Plisken

Claims do not require a burden of proof.  That's just a rule someone made up.

Quantity is quality.

I'm not interested in your box at the moment or some random ball, so I think that qualifies as "no".  I have no belief that there is a red ball in the box.  If I dedicated a little effort I might think otherwise.  Do you need a dollar?  It's in my pocket I assure you, just one though.  

Well what's it for?  I'm not hypothetically intrigued by the color of your ball(s) or whatever.

Why do you care what color your ball is?

The second option might be a peacemaker, but it is not a peacekeeper.  Relying on weapons for deterrence is generally stupid, morally questionable, and often illegal. The 2nd amendment has no relation to Nuclear weapons.  

Listen to yourself, repeating something a stooge would say.  Doing nothing is a choice, not support.  Surely that should raise a red flag.

  Should you reserve half the truth in false testimony is that not a sin?  

I'm not able to understand your last sentence

The right is traditionally held by Americans who believe in the ideal of righteously ordered liberty, not to be dependent upon the bill of rights for its existence.  The 2nd amendment itself pertained to the purpose of neutralizing the political matter after consolidating the confederate government in line with the aspirations people had of the necessary discipline for a free society, whilst the natural rights are expected outside of the political fray by Americans to just be taken as obvious and accounted for.  It is safe to say that the second amendment refers to the small arms of a militia and the means of organization and exercise.

I should word the first sentence differently so as not to extend inappropriately for the current context. There is a right and that right is recognized in "the people"

"The people" have the right to "keep and bear" "arms", and the language suggests the right is recognized from a preexisting order, rather than simply confered by the writers of the constitution. "The right of the people" not "people shall have the right". What you are suggesting would be contingent upon the militia service being a requirement to be among the people.  If you aren't subject to a foreign power, property owner, or maybe otherwise lacking in citizenship, that is what "the people" refers to.  The intention of a well regulated militia is noted opening the 2nd amendment, but not as the sole prerequisite which is being among "the people".  

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

To contend that the founding fathers of the United States intended to lay out how to disarm the people or some loophole for the government requires an unfair vantage to have a fighting chance.  The second amendment was thought to be necessary for securing independance.

It has never been restricted to skin tone in the survived connotations.  The modern racists we often associate it with who understand the term correctly may occasionally find it practical to differentiate between niggars of different races, traditionally color coded in America.  It just happens that they may believe a certain race(s) is universally lower and use colorful language.  Certain cultures percieved a societal need to keep certain people from saying it, and use skin tone to restrict it's use for various reasons, perhaps the most prevalently cited being for the generally ignorant to have respect of sensitivity to the family members of victims who experienced the settings of historical connotations.

"Which scripture is the most moral"

Got a kick out that being in this thread lol

I think being over with it's generally best to disregard the people behind it to the extent possible and resist political motivations.

Christianity teaches that humanity is fallen, but we get Life Alert through a free aarp membership.  

"Hoodlums" should read "deviants" or something.  Why is there a hoodlum class?  People need to be able to take on the risk of social liabilities.

I think realistically referring to certain illegal aliens as something resembling invaders would require an official declaration by Congress for some sort of vested authority in the executive branch in recognition of credible threats to the nation.

 I did go back and read the post, which is why I stated there is nothing for Mopac to explain because that post does not indicate what you say it does.  The post is reserved, ending at the rationale for choosing a side. The implication you drew exists in your mind, and not mine.  It is safe to assume that YOU came to your own conclusion, that  YOU are connecting democrats, because I can see that the post you replied to did NOT so you must have inserted your notions from somewhere else.

Since the post did not indicate a particular side, it's safe to say you imbued it with your own character, thus substantiation on why you drew the association with democrats in particular is not reasonably expected by anyone but yourself.

People who have assumed the office of presidency should not be printed on currency.

Soooo, I take it you aren't catholic 

Rights are innately correct.  They do not violate one another.  Healthcare, insofar as you conflate it with compulsory service, is not a natural right.  

Perhaps, but not because you didn't vote in accordance with your personal interest.

It says not to vote and then gives no explanation, like a bad car commercial.  Stuff like this needs to be repeated a bunch of times to ignorant people so it somehow ends up in your brain. 

Who cares?  

Unfortunately, Bsh1 may not address an insult directed at moderation, and shouldn't have to spend time reading that post.  If you could just refrain from ruining the utility of vocabulary for decent people by exemplifying an association with malevolent stupidity, that'd be great.    

I appreciate that you are taking time to write out these messages with other members and willing to converse with them.  Are you able to further clarify if there is or is not standardization for what constitutes invective language, differentiating it from brazen noninvective language? 

You include the descriptor "marginalized" on this subject such as in post 19 and I find myself wondering if maybe you mean as in 'your' reference of choice to classification of groups that are marginalized, or if you mean in respective context of this website such as an "attempt", for lack of a better word, to classify people/members into a group or class and marginalizing it.

I don't see that what 'we' enjoy wearing is relevant to both  your question and the topic.  Gender is assigned normatively.  

Mountains are relatively small, like geological pimples.  Gravity is the force that keeps the moon from zinging off into space.  It is in tension (spin a ball on a string).  Gravity also explains why we have predictable tides based on the position of the moon.

Density is not a measure of force.  It is the amount of mass per unit volume.  Differences in density do not necessarily indicate whether objects will move at all.  If an object is static it requires force to move.  You'll have to be more specific in your question.  

Every time you step on a bathroom scale it will read out the amount of force being exerted at the point of contact. 

Why are you asking about earth in particular?

If the force acting between massive objects is a lie, what force is acting "downwards", requiring an upward reactive force to not sink into the earth?

The Bible is a collection of books containing records pertaining to developements in relationship with God.  I do not recall any substantiated claims as referenced in the bible about the existence of gods.  

 Occam said zay wouldn't feel excluded if you just cut it out.  Personally, I think it would be just peachy to be able to have "it doesn't matter" and Occam needs to grow a pair.

Forgiveness is one aspect of all that must be assumed in compensation for evil.  

It's still evil, however "You" may not have acted immorally.  The intent of self defense is to stop/void/avoid the threat, and outside of pacifistic restriction physical means may be warranted, or not practically possible to prove guilt.  Then there is purportionality, did you risk others well being with restraint, only go as far as you need to, and did you reasonably assume a better alternative, or have the opportunity to?  Did your actions cause harm which you are responsible for?  In the current state, assuming one is in the right, physical intervention may still be necessitated in the face of evil to restore the peace.  Is this getting a little ahead of the thread development?  

Okay, why did you say that and tag my handle?  That could come across three ways off the top of my head.

Is this just a false accusation or intended for some sort of reaction?

In plain English the sentence does not seem to be wrong. I'm unsure of what the redundant portion ("when you run away") is supposed to confirm (",right?") in your mind.  So that I might be clear, Plisken has not reached any agreement with another member at this time so nobody owes Plisken anything, regardless of the setting for the time being.  Not answering a question would not necessarily void a future arrangement in light of its respective relationship.  Plisken is not interested in any terms Goldtop may be proposing at this time.  Plisken is not accepting, endorsing, or consenting to any ethics, or order that Goldtop may be inviting, proposing, abiding, or otherwise be held to.  

¿whaT

Are you trying to convey justificaton to call me a coward?

If it's convenient, would you please answer the other question before I forget about it?  A simple yes or no should suffice.

Do you think that might be indicative of other misconceptions you may have?

Morality as it pertains to right and wrong might be said to be objective.  As referenced to good and evil people often rely upon subjective conditions to lend their perspective.  God's authority is independent of our acknowledgement.  

Verifiable truth is where that term is useful. Since it was in a classroom with multiple witnesses in real time, and the instrument could be examined, you could have determined if he was in fact, holding a pen.  

Edit: Worth more in dollars, not necessarily the time that we use them to account for.

I bought a like-new iPhone once.  It was my first smartphone and especially affordable opportunity at the time.  The relationships they are able to found with carriers cannot be discounted.  Apple phones were marketed with such high margins at the stores people were accustomed to shopping and often the cost is commonly covered through (anticompetitive) contract, where people briefly choose an updated phone that is intuitive to them and has the features they require.  

My experience with the iPhone was intitally positive since I enjoyed the music quality and only used it to play a few games.  I liked the handling, design, and the extent that i understood its engineering.  Ultimately it became frustrating as apple is apparantly content to impair their products after a certain time with software, and I became discontented with the company.  So I no longer buy apples because I believe in buying things that are worth owning, before I even consider the market value.  That said, there is still probably some rationale in which consumeristic individuals find them appealing to their application regardless of my experience.   Apple products have a relative reputation for reliability, and thoughtful integration.  While knowledge is preferable to brand based shopping, that's not always practical for everyone.  Many people in the current market are not too technically inclined, or too busy and stressed for another learning curve and the name associated services are worth more to them.

Apple iPhones are well constructed in my experience.  I really could not care less about the (above standard) specifications relative to other products with my priorities, as long as as it is designed properly, and performance is sufficient for your intended application.  

Note: Further evidence - irrational conflation, after alleging claim to be made in ignorance, with dishonesty.  "Fraud" "Liar" Opinion:  Symptoms are repeating along related circumstances across time-Testing warranted.