food for thought...
Comments
-
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.CuntWaffle said:"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.
Do you have ADD? -
You sound defensiveTheGlove said:
It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle said:
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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news -
the article you linked was a bumper stickerTheGlove said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.CuntWaffle said:"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.
Do you have ADD?
HTH -
/threadRaceBannon said:
the article you linked was a bumper stickerTheGlove said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.CuntWaffle said:"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.
Do you have ADD?
HTH
-
Looks like someone else didn't read the whole article or any of the other sources.haie said:Eryn Newman is a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive psychology at the University of California, Irvine.
Yeah, this bitch is not a real scientist, but it's a great story for libs. -
Yeah, I guess I just dismiss Colbert outright because he is, after all, a fucking comedian.TheGlove said:
Looks like someone else didn't read the whole article or any of the other sources.haie said:Eryn Newman is a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive psychology at the University of California, Irvine.
Yeah, this bitch is not a real scientist, but it's a great story for libs.
The rest of those clowns just champion shit like social semiotics because it keeps them employed. They have no real basis other than "studies" where you're supposed to assume they went into it with no bias or thesis in mind.
hth, and fuck off. -
Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.RaceBannon said:
You sound defensiveTheGlove said:
It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle said:
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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news
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. -
"proof"
Have you ever worked for any of these shitbags? Have you ever helped them collect their "data" or formulate their bullshit "theories"? Let me educate you as someone who has...
They want more research funding, and will feed libs whatever slop gets them that. -
Obviously we aren't smart enough to understand these complex issues that oddly enough seemed to be presented with dismissive name calling.TheGlove said:
Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.RaceBannon said:
You sound defensiveTheGlove said:
It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle said:
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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news
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.
Why don't you dumb it down for us in your own words? -
fixerated.RaceBannon said:
I didn't like the article you linkedTheGlove said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.CuntWaffle said:"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.
Do you have ADD?was a bumper stickerbecause it made conservatives look bad.
HTH
