Another victory for death
Comments
-
Unfortunately they grouped democrat mods with con. Graph is flawed as is your intelligence. Does the remaining percentage mean either, or did they not answer the question? Here's another idea: if you don't accept does that automatically mean discouraged? What if you don't accept but also don't discourage, as in, you DGAF? How do they mean accept? Do you have to approve to accept or can you disapprove of their lifestyle but also approve of them as individuals? Which in theory makes the survey argue itself.
It's too bad you have a predisposed inability to analyze data. I'm in the DGAF group if they ever made a category, unfortunately I do GAF when morons like you and death try to turn society into mindless yes people. -
Given that the groups don't add up to 100%, the DGAF group is around 5-10%. Clearly I'm the one too stupid to read a chart.greenblood said:Unfortunately they grouped democrat mods with con. Graph is flawed as is your intelligence. Does the remaining percentage mean either, or did they not answer the question? Here's another idea: if you don't accept does that automatically mean discouraged? What if you don't accept but also don't discourage, as in, you DGAF? How do they mean accept? Do you have to approve to accept or can you disapprove of their lifestyle but also approve of them as individuals? Which in theory makes the survey argue itself.
It's too bad you have a predisposed inability to analyze data. I'm in the DGAF group if they ever made a category, unfortunately I do GAF when morons like you and death try to turn society into mindless yes people. -
How about worrying about your own shit?
What a fucked up poale -
I'm curious why you think it's a fucked up pole?sarktastic said:How about worrying about your own shit?
What a fucked up poale
Really it's interesting how much public opinion has changed. I don't care about the conservatives decreasing (the red box), as it's within the margin of error. The way the article highlights that is silly. -
https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/blogs/celeb-news/miley-cyrus--i-told-my-mom-i-love-women-at-14-000638339.html
"I remember telling her I admire women in a different way," she tells Paper Magazine in a new interview. "And she asked me what that meant. And I said, I love them. I love them like I love boys."
Miley says she considers Tish and her famous dad, Billy Ray Cyrus, "conservative-ass motherf---ers," so her announcement was not taken lightly. -
How do you think other people ought to view other people.
If you cant see how fucked up this is... You might be fucked up in the head. -
The story doesn't say that, which means you're assuming. Again, learn to not be a yes man.2001400ex said:
Given that the groups don't add up to 100%, the DGAF group is around 5-10%. Clearly I'm the one too stupid to read a chart.greenblood said:Unfortunately they grouped democrat mods with con. Graph is flawed as is your intelligence. Does the remaining percentage mean either, or did they not answer the question? Here's another idea: if you don't accept does that automatically mean discouraged? What if you don't accept but also don't discourage, as in, you DGAF? How do they mean accept? Do you have to approve to accept or can you disapprove of their lifestyle but also approve of them as individuals? Which in theory makes the survey argue itself.
It's too bad you have a predisposed inability to analyze data. I'm in the DGAF group if they ever made a category, unfortunately I do GAF when morons like you and death try to turn society into mindless yes people. -
Everyone who posts on this site is fucked up in the head.sarktastic said:How do you think other people ought to view other people.
If you cant see how fucked up this is... You might be fucked up in the head.
HTH -
Then why do you suspect they add up to less than 100%?greenblood said:
The story doesn't say that, which means you're assuming. Again, learn to not be a yes man.2001400ex said:
Given that the groups don't add up to 100%, the DGAF group is around 5-10%. Clearly I'm the one too stupid to read a chart.greenblood said:Unfortunately they grouped democrat mods with con. Graph is flawed as is your intelligence. Does the remaining percentage mean either, or did they not answer the question? Here's another idea: if you don't accept does that automatically mean discouraged? What if you don't accept but also don't discourage, as in, you DGAF? How do they mean accept? Do you have to approve to accept or can you disapprove of their lifestyle but also approve of them as individuals? Which in theory makes the survey argue itself.
It's too bad you have a predisposed inability to analyze data. I'm in the DGAF group if they ever made a category, unfortunately I do GAF when morons like you and death try to turn society into mindless yes people. -
Pressing badly
-
Many reasons. Usually these surveys ask multiple questions. People could have chosen not to answer this specific question. But who knows as they don't say.2001400ex said:
Then why do you suspect they add up to less than 100%?greenblood said:
The story doesn't say that, which means you're assuming. Again, learn to not be a yes man.2001400ex said:
Given that the groups don't add up to 100%, the DGAF group is around 5-10%. Clearly I'm the one too stupid to read a chart.greenblood said:Unfortunately they grouped democrat mods with con. Graph is flawed as is your intelligence. Does the remaining percentage mean either, or did they not answer the question? Here's another idea: if you don't accept does that automatically mean discouraged? What if you don't accept but also don't discourage, as in, you DGAF? How do they mean accept? Do you have to approve to accept or can you disapprove of their lifestyle but also approve of them as individuals? Which in theory makes the survey argue itself.
It's too bad you have a predisposed inability to analyze data. I'm in the DGAF group if they ever made a category, unfortunately I do GAF when morons like you and death try to turn society into mindless yes people. -
Shout to "unaffiliated". Leader in the clubhouse in being decent human beings.
-
@TheChart shows why such a stupid issue is so vital in the presidential race even though it is meaningless to the job performance of the president.
What is he/she going to do - put them in internment camps?
Too soon? -
@TheChart is invalid. No column for 'encouraged', which is what HondaFS and the other leftist buttfuckers wish you would have voted.
Let me help you for the record, nobody with a brain GAF.
But why must HondaFS and other leftists encourage it to children in schools? Closet NAMBLA members? I think so. -
-
It's really weird how no one cares and yet it's still a fight.
You don't care. Unless they want to get married.
You don't care. Unless they want be in the military.
You don't care. Unless you want to tell kids it's alright.
You don't care. Except you always seem to find something to care about.
Even Race can only muster up a pathetic "well it could be worse" argument. Sorry if I think human rights are a part of the presidents job. My bad. -
Sounds like you care.allpurpleallgold said:It's really weird how no one cares and yet it's still a fight.
You don't care. Unless they want to get married.
You don't care. Unless they want be in the military.
You don't care. Unless you want to tell kids it's alright.
You don't care. Except you always seem to find something to care about.
Even Race can only muster up a pathetic "well it could be worse" argument. Sorry if I think human rights are a part of the presidents job. My bad.
-
Where did I say I cared?allpurpleallgold said:It's really weird how no one cares and yet it's still a fight.
You don't care. Unless they want to get married.
You don't care. Unless they want be in the military.
You don't care. Unless you want to tell kids it's alright.
You don't care. Except you always seem to find something to care about.
Even Race can only muster up a pathetic "well it could be worse" argument. Sorry if I think human rights are a part of the presidents job. My bad.
Obama ran as a candidate twice against gay marriage. That really stopped it didn't it.
I have an issue with the retarded way campaigns are run. Divide and conquer. I mean, seriously, everybody does it. It's fucking stupid
The President does not insure equal rights for gays, does not protect abortion rights, will not stop equal rights for gays and will not stop abortion.
I also think human rights are the president's job and I don't think that stops at our border. I have a feeling we differ on the details of that job -
Nothing is sure. But to pretend that presidents don't decide those matters is bullshit. Who ruled on Roe v Wade? And who put those people in their seats? Youre being intellectually dishonest.
You didn't say you cared. You're not as stupid as posters like pawz. You don't box yourself in. Which is why I spoke to your "at least they're not in internment camps" bs on its own. -
I went to a gay wedding in the 90's of a co worker who was dying of AIDS and wanted to get married before he died.
I said the president wasn't going to send them to internment camps, a shot at FDR. Perhaps a bit too vague.
Roe V Wade was decided in 1972 by Justices appointed by Eisenhower and Nixon among others. It is the law of the land and it isn't going anywhere.
Don't put me in a box -
I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore.
-
THIS should be the HH mottoallpurpleallgold said:I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore.
