He flew across the world to assault someone. Way Cray cray! I'd of killed him too!
Those breeds are allowed. We had some awful attacks some years back.
Unsure yet. We still don't know. It isn't choice, nor how one is raised.
Tu quoque's a logical fallacy.
I took a Flintstone vitamin. I find myself more inclined to lash out at the French.
You are simply wrong. Show me that is what Deist believe.
There is no outrage here. What this guy said is known, common in his constituency, and obvious.
IDK, it could mean, that's what the author wanted you to believe
Their decision was not U.S. poilicy. It was what the Constitution mandated. The president has the authority to allow or reject anyone bent on entering our country.
It does in many cases.
So send your kid to the 65 million school. Though I bet you're a lot less likely to face a shooter in the third day school.
How about that we have a clown duck as premier elect this morning. Silly silly Ontarians.
Historical narratives in antiquity do not contain dialog, people all speaking to each other, not to mention magical beings, in complete sentences. Historical narratives don't have what are known in literature as omniscient authors, writers who tell you about things that happened or that were said when no one was around to hear them. For example the author of Mark can tell you what a crowd was thinking and even that they were thinking wrong among other things. These things are the hallmarks of fiction. So when we hold the Bible up to just standard literary criticism like we would anything else the Bible fails every test there is for historicity and passes all the tests for fiction with flying colors. We have absolutely no reasons to believe any tales of the supernatural anyway especially since these tales are written exactly like other historical fiction. This kind of literature always contains mentions of real places like Jerusalem and real people like Nebuchadnezzar and Herod and so Christians foolishly assume all the major characters in the Bible must have existed when in fact none of them did. But notice we don't have any other narratives with Nebuchadnezzar or Herod speaking to someone in a drama. That is why no real historian thinks the Bible is even remotely historical. What I'm asking for you don't have and we both know it. Something from OUTSIDE the Bible that might at least hint that something, anything in the Bible even might be true. Even just a little bit. No dice.
So you admit having no scientific qualifications, you are incompetent to opine on any scientific matter. That's what matters.
Who is the bigger azzhole? Starlord or Pedro [I forgot his character's name] in Game of Thrones?
Same here, It fills up my mail box....