Nice try, Satanist taint licker
>Peter Dreier
What a lying sack of Orwellian shit.
>But those accords are partly to blame for that attack,by suggesting that Israel could ignorethe Palestinian question while normalizing relations with other Arab states.
See that? By 'suggesting'…in other words, projection from Dreier. Smearing and slandering PEACE AGREEMENTS as somehow really the opposite because reasons.
hey look it's you
Why are you admitting that your 'best' is that bad?
And he's doing such a terrible job at getting Trump that it's almost indistinguishable from a man trying to HELP the country, by getting all the important SCOTUS decisions made and clarifying precedents set.
And what's really uncomfortable for the inconsistent empiriocentrists is that these equations were not derived from observation, yet they are accepted as true by 99.9999% of all physicists.
Hey isn't that the fascist Olbermann who called to dissolve the Supreme Court?
Hitler started the extrajudicial "People's Court" in Germany because he was unhappy that the Reichsgericht didn't fall hook, line and sinker for the Reichstag Fire false flag?
Hitler and Olbermann have something in common.
Terrible description of a priori analysis.
Author of that passage hasn't thought things through enough.
>The conclusion of both descriptions is the same. It's still a "belief" and not "proven".
Well sure that's a "belief" about how knowledge of anything in the real world arises in the human mind, but anon can't help but notice that the concept of "proved", if you dig and dig, you end up where even the most vociferous 'anti-a-priorist' who is certain that the only valid knowledge of the real world is exclusively from experience, that itself rests on a number of a priori assumptions.
The biggest one is that in order to proceed along the "hypothesis->test->result->falsify or confirm hypothesis" knowledge accumulation process, one must make the a priori assumption that during that process, the nature of reality, the nature of things, is FIXED. , is UNCHANGED. When the anti-a-priorist proudly declares that a hypothesis they made was 'confirmed' by a test, or even 'falsified' by a test, there is a tacit assumption there that what was true about the reality of things at the time of the hypothesis remained unchanged over time all the way through to when a decision of 'confirmation' or 'falsification' is made.
Without the a priori assumption, then the researcher cannot claim that any PAST hypothesis was confirmed or falsified IN THE PRESENT. For if the world was such that what was true in the past, many not be true in the present, makes any declaration of 'confirmation' or 'falsification' an impossibility.
There are more a priori convictions that underlie The Scientific Method, the above is just one.
In other words, the whole anti-a-priorism ideology is a rank self-contradictory mess. The only reason why radical empiriocentrism became so 'mainstream' is because it gave an excuse to keep the MONEY flowing to the researchers pushing this ideology.
Look at how they had to use big letters and separate the words and phrases with big spaces.
Guaranteed Potato is going to have an earpiece with a voice telling him exactly what to say and how to say it.
And it's going to be a deep seated earpiece to try and hide it.