food for thought...

[BennyBeaver]

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

I didn't like the article you linked was a bumper sticker because it made conservatives look bad.

HTH

fixerated.

 

[RaceBannon]

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

I didn't like the article you linked was a bumper sticker because it made conservatives look bad.

HTH

fixerated.

The article was written by a coog duck troll trying to make conservatives look bad?

 

[sarktastic]

yeah, c'mon Race.

Chase your tail. Jump.

Refute all that propaganda point by point.

 

[BennyBeaver]

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectuals

Rinse lather repeat

No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news

It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.

You sound defensive

Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.

You either didn't read the article and the sources OR you are unable to understand OR you're lazy OR you don't give a fuck.

But since you responded, it seems you give a fuck. So why can't you come up with something else in response than dismissive, name-calling? Laziness? Lack of understanding?

There's tons of proof cited.

Rinse lather repeat that, mister.

Obviously we aren't smart enough to understand these complex issues

Thanks for admitting it. J/k, I'm sure you are smart enough, maybe smarter than I.

that oddly enough seemed to be presented with dismissive name calling.

huh?

Why don't you dumb it down for us in your own words?

No thanks. I read the linked articles and studies. You can do the same and come to your own conclusions. But please don't pretend you did before your initial comments in this thread. That would be disingenuous.

See above in bold.

At the very least, this article has gotten me to think about what is behind people's political opinions. I don't take it as the gospel and I'm not offended by people who disagree. It was the knee-jerk reactions that raised my hackles. But what did I expect differently from the Tug Tavern?

 

[CuntWaffle]

I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.

 

[MikeDamone]

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

I didn't like the article you linked was a bumper sticker because it made conservatives look bad.

HTH

fixerated.

How many logical fallacies can the glove commit in one thread? The o/u is 5

He links an article and goes ape shit. Christ.

You doing exactly what the article says unthinking Fucktards do. .which is classic confirmation bias. You may have proven this right by your own example.

I can do it too.

PROVE THIS WRONG POINT BY POINT!

wnd.com/2010/03/127614/

 

[BennyBeaver]

I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.

Do you want a cookie?

 

[MikeDamone]

I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.

Or owning a gun

 

[MikeDamone]

I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.

Do you want a cookie?

Have you always pressed like this or did I just not really pay that close attention to you before?

 

[CuntWaffle]

I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.

Do you want a cookie?

Christ.

 

[RaceBannon]

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectuals

Rinse lather repeat

No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news

It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.

You sound defensive

Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.

You either didn't read the article and the sources OR you are unable to understand OR you're lazy OR you don't give a fuck.

But since you responded, it seems you give a fuck. So why can't you come up with something else in response than dismissive, name-calling? Laziness? Lack of understanding?

There's tons of proof cited.

Rinse lather repeat that, mister.

Obviously we aren't smart enough to understand these complex issues

Thanks for admitting it. J/k, I'm sure you are smart enough, maybe smarter than I.

that oddly enough seemed to be presented with dismissive name calling.

huh?

Why don't you dumb it down for us in your own words?

No thanks. I read the linked articles and studies. You can do the same and come to your own conclusions. But please don't pretend you did before your initial comments in this thread. That would be disingenuous.

See above in bold.

At the very least, this article has gotten me to think about what is behind people's political opinions. I don't take it as the gospel and I'm not offended by people who disagree. It was the knee-jerk reactions that raised my hackles. But what did I expect differently from the Tug Tavern?

People, as in all of us, left right or middle, is fine. To try to ascribe motivations to one side but not the other is not so fine.

And of course I didn't read the article. Like you say, its the rub and a tug bored.

 

[BennyBeaver]

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

I didn't like the article you linked was a bumper sticker because it made conservatives look bad.

HTH

fixerated.

How many logical fallacies can the glove commit in one thread? The o/u is 5

He links an article and goes ape shit. Christ.

You doing exactly what the article says unthinking Fucktards do. .which is classic confirmation bias. You may have proven this right by your own example.

I can do it too.

PROVE THIS WRONG POINT BY POINT!

wnd.com/2010/03/127614/

wnd.com is your source? They use John Fucking Rocker as a contributor. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

But seriously, the Elmore article does point out that email/internet are used to spread misinformation more easily. Agreed. Then he just goes on to bash anyone he can find with no scientific evidence. Richwine too, offers no different scientific results just tries (valiantly) to pick away at a couple of unrelated studies.

Did you get your Watch Word Bible yet? God's word comes to life on DVD.

 

[BennyBeaver]

I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.

Do you want a cookie?

Have you always pressed like this or did I just not really pay that close attention to you before?

I'm sure CuntWaffle loves that you are here to back him up, but he can't get past the bumper sticker analogy so he's really not worth defending here.

 

[CuntWaffle]

I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.

Do you want a cookie?

Have you always pressed like this or did I just not really pay that close attention to you before?

I'm sure CuntWaffle loves that you are here to back him up, but he can't get past the bumper sticker analogy so he's really not worth defending here.

I get it. We read something and take it at face value because that's how our brain cognitively works. How is her claiming guns and cigarettes are more dangerous than mopeds any different than the bumper sticker though? She says something (ridiculous comparison) and then doesn't back it up, aka a bumper sticker.

HTH.

 

[Swaye]

What we should be talking about is how ugly that woman is. Jesus. Guarantee you if she isn't a split licker, she will marry some half fag metrosexual type and shit out a couple more peace love and trail mix losers that will also crusade against conservatives. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Meanwhile, I'm going shooting. Fuck her.

 

[haie]

This is where my political position comes from:

 

[RaceBannon]

Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kerry

 

[MikeDamone]

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

I didn't like the article you linked was a bumper sticker because it made conservatives look bad.

HTH

fixerated.

How many logical fallacies can the glove commit in one thread? The o/u is 5

He links an article and goes ape shit. Christ.

You doing exactly what the article says unthinking Fucktards do. .which is classic confirmation bias. You may have proven this right by your own example.

I can do it too.

PROVE THIS WRONG POINT BY POINT!

wnd.com/2010/03/127614/

wnd.com is your source? They use John Fucking Rocker as a contributor. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

But seriously, the Elmore article does point out that email/internet are used to spread misinformation more easily. Agreed. Then he just goes on to bash anyone he can find with no scientific evidence. Richwine too, offers no different scientific results just tries (valiantly) to pick away at a couple of unrelated studies.

Did you get your Watch Word Bible yet? God's word comes to life on DVD.

I'm glad I took the over how many logical fallacies you'd squeeze into one thread.

 

[oregonblitzkrieg]

The glove is a boov. Epic pressing comes with the territory.

 

[allpurpleallgold]

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing Glove.