Not exact matches
Earlier in the week, on Friday, Schiff told reporters the Trump administration «would be hard - pressed to try to suppress the [Democrat's
counter memo], particularly
since they
claim they're releasing the GOP memo in the interest of transparency.»
but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you
claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused
since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a
counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!
A) it makes them look legitimate if an actual educated person is willing to engage them in debate B)
since most people don't understand reasonable debate, they know they can just gish gallop the whole time and make the actual educated person look bad by their inability to
counter seven thousand simultaneous
claims per topic
The issue is clouded further by
claims and
counter claims that the US government's stance has not changed
since the inauguration of Barack Obama.
In a sense, that was the key point of my Op Ed,
since I was
countering the widely spread
claim that these storms were on the rise, a
claim not only made by the politicians and scientists whom I cited, but spread more widely by a misleading but widely reproduced plot on the Wikipedia tornado page.
I know though that it would have to take data that AGW is based on and offer a plausible
counter explanation and
since many object to AGW's
claim of catastrophic changes that it should offer explanation for what's happening now and project a different future, perhaps one where we breathe a sigh of relief followed by staggering incredulity that we had been so misled and hoodwinked by the scientific community at large.
One of the ironies in the public «debate» — I use scare quotes
since what is transpiring is not a true debate, but rather a competition between an organized disinformation campaign to deny the reality of climate change, and a
counter effort to provide a more realistic picture — is that the IPCC is constantly accused of «alarmism,» and is consciously, intentionally, and consistently conservative in their
claims.
Hillary Clinton
counters this with the
claim that America is already great, citing the tremendous economic gains made
since the 2008 — 2010 Great Recession under the Obama presidency.