NolaAuTiger

1.85M That’s how much we purchased this loss for. Thank goodness for basketball.

I think the 1787 Constitutional Convention got it right. But what do I know?

Sounds totally fair to the roustabout in middle-of-nowhere-Alaska!

Republicans, here's your *three* paths

You threw peanut butter in my chocolate!

Wrong. The viewpoint neutral laws and regulations we’ve been discussing—the very ones that you mentioned—do precisely the opposite.

Double thanks.

In goose-for-gander fashion, the extension of this logic utterly fails.

Whose point? Or perhaps you inferred I was responding to your whining; quite telling.

He isn’t rich? He doesn’t (inside) trade stocks? He doesn’t have any sketchy business dealings? He lives paycheck-to-paycheck? WHO LET THE POOR IN?!?!

"Experts" Hahaha. What a stupid article. Thanks for the laugh.

Crap, we're being too civil. Wrong forum.

Why don't we stop restricting domestic production when it does almost nothing to combat global warming? That is the goal, right, combat climate change? Canceling leases tells markets that investments won't be profitable; it fattens the wallets of our adversaries. The price of oil was under $56 a barrel when Biden took office. Blue collar Americans want to put food on the table and fuel in their cars; not an increased cost of living. Find alternative energy sources that undercut the price of fossil-fuels--we can all get on board with that--but don't destroy American's livelihoods and bankroll Russia, Iran and China while doing it. Capisce?

Surely you also heard that the Biden Administration just offered the fewest offshore oil and gas leases in history, right? Or perhaps also that it just canceled seven leases in the ANWR? I am sure unemployed roustabouts are cheering these energy policies as they install solar panels in the tundra. Anyway, at least the caribou are happy!

I think curricular choice is within the constitutional discretion of the legislature. I think the legislature can grant parents generally a say in when and how to introduce subjects to their children. I think a school can teach Benedict Arnold is a traitor, and line its libraries with books consistent with that end, even if a student or parent prefers a revisionist account that he is a hero. I think it is ironic that dissenters (see the link you posted) profess they have no idea what Florida's law means, yet (when convenient for their cause) readily claim the law is one-sided and chills LGBTQ people from expressing sexual orientation or requires schools to remove such content from libraries. Henry Whitaker authored a well-written brief on these issues recently. My views align with Florida's position on the matter.

Give me a hypothetical? Do you mean in the context of a school library, or banning a literary work across the board?

I didn't say his post was contradictory. Do they? What do you mean by "broader terms." Be more specific. When the state gets involved, yes that's a reasonable claim. There is First Amendment caselaw to this end. Jiggery-pokery. So at the very least, you're saying he must be referring to something other than the First Amendment? Otherwise, not even you would dispute my response? Good deal.

The implicit contradiction you’ve conjured up erroneously presumes that freedom of speech encompasses a right to publish literature in elementary schools and libraries. No such right exists. Your premise is faulty.

Analyze this when you have ten hours to spare: https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/iran/

Our upcoming AGs, SGs, and SCOTUS Justices! Man I feel great about the future!

Well, I also believe that God isn’t constrained by time. Whether he created earth in six calendar days or six trillion calendar years matters not to me. Adhering to one view or the other is not an essential tenant of faith, nor does it belie the claims made throughout the Old and New Testament. In my view, the resurrection is the most “foolish” account in the Bible. Again, the wise just will not have anything to do with miracles.

Me personally, I don't know. If God didn't create the sun until the 4th day, then how are days 1-3 counted? Genesis simply does not answer these questions; nor is that its purpose.

Or apologetics press

Correct, carbon dating is an ineffective method when dealing with materials believed to be millions or billions of years old. But you still have to consider the reality that carbon has been detected in such materials. For example coal layers, fossils, diamonds, etc., that are supposedly millions/billions of years old. This does not result in an anomaly for the creationist view; in particular, the hypothetical we were discussing poses no contradiction.

Interesting. If carbon dating is a fact, then the dinosaur fossil in your hypothetical cannot be 100 million years old.