Al Queda Threats, Sequester, And Obammy Golfs
-
I like to stand by beliefs that can be proven or at least have facts and science on their side (hence the religion thing). Instead of just anecdotal evidence or beliefs that have been passed down and unchallenged or whatever.
I'm just saying that you think you can just go "free stuff" and win an election. Like you said, people do enjoy free stuff, but not everyone will blindly take it because they realize its not actually free. Between those people and the people against free stuff because they aren't getting any I would think the opposition would be pretty decent.
But I also don't have any charts on me right now. If I can poke holes in your side easily enough though, and its the same old thing you've been saying since it was clear Obama would win, I don't see a reason to agree without any facts to support it. Plus, I'd think you have the burden of proof here.
-
Of course while you may like to think of yourself as being very analytical the great bulk of your posts never exceed the intellectual limit of calling somebody idiot or old. Just saying. But if you think I'm saying something that's wrong rather that bitch that I haven't provided you with a satisfactory graph feel free to post one that proves me wrong. That's what you did when we were discussing whether or not Mexico is a third world shit hole. I believe you ended up incorrect in that particular instance but it was well done that you found something that contradicted what I said. I then pointed out that there was a new chart updated in 2013. But point taken. If the battle cry is for more programs and benefits that should be paid for by taxing the rich I would say that there are lots more what programs and benefits than rich people. If you think that's incorrect feel free to find me a graph that shows most people in America are considered rich. If not then you might want to spin it some other way.
WSS
-
-
I was gonna offer that I think the Al Queda threats / intercepted communiques are a red herring too!
Even in light of the (current up to date) news of a drone attack on 4 terrorists in Yemen.
What a great story to deflect from the scandals at home? the media / administration love affair is back!
have a nice day
-
When the majority of posts are just "Liberals suck" "Obamao is Hitler" etc there isn't much of a point to spend the time making a post that has supporting references, etc because it is a useless battle. Cal has been proven wrong pretty conclusively multiple times and he'll do what he can to squirm out of it and not admit it. Add in all the "You're a stupid kid" and "Woodpecker" childish insult posts and I see no reason to give them a post that much higher intellectually than their own. It is a waste of time. I'll occasionally type out debate worthy posts, but its not like I ever get the same level back. Like you said, I took Cal's map and turned it around. Then I got a "source" that was a letter to the editor. Then I got a map of drug cartels which didn't have anything to do about what we were discussing. There's no point most of the time to give a long, debate worthy reply.
I wasn't bitching about your lack of stats. You are just trying to make the point you can win an election with just "free stuff". It would seen you have the burden of proof here, not me.
Your speech to text is pretty messed up today. Do you have a cold?
-
Ha. You are correct in that.
Sometimes I neglect to edit this shit as quickly as I should. But just keep in mind who you are actually crabbing about.
and, as I always try to do, I try to avoid things like every or all or only.
I just think that when the majority wants free shit and the minority pays the taxes that weights and election.
WSS
-
And for the record I include myself in that as well. I've disagreed with Bob about the unions but let me tell you that if Musicians Union made sure I got a lifetime pension and couldn't really be fired or replaced and the taxpayers we're picking up the tab I'd probably be pro union too.
WSS
-
There's a musicians union?
-
Yes there is. It used to have some power even though that's pretty much gone now. The big boys saw some better shit but most of us local musicians just paid dues even though at one point we got stiffed and the Union made the club owner cough up the money. Pretty funny he refused to pay us because I did a disco sucks routine and his place was a disco as well as a rock club. We got together before a panel of octogenarian Italian American musicians who asked him what did the boys say that was offensive? He said disco sucks. The old paisan said pay the boys. But many many years ago I believe in the 70's there was a Musicians Union strike which affected the real guys out in Hollywood in New York. I remember The Smothers Brothers show theme song was sung acapella for a time.
the Union exists still today but I don't think any live music venues give a shit so...
WSS
-
Sees no reason to post his own legit opinions because....
nope. bullhockey.
It's another thing libs do most all the time - they pick what sources are allowed, and they
pick the definitions of words, then they get all emotional and woodpeckerish about
being disagreed with. Anything that doesn't fit the pouty, "anti" narrative is bashed, ignored, etc.
I know I consider Mexico a hell hole. And the vast amount of geography that the drug cartels
control is one of the most important elements that I use to form that opinion. And I consider hell holes
third world countries. And I don't give a rat's rear end about the redefining of the term liberal wise.
And, btw, the editorial I linked to, simply referenced the author's opinions, which mirrored mine, and
saved me typing. Libs do that too - they demand scientific studies if you disagree with them, but if
they disagree with you, why, they don't go with their own criteria. They go with quotes from journalists
they have on their side of the fence, they go with personal insults, and they get mad when other folks
ask about those scientific studies. Weird.
-
A good example of that is heck swearing up and down statistics on global warming are infallible and true 100% of the time. But when confronted with statistics that black people commit more violent crimes, abortions and child abuse then suddenly statistics are invalid. They don't tell the whole story, they are misleading etc etc etc...which is it? Statistics are valid or not? I guess it depends on how much you like the issue.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
A good example of that is heck swearing up and down statistics on global warming are infallible and true 100% of the time. But when confronted with statistics that black people commit more violent crimes, abortions and child abuse then suddenly statistics are invalid. They don't tell the whole story, they are misleading etc etc etc...which is it? Statistics are valid or not? I guess it depends on how much you like the issue.
A good example of that is heck swearing up and down statistics on global warming are infallible and true 100% of the time. But when confronted with statistics that black people commit more violent crimes, abortions and child abuse then suddenly statistics are invalid. They don't tell the whole story, they are misleading etc etc etc...which is it? Statistics are valid or not? I guess it depends on how much you like the issue.
They're pretty different things...
-
Sees no reason to post his own legit opinions because....
nope. bullhockey.
It's another thing libs do most all the time - they pick what sources are allowed, and they
pick the definitions of words, then they get all emotional and woodpeckerish about
being disagreed with. Anything that doesn't fit the pouty, "anti" narrative is bashed, ignored, etc.
I know I consider Mexico a hell hole. And the vast amount of geography that the drug cartels
control is one of the most important elements that I use to form that opinion. And I consider hell holes
third world countries. And I don't give a rat's rear end about the redefining of the term liberal wise.
And, btw, the editorial I linked to, simply referenced the author's opinions, which mirrored mine, and
saved me typing. Libs do that too - they demand scientific studies if you disagree with them, but if
they disagree with you, why, they don't go with their own criteria. They go with quotes from journalists
they have on their side of the fence, they go with personal insults, and they get mad when other folks
ask about those scientific studies. Weird.
Sees no reason to post his own legit opinions because....
nope. bullhockey.
It's another thing libs do most all the time - they pick what sources are allowed, and they
pick the definitions of words, then they get all emotional and woodpeckerish about
being disagreed with. Anything that doesn't fit the pouty, "anti" narrative is bashed, ignored, etc.
I know I consider Mexico a hell hole. And the vast amount of geography that the drug cartels
control is one of the most important elements that I use to form that opinion. And I consider hell holes
third world countries. And I don't give a rat's rear end about the redefining of the term liberal wise.
And, btw, the editorial I linked to, simply referenced the author's opinions, which mirrored mine, and
saved me typing. Libs do that too - they demand scientific studies if you disagree with them, but if
they disagree with you, why, they don't go with their own criteria. They go with quotes from journalists
they have on their side of the fence, they go with personal insults, and they get mad when other folks
ask about those scientific studies. Weird.
What are you talking about? Who are these phantom liberals you hate so much that are doing this? I made reference to what you are doing. You come back with "liberals this" and "liberals that". You really do have a problem. Have I done what you described? If so please show me. I'm guessing this will just lead to another example of you not understanding what makes a source good though.
-
Statistics are statistics. Either you can argue them or you can't. Not only when it suits your purpose.
-
Social science and science science aren't the same.
And to say "agree with all statistics or none" is stupid. It is easy to warp some stats into what you want. If you can take a stat and quickly turn it on its head then that's a bad sign. If you can't, and someone else can back it up and show its validity, then that's different.
-
Well why don't you go to FBI.gov and see if you cam turn that stat on its head. Veteran spin man heck couldn't. That's why he took the stance he did. If he could have spun it he would have
-
Your stance was what, that black people commit more crime because of their black culture?
-
A good example of that is heck swearing up and down statistics on global warming are infallible and true 100% of the time. But when confronted with statistics that black people commit more violent crimes, abortions and child abuse then suddenly statistics are invalid. They don't tell the whole story, they are misleading etc etc etc...which is it? Statistics are valid or not? I guess it depends on how much you like the issue.
A good example of that is heck swearing up and down statistics on global warming are infallible and true 100% of the time. But when confronted with statistics that black people commit more violent crimes, abortions and child abuse then suddenly statistics are invalid. They don't tell the whole story, they are misleading etc etc etc...which is it? Statistics are valid or not? I guess it depends on how much you like the issue.
statistics are AWESOME when they prove your point of view, not so much when they disprove your point of view
-
Except stats that say black people commit the largest percentage of crime don't prove they have an inferior culture. Just like a stat that says the majority of serial killers chew gum doesn't prove chewing gum makes you a murderer. Its causation vs correlation. It is not the same kind of stat that gets posted with global warming. Actual temperatures vs scientific models, different chemical readouts, water level changes, etc etc. All of which are uses by a global network of climatologists as the critique each discovery and revise their model and views.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Maybe someone should take a stab at a definition of culture.
Maybe then we can decide if there's anything wrong with any subgroups culture.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login