate, false troll, but want you to understand that I reject it utterly and call you out as a base liar for saying such. I wouldn't go in that heavy that quickly with just anyone; take it as a sign of affection that I know you and serve the response straight up and early.

That is an interesting case of you trying to support two countering arguments in one JE, there. Your JE claimed that he was a do-nothing, and now you quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ, poised to launch his new world order at any coming moment.

I would love for you to explain how those two views are not diametrically opposed, but being as you haven't been bothered by them so far in the least I don't expect that you ever will be in the future. When January 2017 draws to a close with a new POTUS and none of the new world order having come to pass I am sure I will find your newest conspiracy theories regarding President Lawnchair to be just as fantastic.

Are you referring to Thou shalt not covet? To say that doesn't fit here is an understatement. Too bad Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies isn't one, as you could learn a lot from it.

I am not going to read it for you. If you want the Cliff's notes, this is the closest to them I have found. Clearly I cannot motivate you to pursue knowledge, but perhaps they can.

You are utterly wrong on that. You are free to read something and disagree with it. You are even free to disagree with what you don't read. However when you refuse to read something, and then parade about pretending to be an expert on it, it is very likely that you will make yourself look foolish (which you have done repeatedly on this case in particular).

There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with Marx. What is absurd is you continuing to claim to be knowledgeable on Communism while refusing to read the fundamental text on it. It would be like someone claiming to be knowledgeable on Jesus because they read about him on uncyclopedia.

How does it rate compared to other certs?

Technology is never more than a catalyst; the 23 chromosomes are constant.

Your assertion raises more questions than anything. As a species of troll, this is a subtle one.

No, the point is that the we need to argue the point at the proper level of abstraction, a la Goldilocks: not too simple, not too complex.

True enough: 23 chromosome pairs.
Question: have you changed since conceived?

HAND

What you say is certainly true in an active sense. Your analysis, typically, fails to understand that it's all just passive aggression writ large:

No, but he does know how to spew him some entropy where he was purported to deliver order.