Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » And So it Begins (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: And So it Begins
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not for something as relatively new and controversial as as AGW
There's your problem. It's neither new nor controversial.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hannibal:
[qb] What I think worries some people is his economic theory and his distaste for top-down governing, which translates to him being something of a radical within the current system.

Yes it does worry me when someone is serious about limiting the size of our economy by how much gold we have stashed somewhere.
Such changes have to go through the Congress so your dislike of his desire for a return to the gold standard won't translate into Paul suddenly making sweeping changes. And I'm not even slightly kidding when I say that he'd have "committed suicide" long before such a bill was ever passed.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
Not for something as relatively new and controversial as as AGW
There's your problem. It's neither new nor controversial.
Attempting to astroturf consensus doesn't make it so.

What is the polling on this in the US public?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's the polling on creationism?

Attempting to astroturf controversy doesn't make it so.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
To me, AGW means that the rising CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere and oceans are changing the climate and will result in significant changes to temperature, average rainfalls, the rate of ice melting (especially at the poles), ocean levels, and other things. Is this the "outlandish myth" you are referring to, or is it something else?

Because I have seen it argued that even AGW deniers agree on these basics.

I think they deny that anyone has shown causation of a specific factor. That, by the way, should be scientifically obvious since this is a purely observational scientific conclusion.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
What's the polling on creationism?

Attempting to astroturf controversy doesn't make it so.

The point was that silence is not consent. That's not the way logic works.

People who have expressed no opinion on AGW cannot be said to automatically agree with it. That is absurd.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Silence is not disagreement, either.

Silence in acadamia means the subject is either accepted as true or is considered self-evidently false. If it can be argued about it will be. Given that the vast majority of papers that take a position support AGW, the only reasonable interpretation is that those that don't take a position reflect equal levels of agreement.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Such changes have to go through the Congress so your dislike of his desire for a return to the gold standard won't translate into Paul suddenly making sweeping changes. And I'm not even slightly kidding when I say that he'd have "committed suicide" long before such a bill was ever passed.

He would get to appoint the fed chair. That would go badly.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, who says all these scientists are silent? The Cook study examines papers, not scientists. When you ask the climate scientists, you get the same level of consensus that Cook claimed. See corroborating evidence from surveys conducted by Bray:

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2013/09/dennis-brays-surveys-of-climate.html

quote:
An important summary is provided by this diagram, which shows the percentage of agreement among climate scientists that a warming would occur (manifestation), and that this warming is related to GHG emissions (attribution).
Chart:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TVCpHZg5WGU/UjWZzc0BVeI/AAAAAAAAAfE/u9XC4SE_MMg/s1600/manfestation-attribution.jpg

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Silence in acadamia means the subject is either accepted as true or is considered self-evidently false.

I have no idea if any of the underlying studies being discussed accurately reflect any of the underlying papers, positions or people.

However, silence in academia on a point, would likely mean the paper in question doesn't speak to that point. How many of the papers in question actually address AGW? Contributing to one small factor is useful refine the global theory, but it does not in and of itself confirm or deny the overarching theory.

The vast majority of science relates to a testable hypothesis on a micro-scale, one wouldn't expect those papers to take a position on the validity of a macro-scale issue. To the extent they mention it all, it should be as a reference to another paper that did address the macro topic, to perhaps highlight an apparent and testable connection to their own micro-study.
quote:
Given that the vast majority of papers that take a position support AGW, the only reasonable interpretation is that those that don't take a position reflect equal levels of agreement.
There is nothing reasonable about assumptions like that. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the authors themselves don't support AGW, but that doesn't say anything about whether their results speak to the global theory.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If there were a controversy, I would expect papers on 'global climate change' or 'global warming' to position themself as supporting one or another cause. If only to better identify its location in current body of work.

What basis do you have for thinking that the papers which take a position are not representative?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Such changes have to go through the Congress so your dislike of his desire for a return to the gold standard won't translate into Paul suddenly making sweeping changes. And I'm not even slightly kidding when I say that he'd have "committed suicide" long before such a bill was ever passed.

He would get to appoint the fed chair. That would go badly.
I have to say that I don't really believe that the President selects the Fed chair. This is supposition, of course, but I guess in the event Paul did select the chair it would be a curious situation, kind of like asking the Pope to select the next high priest of the Church of Satan.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If there were a controversy, I would expect papers on 'global climate change' or 'global warming' to position themself as supporting one or another cause. If only to better identify its location in current body of work.

I don't think papers are written to support a cause. They are written to describe the results of a testable hypothesis. AGW (and frankly just GW) generates a large amount of sub-components that are capable of limited testing. The results of those sub-tests support the general theory (or work against it) but are not the general theory, and can't generally prove or disprove the general theory.
quote:
What basis do you have for thinking that the papers which take a position are not representative?
I'm not sure why I should care. To the extent they exceed what their research supports they are just opinions. I don't have any basis for believing any of them are incorrect about what their studies showed (subject to the absolute reservation that I haven't reviewed them and it's entirely likely that any individual study happens to have fatal flaws). I can categorically state that there is no such thing as a climate study that comprehensively applies to the entire environment (it's the problem of N=1).
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I may be over-generalizing from history where papers take care to position themselves in the historiography. But I would expect any paper that addressed a particular sub-component and either contributed or detracted from AGW would mention that in the abstract if the matter wasn't settled.

Whether or not you should care depends on whether you're disputing my conclusion (the Cook study is a valid measure of support for AGW) or just my argument (that so many papers fail to take a position for or against AGW because a consensus has been reached).

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not for something as relatively new and controversial as as AGW.
Trivia question: who was the first President of the United States to mention the threat of global warming during a speech before Congress? The answer may suprise you for such a "new and controversial" theory. [Smile]

[ March 24, 2015, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think they deny that anyone has shown causation of a specific factor. That, by the way, should be scientifically obvious since this is a purely observational scientific conclusion.
Which is interesting, since it is almost universally agreed that the increasing amounts of CO2 in our atmposhere holds more heat on our planet.

Which means that, even if it cannot be shown that CO2 levels have caused the increase in temperatures in the past century or so, no one has shown any good reason why it won't in the future.

Which really makes me wonder why there is any disagreement on the dangers of AWG. [Confused]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I may be over-generalizing from history where papers take care to position themselves in the historiography. But I would expect any paper that addressed a particular sub-component and either contributed or detracted from AGW would mention that in the abstract if the matter wasn't settled.

[my bold]

This statement carries with it the kind of baggage that is endemic to political crusaders. Scientists are not historians or politicians, and it is absolutely not in their line of work to comment in abstracts on how the details of their research may fit into particular theories or causes, unless the scientist in question is personally interested in those areas. But aside from desiring one's result to 'help the cause' of AGW you should never make an assumption that it is automatic for someone in atmospheric studies, oceanography, etc, to just include in any particular abstract how their results affect AGW theory in particular. That falsely puts AGW at the center of all research, which it isn't. Think of how crazy it would be for each abstract to have to go through a list of all kinds of theories and explain how their particular study adds to or detracts from each and every one. Maybe some scientists in particular are interested to make such commentary, but it is not 'science as usual' to do so.

As a non-scientist I can see how it is tempting to think that because one thinks of AGW all the time and is constantly looking for data on that subject that people working in the scientific community have that same mindset when doing their daily work. Some probably do, but most don't.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AGW is the biggest thing in climate science. Why wouldn't any paper touching on it not mention it? We're not talking about a random of set of climate-related papers but those that specifically refer to climate change or global warming. These papers are centered on relevant subjects.

I actually would expect peer-reviewed papers to list the implications and consequences for any currently relevant theories (i.e. ones that haven't been settled). There's not much point publishing without placing the results in context.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ted Cruz signs up for Obamacare

I couldn't make this stuff up. This is just too funny... it's like something the Onion would report.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't see what is funny about it. Actually it's quite admirable. As he points out in the article he doesn't want to be exempted like the liberal in Congress wanted to exempt themselves from Obamacare. He also notes that unlike Obama, he follows laws, even ones he disagrees with, while Obama simply ignores laws he doesn't like.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What support do you have for the claim that "liberals" wanted to exempt themselves from Obamacare? And what would that have even meant in the context of having an existing insurance plan? *I'm* not exempt from Obamacare, but because I have an existing plan that meets the minimum requirements I'm fine to keep it instead of purchasing a plan on the exchange. It seems like the same would have applied to congress, making any "exemption" nonsensical.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look up Harry Reid exempting some of his staff.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see anything about an exemption. Do you have a link? Are you referring to the subsidy they are getting to offset the cost? That's something I also get from my private employer while still not being exempt from the ACA.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here are the gory (I mean boring) details:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/12/11/harry-reids-explanation-for-why-not-all-of-his-staff-is-going-on-obamacare/

Short version: two similar provisions in early drafts of the bill attempted to mandate that congresspeople and their staffs should enroll on the exchanges, because they have a belief in making sure laws apply to Congress. They got squished into one vague provision in the final bill. The bill lacked precise definitions for the terms used, and there was some ambiguity about who was included. Further, apparently some legal concern about forcing people onto the exchanges if it wasn't clear they were required to by the bill.

It doesn't really indicate much of anything except the pitfalls of imprecise legal language in tacked on amendments. Since the overall intent of ACA had nothing to do with providing coverage for federal employees, and the amendment that added this requirement was added under reasoning that was completely separate and different from the reasoning that supported the ACA in the first place, it's a big pile of meh. Just something that opportunistic talking heads can twist to suit their audiences biases.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that also ignores the little dance that was going on earlier when libs and even some RINOs in Congress were quietly scrambling a few years ago to discreetly exempt the House and Senate completely.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that they had backroom conversations (supposedly) about how to deal with a feared significant increase in the cost of healthcare for staffers from which no proposed changes actually emerged doesn't really strike me as scrambling.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that these people were required to sign up on the exchanges in the first place was a direct result of a special amendment to the law for that purpose. Someone FIRST decided that congresspeople and their aides should use the exchanges, as a special provision in the law, and then they discussed how to mitigate the impact to congressional employees.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Except that also ignores the little dance that was going on earlier when libs and even some RINOs in Congress were quietly scrambling a few years ago to discreetly exempt the House and Senate completely.
You mean, if you 'are being honest and not trying to spread the politicized lie, that they were scrambling to clarify that federal employees could receive subsidies from their employer, just like every other person out there. To prevent the law from being interpreted to mean that federal employees has a special exemption from being able to receive employer contributions as some people were trying to push in order to undermine support for the law.

There was no "exemption from Obamacare" that was purely deceptive labeling to politicize the issue. The only thing at question was whether the Federal Government, as an employer, could continue act like every other employer out there and pay a portion of health insurance costs as part of the compensation it offered.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Ted Cruz signs up for Obamacare

I couldn't make this stuff up. This is just too funny... it's like something the Onion would report.

Yeah, the idea that he would live under the same rules as the rest of us. It's funny. It's been a while, is this considered racist too?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Remember that Obamacare is for people who don't have adequate health insurance from their employers. That is the main rule everyone plays under.

So Ted Cruz proudly signing up for Obamacare simply means he is refusing the (adequate) healthcare his employer (the U.S. Government) provides.

And staffers having to go on Obamacare means that their employer (the U.S. Government) has taken away the healthcare previously provided. [Mad]

So Ted Cruz's gesture was stupid and meaningless. He's refusing healthcare from where he is supposed to get it so that he can get it from somewhere else. He obviously doesn't understand the law.

No wonder he risked the U.S. government's credit rating to try to stop it. He doesn't know what it's all about. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I'd say he sees the plight of Americans screwed by Obamacare's raising the cost of normal insurance a d subsequent expansion of Medicaid so this is Cruz standing in solidarity with the American people.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But let's be clear: when Cruz says he's signing up for exchange coverage because he has no legal alternative, he's lying. He has several legal alternatives, some of which would be cheaper and some of which would be much more expensive but provide a higher class of coverage (like continuing his wife's Goldman Sachs coverage under COBRA). Let's also note that, given his net worth, this particular form of "solidarity" is as meaningful as George Soros coming down to eat a grilled cheese sandwich with some union protesters.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Keep in mind that the ACA includes this provision:

quote:
“the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act.”
So if Cruz (or his staff) want to take advantage of the plans made available to them through their employer, yeah, they have to use the exchanges.

Sure, he could have found another way to handle this, but the fact that he's falling back on the standard congressional plan, now that his wife's insurance plan is going away, isn't really a big deal.

The old health plan they used to have isn't available any more (although it's still available to other federal employees).

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And Ted Cruz ups the denier rhetoric, comparing global warming "alarmists" to flat-earthers.

What a maroon! And he wants to be President. [LOL]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His grasp of history seems to equal his grasp of climate science.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remember that Obamacare is for people who don't have adequate health insurance from their employers.
This, but more. Obamacare is for every American who runs into expensive medical problems; insurance companies can no longer perform a check to see if the patient can be disqualified from coverage due to any conceivable failure to notify the insurer about a pre-existing condition. And insurance coverage must meet minimum basic standards. And hospitals must actually start keeping track of outcomes. and more
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is also the fact that some will probably challenge Ted's right to be President since he wasn't born in this country and only his mother was a citizen. People like Donald Trump. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cruz is now calling the religious liberty a defining issue for the 2016 race. It will be interesting to see where that takes him.

News Feed

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And here's how Cruz defines religion:

Christians can't be Democrats.

quote:
“Today’s Democratic Party has decided there is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party,” he said at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Waukee, Iowa...

“Today’s Democratic Party has become so radicalized for legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states that there is no longer any room for religious liberty,” he said.

Which is to say, if you believe in gay marriage, you obviously aren't a Christian. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm impressed (dismayed) with how much traction this religious freedom narrative is getting lately.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1