Montana is trying to outdo the rest of the red states

[Le duke]

Assuming isn't journalism. 

I’m not a journalist, and I don’t know that the blogger on SubStack claims to be one, either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Luchador]

8 minutes ago, Le duke said:

I’m not a journalist, and I don’t know that the blogger on SubStack claims to be one, either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's just biased crap acting as if their bias is the superior way of thinking. When someone takes that much liberty It's usually BS. 

[Le duke]

It's just biased crap acting as if their bias is the superior way of thinking. When someone takes that much liberty It's usually BS. 

So, is this a round about way of saying that you support such a bill?

Teaching religion as “facts” in every public school?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Luchador]

I think I see a trend with liberals assuming shit. So what you're saying is ______

[El Luchador]

 

 

[Le duke]

I think I see a trend with liberals assuming shit. So what you're saying is ______

It’s not an assumption that the author of the bill in MN wants to promote religion as fact. He says it in the bill, verbatim. It’s patently unconstitutional and also, if one has real faith, counter-intuitive to the actual practice of faith.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Luchador]

14 minutes ago, Le duke said:

 

It’s not an assumption that the author of the bill in MN wants to promote religion as fact. He says it in the bill, verbatim. It’s patently unconstitutional and also, if one has real faith, counter-intuitive to the actual practice of faith.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I disagree with your conclusions.  You are again projecting to make you bias work. You are taking more liberty with that than even the author is.  BTW intelligent design is not religious.  It is not Christian, it is not Muslim.  It is an actual scientific position.  But instead of learning about it you just approach it with your bias. You don't have a scientific mind. You're more interested in setting up a strawman. 

[Le duke]

I disagree with your conclusions.  You are again projecting to make you bias work. You are taking more liberty with that than even the author is.  BTW intelligent design is not religious.  It is not Christian, it is not Muslim.  It is an actual scientific position.  But instead of learning about it you just approach it with your bias. You don't have a scientific mind. You're more interested in setting up a strawman. 

So, as opposed to learning about the motives of the bill’s author, based on his public profile, in your mind, the logical thing to do is to ignore everything he’s ever said in public, and go with an interpretation that is at odds with the bill’s author’s known beliefs?

Really?

PS, I have an MS in Remote Sensing. An R1 institution deemed me sufficiently science-minded to award it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Luchador]

7 minutes ago, Le duke said:

 

So, as opposed to learning about the motives of the bill’s author, based on his public profile, in your mind, the logical thing to do is to ignore everything he’s ever said in public, and go with an interpretation that is at odds with the bill’s author’s known beliefs?

Really?

PS, I have an MS in Remote Sensing. An R1 institution deemed me sufficiently science-minded to award it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Then you should know better.  

[GreatWhiteNorth]

22 hours ago, El Luchador said:

So is the guy whose name is on the mrna patent and pioneered the research a real expert? 

I don't know. 

I haven't looked into that particular subject in that level of detail. I suspect one could find out in a relatively short time - but, then again, I'm not sure of that either.

In a conversation, sometimes admitting that we just don't know is a pretty good answer to a question. 

 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

10 hours ago, mspart said:

Pretty bad when the bill you sponsored and wrote is so bad you have to vote against it.    That is quite the trick.

mspart

The trick will be to see them re-elected. 

Either the voters don't know, don't care, or there's some other carrot in their view.

Then again, could be a great person who made a bad mistake and is voting against it to make it right. That's not all bad.