Money Talks, you know the rest

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

Why is Trump missing? He clearly thinks he can just buy the erection. Like he always does.

Your a fagget

*You're

8952*

Pour sulfuric acid on your dick and LEAVE!!!!!

Someone struck a nerve.

Drink paint thinner bitch

Why so hostile? Mom's not give you enough hugs as a child?

That isn't even grammatically correct. Mom is not give you? The fuck does that mean? Go put a lit firecracker in your pee hole, retard.

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

Why is Trump missing? He clearly thinks he can just buy the erection. Like he always does.

Your a fagget

*You're

8952*

Pour sulfuric acid on your dick and LEAVE!!!!!

Someone struck a nerve.

Drink paint thinner bitch

Why so hostile? Mom's not give you enough hugs as a child?

That isn't even grammatically correct. Mom is not give you? The fuck does that mean? Go put a lit firecracker in your pee hole, retard.

Grammar superiority dude. Answer the question. Did your mom not give you enough hugs as a child? That more clear or should I type slower next time?

No, but your mom more than made up for it.

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

Why is Trump missing? He clearly thinks he can just buy the erection. Like he always does.

Your a fagget

*You're

8952*

Pour sulfuric acid on your dick and LEAVE!!!!!

Someone struck a nerve.

Drink paint thinner bitch

Why so hostile? Mom's not give you enough hugs as a child?

That isn't even grammatically correct. Mom is not give you? The fuck does that mean? Go put a lit firecracker in your pee hole, retard.

Grammar superiority dude. Answer the question. Did your mom not give you enough hugs as a child? That more clear or should I type slower next time?

No, but your mom more than made up for it.

Burn. Come on, you got something more clever than that. I know it. Maybe a swizzle stick on fire up my bung hole is next?

Go get fucked to death by a horse. I'm done here.

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

So do the big banks own Hillary then?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

It wasn't a shitty decision...why let unions and other groups donate millions but cut off the donations of people you don't agree with? That's sounds a bit commie to me.

And God Hondo you are a sandy vag.

Actually, no.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates

Not to mention that this only lists her campaigns through 2008. Nice 7 year old data.

Fuck you are stupid and gullible. *

If you can't see there is really only one group of people who can afford $200,000/hr for 'speaking fees', than you are actually dumber than originally thought. An impressive feat.













*the predictive text in my phone already has this sentence memorized. #win

The same people that bash Obama and Clinton speaking fees, don't care about Trump and Jeb Bush speaking fees.

HTH

I'm not bashing anybody's ability to collect a fee. I'm bashing your refusal to acknowledge said speaker's knowledge of who butters their bread and the inherent quid pro quo.


Fuck you are stupid and gullible.

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

So do the big banks own Hillary then?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

It wasn't a shitty decision...why let unions and other groups donate millions but cut off the donations of people you don't agree with? That's sounds a bit commie to me.

And God Hondo you are a sandy vag.

Actually, no.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates

Not to mention that this only lists her campaigns through 2008. Nice 7 year old data.

Fuck you are stupid and gullible. *

If you can't see there is really only one group of people who can afford $200,000/hr for 'speaking fees', than you are actually dumber than originally thought. An impressive feat.













*the predictive text in my phone already has this sentence memorized. #win

The same people that bash Obama and Clinton speaking fees, don't care about Trump and Jeb Bush speaking fees.

HTH

I'm not bashing anybody's ability to collect a fee. I'm bashing your refusal to acknowledge said speaker's knowledge of who butters their bread and the inherent quid pro quo.


Fuck you are stupid and gullible.

Every politician is bought off. Clearly you prefer the rich and corporations over unions and the middle class.

HTH

Clearly you don't support the middle class either since you dropped the majority of the obamacare cost on them.

A part-time economy is a part of the cost. Not to mention premiums doubling, which is nice.


Fuck you are stupid and gullible.

Ironic. You parrot a false right wing talking point. Then call me stupid and gullible.

At least I get a good chuckle.

Is not a talking point; it's a fact. You obviously don't pay your own bills to know. Which says a lot, actually.

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

So do the big banks own Hillary then?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

It wasn't a shitty decision...why let unions and other groups donate millions but cut off the donations of people you don't agree with? That's sounds a bit commie to me.

And God Hondo you are a sandy vag.

Actually, no.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates

Not to mention that this only lists her campaigns through 2008. Nice 7 year old data.

Fuck you are stupid and gullible. *

If you can't see there is really only one group of people who can afford $200,000/hr for 'speaking fees', than you are actually dumber than originally thought. An impressive feat.













*the predictive text in my phone already has this sentence memorized. #win

The same people that bash Obama and Clinton speaking fees, don't care about Trump and Jeb Bush speaking fees.

HTH

I'm not bashing anybody's ability to collect a fee. I'm bashing your refusal to acknowledge said speaker's knowledge of who butters their bread and the inherent quid pro quo.


Fuck you are stupid and gullible.

Every politician is bought off. Clearly you prefer the rich and corporations over unions and the middle class.

HTH

Clearly you don't support the middle class either since you dropped the majority of the obamacare cost on them.

A part-time economy is a part of the cost. Not to mention premiums doubling, which is nice.


Fuck you are stupid and gullible.

Ironic. You parrot a false right wing talking point. Then call me stupid and gullible.

At least I get a good chuckle.

Is not a talking point; it's a fact. You obviously don't pay your own bills to know. Which says a lot, actually.

Then post a link. I won't hold my breath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). After Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge. This is contrasted with a priori knowledge, the knowledge accessible from pure reason alone.
Contents [hide]
1 Meaning
2 See also
3 Footnotes
4 References
5 External links
Meaning[edit]
Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.[2]
In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods, which are purely deductive and based on first principles.[citation needed]
In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.
Statements and arguments depending on empirical evidence are often referred to as a posteriori ("following experience") as distinguished from a priori (preceding it). A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"), whereas a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very happy"). The notion of the distinction between a priori and a posteriori as tantamount to the distinction between empirical and non-empirical knowledge comes from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.[3]
The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[4][page needed] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[5]
See also[edit]
Anecdotal evidence
Empirical distribution function
Empirical formula
Empirical measure
Empirical research (more on the scientific usage)
Phenomenology (science)
Scientific evidence
Scientific method
Theory
Footnotes[edit]
Jump up ^ Pickett 2006, p. 585
^ Jump up to: a b Feldman 2001, p. 293
Jump up ^ Craig 2005, p. 1
Jump up ^ Kuhn 1970
Jump up ^ Bird 2013
References[edit]
Bird, Alexander (2013). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "Thomas Kuhn". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Section 4.2 Perception, Observational Incommensurability, and World-Change. Retrieved 25 January 2012.
Craig, Edward (2005). "a posteriori". The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 9780415324953.
Feldman, Richard (2001) [1999]. "Evidence". In Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 293–294. ISBN 978-0521637220.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970) [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226458045.
Pickett, Joseph P., ed. (2011). "Empirical". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-547-04101-8.

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

So do the big banks own Hillary then?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

It wasn't a shitty decision...why let unions and other groups donate millions but cut off the donations of people you don't agree with? That's sounds a bit commie to me.

And God Hondo you are a sandy vag.

Actually, no.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates

Not to mention that this only lists her campaigns through 2008. Nice 7 year old data.

Fuck you are stupid and gullible. *

If you can't see there is really only one group of people who can afford $200,000/hr for 'speaking fees', than you are actually dumber than originally thought. An impressive feat.













*the predictive text in my phone already has this sentence memorized. #win

The same people that bash Obama and Clinton speaking fees, don't care about Trump and Jeb Bush speaking fees.

HTH

I'm not bashing anybody's ability to collect a fee. I'm bashing your refusal to acknowledge said speaker's knowledge of who butters their bread and the inherent quid pro quo.


Fuck you are stupid and gullible.

Every politician is bought off. Clearly you prefer the rich and corporations over unions and the middle class.

HTH

Clearly you don't support the middle class either since you dropped the majority of the obamacare cost on them.

A part-time economy is a part of the cost. Not to mention premiums doubling, which is nice.


Fuck you are stupid and gullible.

Ironic. You parrot a false right wing talking point. Then call me stupid and gullible.

At least I get a good chuckle.

Is not a talking point; it's a fact. You obviously don't pay your own bills to know. Which says a lot, actually.

Then post a link. I won't hold my breath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). After Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge. This is contrasted with a priori knowledge, the knowledge accessible from pure reason alone.
Contents [hide]
1 Meaning
2 See also
3 Footnotes
4 References
5 External links
Meaning[edit]
Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.[2]
In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods, which are purely deductive and based on first principles.[citation needed]
In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.
Statements and arguments depending on empirical evidence are often referred to as a posteriori ("following experience") as distinguished from a priori (preceding it). A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"), whereas a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very happy"). The notion of the distinction between a priori and a posteriori as tantamount to the distinction between empirical and non-empirical knowledge comes from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.[3]
The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[4][page needed] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[5]
See also[edit]
Anecdotal evidence
Empirical distribution function
Empirical formula
Empirical measure
Empirical research (more on the scientific usage)
Phenomenology (science)
Scientific evidence
Scientific method
Theory
Footnotes[edit]
Jump up ^ Pickett 2006, p. 585
^ Jump up to: a b Feldman 2001, p. 293
Jump up ^ Craig 2005, p. 1
Jump up ^ Kuhn 1970
Jump up ^ Bird 2013
References[edit]
Bird, Alexander (2013). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "Thomas Kuhn". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Section 4.2 Perception, Observational Incommensurability, and World-Change. Retrieved 25 January 2012.
Craig, Edward (2005). "a posteriori". The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 9780415324953.
Feldman, Richard (2001) [1999]. "Evidence". In Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 293–294. ISBN 978-0521637220.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970) [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226458045.
Pickett, Joseph P., ed. (2011). "Empirical". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-547-04101-8.

Disagree

I thought I told you to go get fucked to death by a horse?