What a classless fat assed twat

[canceled.2021.1]

Show us the evidence.

Google NDE

 

[Lowaicue]

Google NDE

Google NDE is not evidence. My sentence could not have been clearer. It used the imperative voice and simply said '(you) show us the evidence.'
That means you can even CHOOSE what evidence you show us. .... Chicken?
(just so you are aware it might interest you to know that I have previously tried to find evidence that was sufficiently compelling to stand up to examination and failed). So, Mr. ILA, stop being a chicken and SHOW US THE EVIDENCE that god exists.

 

[apple0154]

I actually agree, there is a snobbishness about where ones college degrees came from. Take Sarah Palin. She didn't go to the elite schools and worked her way through, transferring a number of times. Now if she were a left winger and held all of the appropriate view points, she would be heralded for her moxie and dedication. But since she is a conservative, it is evidence of how "stupid" she is.

George Bush went to Yale and he is considered stupid. Obama went to Harvard and is considered a genius. Get the trend?

It really boils down to one thing (yes binary thought is helpful). If you are a leftie and someone else shares your leftie views then you consider them a genius regardless of post graduate pedigree.

I really do have to jump in here. It's not that a Leftie is considered a genius. It's more a case of a Rightie's inability to understand logical thinking. Let's take a look at autism. There are autistic children who possess music or math abilities far beyond the norm but we wouldn't consider them intelligent and highly educated. We certainly wouldn't want them running a country

Autism: 1. a pervasive developmental disorder of children, characterized by impaired communication, excessive rigidity, and emotional detachment: now considered one of the autism spectrum disorders.
2. a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires. (Dic.com)

Talk note of #2. Sound familiar where Rightie's are concerned?

While the Righties always talk about the evils of the Left's idea of society calling it "collectivism" how do they think society/civilization started? How do they think society progressed? Does anyone believe, for a moment, the pilgrams viewed life in terms of one's own needs and desires? Or was the priority the group or tribe or their society?

Just as an autistic child may possess an extraordinary ability, just as a Rightie can obtain degrees from a university, that does not mean they are intelligent people.

Intelligent: 1. sound thought, or good judgment
2. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; (Dic.com)

That is the difference you are having difficulty distinguishing between. Talking politics, two people may hold the same degree but have a very different understanding of the best way to oversee society. Referring to Palin how would you classify someone who, after an interview, accused the interviewer of asking a "got ya" question when the question was, "What do you read?"

Would you want a person like that dealing with Congress and the Senate, not to mention foreign leaders? Someone who is offended by being asked what they read?!!

Perhaps "stupid" is not the right word. I think "wacko" is more appropriate.

 

[Paul Siraisi]

Surprising, sometimes, how smart some goldfish are.

I'm begging you to surprise me.

Your degrees are worth next to nothing in the real world

What, the one with all the continents?

unless they are from full time study at MIT, Harvard, Yale or a couple of others.

Amherst, Columbia (SIPA), Johns Hopkins (MPH). Heard of them?

Basically american education, as you must know, is intrinsically flawed.

You've seen a few to many vids about our 'public' high schools.

I have never met, in my over 50 years in business and training, any truly educated american who supports the nonsense that falls from your keyboard like the drool of the mentally challenged.

Admit it, if you can get out of that mental crouch, you have never seen anything like me. You don't know what to do with the things I've said. And you don't really know what I've said. It's beyond you.

So tootle along there's a good chap.

Q runs screaming for the hills.

PS. No word alone can be racist. But many words can be racist in certain contexts and from certain mouths. Now stop fucking around and piss off, racist.

You know nothing of race. Face your facts.

 

[Paul Siraisi]

Much of that is simply a product of the populations. We outnumber blacks by a large margin. Unless a criminal is targeting a specific race,and most of the time they don't, the victim is more likely to be white. That is true regardless of the race of the perpetrator.

What you say is certainly logical, and would make sense if black and white populations were uniformly intermingled. But as you know, the typical arrangement is one of segregated neighborhoods. To your point then, in this context, 75% of all violent crimes against blacks are committed by other blacks, their neighbors. Meanwhile, 67% of all violent crimes against whites are by other whites. That represents black outreach: one can debate the reasons for that targeting, but targeting is what it looks like. Finally, blacks on average are almost 3 times as likely as whites to commit violent crimes at all, so that contributes, too.

 

[Paul Siraisi]

I really do have to jump in here. It's not that a Leftie is considered a genius. It's more a case of a Rightie's inability to understand logical thinking.

You are not giving any logically thinking person a good reason to continue reading.

...2. a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires. (Dic.com)

Talk note of #2. Sound familiar where Rightie's are concerned?

While the Righties always talk about the evils of the Left's idea of society calling it "collectivism" how do they think society/civilization started? How do they think society progressed? Does anyone believe, for a moment, the pilgrams viewed life in terms of one's own needs and desires? Or was the priority the group or tribe or their society?

You've missed something that developed after this: Western Civililzation.

<snip some smug noise about intelligence and how disagreeing about 'overseeing' society is a sign of non-intelligence>
Referring to Palin how would you classify someone who, after an interview, accused the interviewer of asking a "got ya" question when the question was, "What do you read?"

I don't read anything I'm very proud of--if we are talking about newspapers and magazines and such. New York Times contains much crap, for example. Do you get how blinkered one can be in assuming that not wanting to answer that question constitues a sin against intelligence?

Perhaps "stupid" is not the right word. I think "wacko" is more appropriate.

Just admit she's not someone you understand and leave it at that why don't you?

 

[Lowaicue]

I'm begging you to surprise me.


What, the one with all the continents?


Amherst, Columbia (SIPA), Johns Hopkins (MPH). Heard of them?


You've seen a few to many vids about our 'public' high schools.



Admit it, if you can get out of that mental crouch, you have never seen anything like me. You don't know what to do with the things I've said. And you don't really know what I've said. It's beyond you.



Q runs screaming for the hills.



You know nothing of race. Face your facts.

I will only face one fact of which you are competely unaware.
You say I know nothing of race. How very strange you are. I am a member of a small racial minority in a society that allows government and society racism to prosper. To put it as simply as I can, you are talking through your fat, hairy, yank arse.

 

[apple0154]

You are not giving any logically thinking person a good reason to continue reading.

Hmmm, you make a remark like that and then continue reading my post. I'll just leave it at that.

You've missed something that developed after this: Western Civililzation.

And the Pilgrims didn't get the ball rolling?

Why do you think there were revolutions in different parts of the world eliminating or attempting to eliminate the "ruling class", the people who didn't share. The people who didn't cooperate wih the group?

I don't read anything I'm very proud of--if we are talking about newspapers and magazines and such. New York Times contains much crap, for example. Do you get how blinkered one can be in assuming that not wanting to answer that question constitues a sin against intelligence?

It was the comment she made about it being a trick question, a gotcha question. That was the unintelligent remark. There are plenty of novels, scientific and political literature, etc. If someone is paranoid about revealing what they read that's a sad case.

Just admit she's not someone you understand and leave it at that why don't you?

Because she came within a hair's breadth of possibly running the most weaponized country on the planet. If that doesn't put the fear of God in you, you have greater nerves of steel than I.