[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Let my try ryan speak then. Commies murder people. If you take that to mean there is causation between communist and homicidal tendencies you are an idiot.
But in this case, there are many, many, MANY other groups that also kill people. Whereas in my example, most of the people who deny evolution come from one political persuasion.
[/quote]
Not really, they only have religious background that has a deontological ethic and that leads to certain political opinions.
You are probably more utilitarian therefore you do not “get” them, but their evolution denial has little to do with their political ideas except of course when it comes to public schools.
So then we should totally disregard anything the CBO says. Which means that republicans can’t use anything they say to bolster their case. Besides, I’m not really even sure what you’re talking about with respect to “assumptions,” because the CBO gets their estimates from the text of the bill.
Yet you seem to agree with them pretty frequently. You’re just putting on this “I hate all politicians” act that everyone puts on for credibility, when really you pretty much agree with them.
“Either way, it would seem Fox seems to do a better job supplying the facts than the liberal networks.”
Oops.
But they ARE worse than others.
Right, but you seem to think that because this is true, propagating false information is acceptable. “Hell, it’s all biased, why worry about accuracy?”
I get upset with Fox because they lie, frequently. In other news, NO media outlet is biased in my direction.
HOW ARE YOU THIS STUPID? IT WAS AN EXAMPLE. I said that people will believe what they want to believe (you’re a nice example, but I digress…). I then used the Holocaust as an extreme example, saying that IF you WANTED TO, you could find evidence (weak as it may be) that it didn’t happen. There are Holocaust deniers; they’ve got to have SOMETHING to hold up as evidence. If you’re so interested in it, go look it up, but as I’ve been saying, that wasn’t the point. The point was, to reiterate, that people believe what they want to believe.
I admit no such thing. WTF are you reading?
MY CLAIM was that people believe what they want to believe. You couldn’t get past the example used to illustrate the point. If you want to investigate that, do it yourself.
That’s what I thought before talking to you.
Ha, I’m a bigot because of a Georgia joke. OK, like I said, you believe whatever you want to believe. I just don’t know what to say the facts are in, there’s scientific consensus, and then a SINGLE university disagrees. What would you say if a university published a paper that denied the heliocentric model of the solar system? You say, “OK, whatever, haha!” Same here.
What? That’s what YOU are guilty of here. You’re the one that can’t construct a basic analogy. What’s your name? Do you know where you are? How many fingers am I holding up?
Oh, my apologies. The way you were humping Bush’s leg back there, I just assumed you were a supporter.
chortle
I’m sorry, I’ll be right back: maybe after I take a hit of acid, this will make more sense to me. (By the way, this would be the obfuscation I was talking about earlier.)
No, you don’t, unless I have the right to restrain you from doing…anything I don’t like . Your logical contortion is extremely dishonest. At that point, the child’s well-being is not at odds with the mother’s rights. This is very easy, yet you have to cloud the waters to make a tenable argument.
OK, eventually, you’re going to have to learn something all by yourself. If you don’t know how to use Google, I’m sure someone close to you does.
But the criticism should be honest and based on facts, something Fox and friends have proven unable to do.
And I already hate all politicians you listed anyway. Then again I pretty much hate all politicians on account of their existence.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Liberals are ignorant about the real world.
That’s why they have to have their own special news network that won’t break the seal on their parallel reality, eh? Ohhh, right…
Anyway, it’s the conervatives who deny evolution, deny global warming, insist Iraq had WMDs, blame the financial crisis on poor people, etc.
You want to rethink that statement? Oh, of course you don’t. You’re a conservative.
[/quote]
I am with you, even if conservative can’t be reasonned. There is some sort of invincible ideological filter of information with these guys that don’t believe in global warming, evolution, or that the earth is somewhat polluted and something needs to be done
[quote]orion wrote:Not really, they only have religious background that has a deontological ethic and that leads to certain political opinions.
You are probably more utilitarian therefore you do not “get” them, but their evolution denial has little to do with their political ideas except of course when it comes to public schools.[/quote]
I said that most people who deny evolution are conservative. This is true. I did not say they deny evolution because they are conservative.
Reagan and Bush were liberal republicans and Clinton was a conservative democrat. The successful politicians in America were basically a mixture of political traits and thats why they tended to be charistmtic or appealing.
This is why Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin will never be president and why Obama will win re-election again because of lack of any real competition. No one can beat the dude in a political debate and its going to become apparent then, even if things are still shit now.
Politics is stupid that’s why I’m tending towards voting for the Green Party.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:No, I gave you the factual bad assumptions given to the cbo that lead to the calculations, you are denying the facts. I�?�¢??ll note your refusal to take the challenge also.
So then we should totally disregard anything the CBO says. Which means that republicans can’t use anything they say to bolster their case. Besides, I’m not really even sure what you’re talking about with respect to “assumptions,” because the CBO gets their estimates from the text of the bill.
[/quote]
No, they had to make assumptions not only on what the text of the bill would be (there isn’t a final bill even now, and were multiple ones with the initial estimate) but on what the impact of that text would be. Unless you are presuming the number of people that would join a government plan and what average costs for these people would be is in the text of the bill. you apparently have absolutely no idea how these ballpark estimations even work.
Okay, then you agree with hitler and should be treated accordingly. I do not agree with republicans on a wide range of issues.
As explained in the post you edited out. That claim was drawn from the fact republicans did better on the test and that fox is what republicans watch. I specifically pointed out these was the only logical conclusion to make based on YOUR assertion and was not something I was claiming. forget that part of the conversation?
No, they are not. See I can immaturely contradict you with no factual evidence too.
I think you missed the part where I’m claiming that they are all baised. You are the only claiming fox should be singled out because they are “more” biased. And further that the bias of other networks is little enough to ignore. So not only are you attributing something to me that I am not doing, you are doing it 10 fold.
They all frequently lie.
Here you are over and over again claiming measurable evidence about something. and how easy it is to find. It doesn’t exist. Your initial point is completely false. In this paragraph you are trying to warp what you initially said.
either back up your shit or admit you’re a liar. if you don’t backup your case I’m assuming there is no evidence.
your original claim was that measurable evidence could be found to support anything, even holocaust deniers. fact being measurable evidence cannot be found to support what a person wishes. making my original point about measurable evidence to be more valid that “believing what I want to believe”.
But isn’t it interesting that you are the one attempting to belittle factual evidence that would destroy your viewpoint and while doing so accuse me of believing what I want to.
If I were to make just a single simple black joke, would that make me a bigot?
You are so wrong it’s funny. There are even scientists in the IPCC that reject anthropomorphic climate change idiot.
Try most science based universities. UAH is another one I know that professors openly mock the IPCC and their claims.
Lastly I’m glad that you prove yourself even dumber with your last sentence. The heliocentric model for the universe is no more correct than a geocentric model. the sun is not stationary, nor the center of the universe. You see, some time ago they figured out the whole solar system revolves around the center of the galaxy and even further that the galaxy is expanding outward from the location of the big bang. But you go ahead and believe the sun is the center of the universe you scientifically ignorant fool.
And by the way I think you meant to refer to the Copernicus model.