# Tea Partiers have a better grasp of science...how embarassing!



## koshergrl

"
Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
 Ive got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  Id be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension, Kahan wrote.
 But then again, I dont know a single person who identifies with the  tea party, he continued. All my impressions come from watching cable  tv  & I dont watch Fox News very often  and reading the paper  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). Im a little embarrassed, but  mainly, Im just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.

Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com



They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
​


----------



## Steven_R

I'm nominally a Republican with many little "l" libertarian leanings, so I guess that makes me a Tea Party Republican. I'm also a physics student, so I guess I have some grasp of scientific issues. I'm also a firm proponent of evolution, because it's right.


----------



## koshergrl

Good for you.


----------



## Sunshine

koshergrl said:


> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> Ive got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  Id be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension, Kahan wrote.
> But then again, I dont know a single person who identifies with the  tea party, he continued. All my impressions come from watching cable  tv  & I dont watch Fox News very often  and reading the paper  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). Im a little embarrassed, but  mainly, Im just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​



I do not find this surprising.  Liberals take the football classes in college, and they work in schools and colleges where the pay is squat.  People who want to make money choose professions that are heavy on the math and science requirements.  The biology classes the future (liberal) teachers took wouldn't even count toward my degree.  

Think about it.  

Doctors, nurses, businessmen, engineers, and even lawyers.  Yes, the L-SAT tests future lawyers for their spatial reasoning.  I didn't understand why until I went to law school.  The moneyed professions require you take those math and science classes.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

When the tea party first came on the scene, 2008-09, a study showed that members were better educated than your average American.


----------



## koshergrl

Certainly better educated than the average foodstamp liberal.


----------



## flacaltenn

Of course Politico would NEVER post the actual results which can be found at

www.culturalcognition.net - Cultural Cognition Blog - Some data on education, religiosity, ideology, and science*comprehension

Surprise surprise you biased zealots.   All your "enemies" didn't get smart from listening JUST to Fox News and Rush.. They got smart by working hard and obtaining education.. 

((I'm just a Tea Party sympathizer, not a proponent. At least until they start screwing up on social issues or foreign policy like their GOP parents.))

And KosherGirl --- you don't get smart hanging out at Politco ----- Do YOU??


----------



## Asclepias

So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it?  I too would have thought the reverse was true.


----------



## Asclepias

Sunshine said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> Ive got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  Id be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension, Kahan wrote.
> But then again, I dont know a single person who identifies with the  tea party, he continued. All my impressions come from watching cable  tv  & I dont watch Fox News very often  and reading the paper  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). Im a little embarrassed, but  mainly, Im just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not find this surprising.  Liberals take the football classes in college, and they work in schools and colleges where the pay is squat.  People who want to make money choose professions that are heavy on the math and science requirements.  The biology classes the future (liberal) teachers took wouldn't even count toward my degree.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Doctors, nurses, businessmen, engineers, and even lawyers.  Yes, the L-SAT tests future lawyers for their spatial reasoning.  I didn't understand why until I went to law school.  The moneyed professions require you take those math and science classes.
Click to expand...


The study actually said liberals were more intelligent on average but specifically Tea Party members by themselves were even higher than liberals.  So it was a subset of conservatives not the entire bunch.



> *on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.*


----------



## koshergrl

Yes. That's what it said. Tea Partiers are better versed in science than liberals.


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> Yes. That's what it said. Tea Partiers are better versed in science than liberals.



But it did.  I even quoted it.  How did you miss that?  I see you made a mistake and edited it.  My bad.


----------



## Unkotare

Asclepias said:


> So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it?  I too would have thought the reverse was true.




You would have thought that because you are an idiot.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Asclepias said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> Ive got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  Id be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension, Kahan wrote.
> But then again, I dont know a single person who identifies with the  tea party, he continued. All my impressions come from watching cable  tv  & I dont watch Fox News very often  and reading the paper  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). Im a little embarrassed, but  mainly, Im just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not find this surprising.  Liberals take the football classes in college, and they work in schools and colleges where the pay is squat.  People who want to make money choose professions that are heavy on the math and science requirements.  The biology classes the future (liberal) teachers took wouldn't even count toward my degree.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Doctors, nurses, businessmen, engineers, and even lawyers.  Yes, the L-SAT tests future lawyers for their spatial reasoning.  I didn't understand why until I went to law school.  The moneyed professions require you take those math and science classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The study actually said liberals were more intelligent on average but specifically Tea Party members by themselves were even higher than liberals.  So it was a subset of conservatives not the entire bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Will you shut up?


----------



## flacaltenn

Asclepias said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> &#8220;I&#8217;ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  I&#8217;d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension,&#8221; Kahan wrote.
> &#8220;But then again, I don&#8217;t know a single person who identifies with the  tea party,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;All my impressions come from watching cable  tv &#8212; & I don&#8217;t watch Fox News very often &#8212; and reading the &#8216;paper&#8217;  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). I&#8217;m a little embarrassed, but  mainly, I&#8217;m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.&#8221;
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not find this surprising.  Liberals take the football classes in college, and they work in schools and colleges where the pay is squat.  People who want to make money choose professions that are heavy on the math and science requirements.  The biology classes the future (liberal) teachers took wouldn't even count toward my degree.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Doctors, nurses, businessmen, engineers, and even lawyers.  Yes, the L-SAT tests future lawyers for their spatial reasoning.  I didn't understand why until I went to law school.  The moneyed professions require you take those math and science classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The study actually said liberals were more intelligent on average but specifically Tea Party members by themselves were even higher than liberals.  So it was a subset of conservatives not the entire bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Wouldn't be so smug about the ACTUAL numerical differences. A GENERAL test of science knowledge with so few questions isn't really finding a significant difference.

The problem is the stereotype BIAS belonging to the left and it's media knumbskulls ---- exceeds ANY proof one way or the other.. Let's test the "science knowledge" of network news anchors and shills  --- shall we? 

Better yet --- how about a grudge match Science Quiz between Politco and TheBlaze?? 

Bets?? Odds?? 

((Que up Rdean for entrance stage left)))


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Just read the study. Lolololol [MENTION=20394]rdean[/MENTION]

Everyone refer him to this thread the next time you see him.


----------



## Asclepias

TemplarKormac said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not find this surprising.  Liberals take the football classes in college, and they work in schools and colleges where the pay is squat.  People who want to make money choose professions that are heavy on the math and science requirements.  The biology classes the future (liberal) teachers took wouldn't even count toward my degree.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Doctors, nurses, businessmen, engineers, and even lawyers.  Yes, the L-SAT tests future lawyers for their spatial reasoning.  I didn't understand why until I went to law school.  The moneyed professions require you take those math and science classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The study actually said liberals were more intelligent on average but specifically Tea Party members by themselves were even higher than liberals.  So it was a subset of conservatives not the entire bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you shut up?
Click to expand...


Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.


----------



## flacaltenn

Asclepias said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The study actually said liberals were more intelligent on average but specifically Tea Party members by themselves were even higher than liberals.  So it was a subset of conservatives not the entire bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you shut up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.
Click to expand...


Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..


----------



## Asclepias

flacaltenn said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you shut up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
Click to expand...


Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?


----------



## flacaltenn

Asclepias said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
Click to expand...


Because TV and politics only beggets stupid? 

Nothing stupid about DEMANDING fiscal sanity and actually getting answers from Govt is there? Like when Rand Paul staged a filibuster to get an answer to whether the Admin drone policy would allow killing noncombatants in America? 

If you can't get answers to questions like those WITHOUT the TV cameras and the stupid theatre --- whatchagonnado??


----------



## flacaltenn

The theatre and stupidity we see my bud are the ONLY disinfectant left as an option
to heal the REAL issues. Congress has become resistant to logic and reason.. 

Sad -- but true.. 

SOME of the actors on the Hill are just overplaying the stupid act to get attention and forgotten the plot.


----------



## Rambunctious

Says a Yale Professor.... very interesting.


Yale Professor: Media Biased Me Against Tea Party, But They're More Scientifically Literate | Truth Revolt


----------



## Mr. H.

Even he doesn't mention what the letters T E A stand for.


----------



## Destroyer2

Rambunctious said:


> Says a Yale Professor.... very interesting.
> 
> 
> Yale Professor: Media Biased Me Against Tea Party, But They're More Scientifically Literate | Truth Revolt



To think there are no educated people in the Tea Party is downright silly.

Doesn't mean I agree with the beliefs though.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

*Right outside of the Princeton campus is the Princeton Theological Seminary.  I find the dichotomy fascinating:  a science-based university right next to a bunch of Christees teaching that the world is only 10,000 years old.  

So you see, the stupidity of the Tea Party defies logic, too.*


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, given the degree of scientifc literacy displayed here by the "Conservatives", I find it difficut to believe that the Teabaggers have any scientific literacy above that of a sixth grader.


----------



## Connery

*Moved to proper forum*


----------



## Impenitent

Wisconsin teachers offered free spellcheck to Tea Partiers for their protest signs:

Dependable Renegade: Teabaggers Strike WI Teachers, Teachers Strike Back


----------



## skookerasbil

Another lefty talking point blown to shit!!!


And Im laughing.......


----------



## skookerasbil

Who cares though really......nobody cares about climate science anyway. Its nothing more than an internet hobby. The science isn't mattering!!!


----------



## Hoffstra

denying Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and contraception doesn't show much knowledge of science.


----------



## flacaltenn

Hoffstra said:


> denying Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and contraception doesn't show much knowledge of science.



Being scared of bio-engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology, or power lines also doesn't show much knowledge of science.. 

Hard to accept the Big Bang without some kind of faith.. All of the matter and energy in the Universe located in a space the size of a pinhead?? Suuuuure... God parting the Red Sea for Moses is more intuitive with the laws of science we experience...


----------



## Hoffstra

flacaltenn said:


> Being scared of bio-engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology, or power lines also doesn't show much knowledge of science..
> 
> Hard to accept the Big Bang without some kind of faith.. All of the matter and energy in the Universe located in a space the size of a pinhead?? Suuuuure... God parting the Red Sea for Moses is more intuitive with the laws of science we experience...



gravity can do some amazing things.


----------



## flacaltenn

Hoffstra said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being scared of bio-engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology, or power lines also doesn't show much knowledge of science..
> 
> Hard to accept the Big Bang without some kind of faith.. All of the matter and energy in the Universe located in a space the size of a pinhead?? Suuuuure... God parting the Red Sea for Moses is more intuitive with the laws of science we experience...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gravity can do some amazing things.
Click to expand...


My experiences with gravity have pretty much all been negative. Especially flying airplanes. 

Tell me that you don't need some faith to get your head around the Big Bang.
Most physicists would admit that..


----------



## Steven_R

Faith? no. A good grasp of mathematics, yes.


----------



## koshergrl

skookerasbil said:


> Another lefty talking point blown to shit!!!
> 
> 
> And Im laughing.......



If lefty nutjobs had more than a passing acquaintance with reality and fact, it might make a difference..but as you can see they continue to howl about how stupid the Tea Partiers are. Despite the embarassing truth that, at least in this particular area (that progressives generally like to falsely claim they have an edge), the tea partiers have them beat all to shit.

So I suppose nobody should be surprised at their apparent inability to process the information.....


----------



## rdean

Wow.  A law professor says creationists "know" science without giving a single example.  

You know what Republicans say about teachers:

Them that can - do.  

Them that can't - teach.

He almost makes their point.


----------



## koshergrl

He is a lefty professor...you guys don't set the bar very high, after all.


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?


Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.


----------



## Jroc

Reagan had it right...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiGsHCpBGg4]Ronald Reagan-The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> Wow.  A law professor says creationists "know" science without giving a single example.
> 
> You know what Republicans say about teachers:
> 
> Them that can - do.
> 
> Them that can't - teach.
> 
> He almost makes their point.



Them that don't read the fucking article make themselves look stupid.


----------



## flacaltenn

Steven_R said:


> Faith? no. A good grasp of mathematics, yes.



What mathematics is used to describe say the "gravity" component of the pinpoint of mass/energy that created the Big Bang? Or the CREATION of all the elements in the atomic chart from pure energy? Is there a doohickey and a designed replicator to do that trick? Why not? 

Where were your atoms at the moment of ignition? Were you next to the energy destined to be the methane bogs of some planet in a current adjacent galaxy? 

How did all the Starbucks survive economically in a such dense proximity to each other? 

C'mon man. There are 3 people in the world who think that math can embrace the implications of the Big Bang.


----------



## flacaltenn

rdean said:


> Wow.  A law professor says creationists "know" science without giving a single example.
> 
> You know what Republicans say about teachers:
> 
> Them that can - do.
> 
> Them that can't - teach.
> 
> He almost makes their point.



Yep.. Doesn't understand the topic, hasn't read it, NOT EVEN THE TITLE,  but goes right to the James Carville "smear the messenger" tactic... 

Thanks for dropping by...


----------



## asterism

Asclepias said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
Click to expand...


Media bias.

Seriously, the establishment Republicans hate the Tea Party more than the folks on the left side of the aisle.

Actual Tea Party members (not necessarily the elected "leaders") are quite diverse and on the average very knowledgeable.  I still think they are wrong about their specific policy goals - they aren't fiscally conservative enough for me and they are too socially fascist for me - but I admire them as a group.

This study (by a credentialed left of center academic) is enlightening to those who base their opinion of the Tea Party on media coverage.  The author even admits that he doesn't know anyone who is a Tea Party member so that shows how insulated he is.  However, the facts don't lie.


----------



## asterism

Hoffstra said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being scared of bio-engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology, or power lines also doesn't show much knowledge of science..
> 
> Hard to accept the Big Bang without some kind of faith.. All of the matter and energy in the Universe located in a space the size of a pinhead?? Suuuuure... God parting the Red Sea for Moses is more intuitive with the laws of science we experience...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gravity can do some amazing things.
Click to expand...


You obviously don't understand the theories regarding the origin of the universe.  It wasn't gravity that did the "amazing thing" of having the entire universe expand from a single point.

Here's a hint for you:  when you drop a ball does it go toward the big thing nearby or away from it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

koshergrl said:


> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> Ive got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  Id be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension, Kahan wrote.
> But then again, I dont know a single person who identifies with the  tea party, he continued. All my impressions come from watching cable  tv  & I dont watch Fox News very often  and reading the paper  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). Im a little embarrassed, but  mainly, Im just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​



I have noticed that I know more science than anyone who debates with me about it, which is actually pretty sad, especially since at least one of them claims to have a PhD in it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Steven_R said:


> I'm nominally a Republican with many little "l" libertarian leanings, so I guess that makes me a Tea Party Republican. I'm also a physics student, so I guess I have some grasp of scientific issues. I'm also a firm proponent of evolution, because it's right.



As long as we understand that we can be wrong about evolution, even if it is right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> &#8220;I&#8217;ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  I&#8217;d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension,&#8221; Kahan wrote.
> &#8220;But then again, I don&#8217;t know a single person who identifies with the  tea party,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;All my impressions come from watching cable  tv &#8212; & I don&#8217;t watch Fox News very often &#8212; and reading the &#8216;paper&#8217;  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). I&#8217;m a little embarrassed, but  mainly, I&#8217;m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.&#8221;
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not find this surprising.  Liberals take the football classes in college, and they work in schools and colleges where the pay is squat.  People who want to make money choose professions that are heavy on the math and science requirements.  The biology classes the future (liberal) teachers took wouldn't even count toward my degree.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Doctors, nurses, businessmen, engineers, and even lawyers.  Yes, the L-SAT tests future lawyers for their spatial reasoning.  I didn't understand why until I went to law school.  The moneyed professions require you take those math and science classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The study actually said liberals were more intelligent on average but specifically Tea Party members by themselves were even higher than liberals.  So it was a subset of conservatives not the entire bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The study did not say liberals were smarter, it just says that, on the average, they were more literate about science. In other words, they accept evolution because someone told them it is true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
Click to expand...


The same way Obama keeps saying stupid stuff you don't call him on, it takes a lot of work to never say anything stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hoffstra said:


> denying Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and contraception doesn't show much knowledge of science.



Being you shows even less.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Steven_R said:


> Faith? no. A good grasp of mathematics, yes.



There is no math that describes the Big Bang.


----------



## Unkotare

Hoffstra said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being scared of bio-engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology, or power lines also doesn't show much knowledge of science..
> 
> Hard to accept the Big Bang without some kind of faith.. All of the matter and energy in the Universe located in a space the size of a pinhead?? Suuuuure... God parting the Red Sea for Moses is more intuitive with the laws of science we experience...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gravity can do some amazing things.
Click to expand...



Dark energy is fueling our accelerating expansion. But the fundamental question remains. Some people reject an answer because they can't understand it, or are afraid.


----------



## Unkotare

Quantum Windbag said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith? no. A good grasp of mathematics, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no math that describes the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


By definition, any math we can understand breaks down right there at the singularity.


----------



## Asclepias

daveman said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.
Click to expand...


Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:



> If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.  -Todd Akin




15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party


----------



## Quantum Windbag

flacaltenn said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith? no. A good grasp of mathematics, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What mathematics is used to describe say the "gravity" component of the pinpoint of mass/energy that created the Big Bang? Or the CREATION of all the elements in the atomic chart from pure energy? Is there a doohickey and a designed replicator to do that trick? Why not?
> 
> Where were your atoms at the moment of ignition? Were you next to the energy destined to be the methane bogs of some planet in a current adjacent galaxy?
> 
> How did all the Starbucks survive economically in a such dense proximity to each other?
> 
> C'mon man. There are 3 people in the world who think that math can embrace the implications of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


Math can embrace it, but we can't do the math. 

Yet.


----------



## edthecynic

koshergrl said:


> Yes. That's what it said.* Tea Partiers are better versed in science than liberals*.


No it didn't! It made absolutely no comparison between Libs and the Tea Bag Brotherhood. Your false claim only proves the ignorance of the Right!

It compared Baggers to NON-Baggers, not Libs. The NON-Baggers included the smarter Libs and the dumber CON$ dragging down the Libs score. IOW, it was a comparison between Baggers and Libs with NON-Bagger CON$.

You could REASON this from the study if you had any simple arithmetic skills. Each chart has the breakdown of the sample's participants in the upper right corner. In the Libs/CON$ chart there were 1168 Libs and 1148 CON$ for a total of 2,316. In the Bagger chart there were 430 Baggers and 1886 NON-Baggers for a total of 2,316. 

A comparison between Baggers and Libs would have had 430 Baggers and 1168 Libs for a total of 1,598. Since no such study was done then only a stupid fool would claim the study said Baggers were better versed in science than Libs!!!!!


----------



## koshergrl

Are liberals tea partiers?

no?

then tea partiers are better versed in science than liberals.

All that hysterical screeching for nothing, ed. Take a midol.


----------



## edthecynic

koshergrl said:


> Are liberals tea partiers?
> 
> no?
> 
> then tea partiers are better versed in science than liberals.
> 
> All that hysterical screeching for nothing, ed. Take a midol.


Are all CON$ part of the Tea Bag Brotherhood?

NO!

Then you are a stupid idiot to say the study "said" Baggers are better versed in science than liberals. In fact YOU are proof that Baggers lack even the most basic reasoning skills and therefore the study is flawed since reasoning skills are essential for science.
Thank you!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are liberals tea partiers?
> 
> no?
> 
> then tea partiers are better versed in science than liberals.
> 
> All that hysterical screeching for nothing, ed. Take a midol.
> 
> 
> 
> Are all CON$ part of the Tea Bag Brotherhood?
> 
> NO!
> 
> Then you are a stupid idiot to say the study "said" Baggers are better versed in science than liberals. In fact YOU are proof that Baggers lack even the most basic reasoning skills and therefore the study is flawed since reasoning skills are essential for science.
> Thank you!
Click to expand...


I can run rings around you in my sleep in any field of science you want, even the ones I don't understand.


----------



## edthecynic

koshergrl said:


> Are liberals tea partiers?
> 
> no?
> 
> then tea partiers are better versed in science than liberals.
> 
> All that hysterical screeching for nothing, ed. Take a midol.


Are all CON$ part of the Tea Bag Brotherhood?

NO!

Then you are a stupid idiot to say the study "said" Baggers are better versed in science than liberals. In fact YOU are proof that Baggers lack even the most basic reasoning skills and therefore the study is flawed since reasoning skills are essential for science.
Thank you!

Tea Bag Brotherhood "logic:"
The study does NOT compare Baggers to Libs, therefore THE STUDY SAYS Baggers are better versed in science than liberals.


----------



## edthecynic

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are liberals tea partiers?
> 
> no?
> 
> then tea partiers are better versed in science than liberals.
> 
> All that hysterical screeching for nothing, ed. Take a midol.
> 
> 
> 
> Are all CON$ part of the Tea Bag Brotherhood?
> 
> NO!
> 
> Then you are a stupid idiot to say the study "said" Baggers are better versed in science than liberals. In fact YOU are proof that Baggers lack even the most basic reasoning skills and therefore the study is flawed since reasoning skills are essential for science.
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can run rings around you* in my sleep* in any field of science you want, even the ones I don't understand.
Click to expand...

Sure, in your DREAMS you can do anything!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.  -Todd Akin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
Click to expand...


That's your problem, Akin isn't part of the TEA Party.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are all CON$ part of the Tea Bag Brotherhood?
> 
> NO!
> 
> Then you are a stupid idiot to say the study "said" Baggers are better versed in science than liberals. In fact YOU are proof that Baggers lack even the most basic reasoning skills and therefore the study is flawed since reasoning skills are essential for science.
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can run rings around you* in my sleep* in any field of science you want, even the ones I don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, in your DREAMS you can do anything!
Click to expand...


Pick one and prove me wrong.


----------



## edthecynic

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.  -Todd Akin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your problem, Akin isn't part of the TEA Party.
Click to expand...

WAKE UP!!!!!!

From FOX no less:

Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News

*Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill*

Score another win for the Tea Party. 

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall.* Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials*, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal. 

The results send yet another Tea Party-backed candidate into the general election, with the McCaskill face-off considered one of the most closely watched Senate races of the year.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are liberals tea partiers?
> 
> no?
> 
> then tea partiers are better versed in science than liberals.
> 
> All that hysterical screeching for nothing, ed. Take a midol.
> 
> 
> 
> Are all CON$ part of the Tea Bag Brotherhood?
> 
> NO!
> 
> Then you are a stupid idiot to say the study "said" Baggers are better versed in science than liberals. In fact YOU are proof that Baggers lack even the most basic reasoning skills and therefore the study is flawed since reasoning skills are essential for science.
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can run rings around you in my sleep in any field of science you want, even the ones I don't understand.
Click to expand...


You are saying that if he chooses one that you do not understand you can bullshit your way through a discussion. 

Finally.......you say something honest.


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.  -Todd Akin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
Click to expand...

Sure, there are stupid people in every group, and even smart people can say stupid things every once in a while.

Like:







...although I don't think that's a smart person saying a stupid thing.  He's dumb as a rock.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's what it said.* Tea Partiers are better versed in science than liberals*.
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't! It made absolutely no comparison between Libs and the Tea Bag Brotherhood. Your false claim only proves the ignorance of the Right!
> 
> It compared Baggers to NON-Baggers, not Libs. The NON-Baggers included the smarter Libs and the dumber CON$ dragging down the Libs score. IOW, it was a comparison between Baggers and Libs with NON-Bagger CON$.
> 
> You could REASON this from the study if you had any simple arithmetic skills. Each chart has the breakdown of the sample's participants in the upper right corner. In the Libs/CON$ chart there were 1168 Libs and 1148 CON$ for a total of 2,316. In the Bagger chart there were 430 Baggers and 1886 NON-Baggers for a total of 2,316.
> 
> A comparison between Baggers and Libs would have had 430 Baggers and 1168 Libs for a total of 1,598. Since no such study was done then only a stupid fool would claim the study said Baggers were better versed in science than Libs!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wow, some people sure do bitterly cling to their bigotry when it's shown to be wrong, don't they?

Ed, your little hissy fit refutes nothing.


----------



## rightwinger

Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.



Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are liberals tea partiers?
> 
> no?
> 
> then tea partiers are better versed in science than liberals.
> 
> All that hysterical screeching for nothing, ed. Take a midol.
> 
> 
> 
> Are all CON$ part of the Tea Bag Brotherhood?
> 
> NO!
> 
> Then you are a stupid idiot to say the study "said" Baggers are better versed in science than liberals. In fact YOU are proof that Baggers lack even the most basic reasoning skills and therefore the study is flawed since reasoning skills are essential for science.
> Thank you!
Click to expand...

And people wonder why we say progressives are stupid.


----------



## Sarah G

rightwinger said:


> Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com



So.  Kosher Fatty is wrong again?  Quelle surprise!


----------



## martybegan

Hoffstra said:


> denying Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and contraception doesn't show much knowledge of science.



Most tea partiers are not social conservatives. 

That being said, people can understand the evolution without believing in it. People can understand the Big Bang Theory without having a theoretical phyiscists understanding of it. Also the BBT is really something to ponder for 200-500 people on the planet, not something a person needs to be versed in to be well rounded.

And understanding contriception exists and choosing not to use it are also two different things.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can run rings around you* in my sleep* in any field of science you want, even the ones I don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in your DREAMS you can do anything!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pick one and prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


He just kind of vanished lol


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
Click to expand...


Shouldn't believe everything nbc tells you!!!!!!


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't believe everything nbc tells you!!!!!!
Click to expand...


NBC didnt tell me they just showed the dumb comments on TV.


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.  -Todd Akin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
Click to expand...


Todd Aiken is not a tea party republican.

Whoopie Goldberg is a fanatical liberal totalitarian of the Obamacult though.

Here's her little verbal turdage regarding legitimate rape;-
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nZskUvAGyjQ&desktop_uri=/watch?v=nZskUvAGyjQ


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't believe everything nbc tells you!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NBC didnt tell me they just showed the dumb comments on TV.
Click to expand...


Given NBCs history of falsification, you don't think that NBC have major credibility issues?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Asclepias said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
Click to expand...


  Pretty sure I can drag up a shitload of dems looking stupid.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWfGKt0aZLI]Dumb Liberal Hippies Don't Know Why They're Protesting - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrjzWU1BwPw]Fail Compilation Of Liberals And Democrats - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Liberal

There have been countless studies that prove one way or the other on this subject. It's tiring at this point.

Don't let it get your head, most of you guys have already proven in this thread alone that you are not this rare animal called the "intelligent" conservative.


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't believe everything nbc tells you!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NBC didnt tell me they just showed the dumb comments on TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given NBCs history of falsification, you don't think that NBC have major credibility issues?
Click to expand...


I think all sites and networks have credibility issues.  Leading the pack is Fox which I hear is a Teaparty strong hold.  I watched them deny Obama had won reelection to the point that I was  embarrassed for them.


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBC didnt tell me they just showed the dumb comments on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given NBCs history of falsification, you don't think that NBC have major credibility issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think all sites and networks have credibility issues.  Leading the pack is Fox which I hear is a Teaparty strong hold.  I watched them deny Obama had won reelection to the point that I was  embarrassed for them.
Click to expand...


Fox is worse in your estimation because??
Oh yeah, it's slightly biased toward the center.
The rest are extreme far left.
Has fox doctored evidence to incite violence?
NBC has.
Has fox aligned itself with an organization that incites the murder of children?
NBC has.
How about YOUR fellow fanatics view on rape?
She is one of your lot isn't she?
Or is that too inconvenient to your dogma to address?


----------



## Pauli007001

PHP:
	






Liberal said:


> There have been countless studies that prove one way or the other on this subject. It's tiring at this point.
> 
> Don't let it get your head, most of you guys have already proven in this thread alone that you are not this rare animal called the "intelligent" conservative.



I would say that is merely your unsupported opinion.

Putting you squarely in the liberal low info camp.


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given NBCs history of falsification, you don't think that NBC have major credibility issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all sites and networks have credibility issues.  Leading the pack is Fox which I hear is a Teaparty strong hold.  I watched them deny Obama had won reelection to the point that I was  embarrassed for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox is worse in your estimation because??
> Oh yeah, it's slightly biased toward the center.
> The rest are extreme far left.
> Has fox doctored evidence to incite violence?
> NBC has.
> Has fox aligned itself with an organization that incites the murder of children?
> NBC has.
> How about YOUR fellow fanatics view on rape?
> She is one of your lot isn't she?
> Or is that too inconvenient to your dogma to address?
Click to expand...


Fox is worse IMO because the few times I have watched it they incite RW nutjobs and lie by omission or just flat out lie. MSNBC is extremely liberal so i dont trust them either. CNN seems to be more center so the rare times I watch TV I have no issue with them.

All those other questions you are ranting about don't make sense to me.  You sound unbalanced but you tend to do that I find.


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think all sites and networks have credibility issues.  Leading the pack is Fox which I hear is a Teaparty strong hold.  I watched them deny Obama had won reelection to the point that I was  embarrassed for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is worse in your estimation because??
> Oh yeah, it's slightly biased toward the center.
> The rest are extreme far left.
> Has fox doctored evidence to incite violence?
> NBC has.
> Has fox aligned itself with an organization that incites the murder of children?
> NBC has.
> How about YOUR fellow fanatics view on rape?
> She is one of your lot isn't she?
> Or is that too inconvenient to your dogma to address?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox is worse IMO because the few times I have watched it they incite RW nutjobs and lie by omission or just flat out lie. MSNBC is extremely liberal so i dont trust them either. CNN seems to be more center so the rare times I watch TV I have no issue with them.
> 
> All those other questions you are ranting about don't make sense to me.  You sound unbalanced but you tend to do that I find.
Click to expand...


You made a post quoting Todd Aiken ,a non tea party member, and his legitimate rape statement to attack the tea party.
I responded with a video of one of your lot( fanatical liberal totalitarians of the Obamacult) making the comment that roman polanskis rape and violent sodomy of a young girl was not RAPE RAPE.
Not legitimate rape in the liberal view.
You make comment, I counter it, prove how stupid you are, you rant that I am insane.
Typical liberal response.
Low info boy!!


----------



## martybegan

Liberal said:


> There have been countless studies that prove one way or the other on this subject. It's tiring at this point.
> 
> Don't let it get your head, most of you guys have already proven in this thread alone that you are not this rare animal called the "intelligent" conservative.



Another classical progressive fallacy. "If you disagree with me, you must be an idiot (or EVUL).


----------



## Pauli007001

To a liberal, logic is insanity.


----------



## Pauli007001

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.  -Todd Akin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Todd Aiken is not a tea party republican.
> 
> Whoopie Goldberg is a fanatical liberal totalitarian of the Obamacult though.
> 
> Here's her little verbal turdage regarding legitimate rape;-
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nZskUvAGyjQ&desktop_uri=/watch?v=nZskUvAGyjQ
Click to expand...


Gonna respond low info boy?


----------



## kwc57

Asclepias said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member.  until then you shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
Click to expand...


Very crafty video and audio editing by MSNBC and other MSM outlets.


----------



## mamooth

Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:

1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)

2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)

3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)

4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)

So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.

Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.

Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.


----------



## Asclepias

mamooth said:


> Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
> 
> 1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
> 
> 2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
> 
> 3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
> 
> 4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
> 
> So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
> 
> Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
> 
> Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.



My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led.  All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
> 
> 1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
> 
> 2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
> 
> 3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
> 
> 4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
> 
> So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
> 
> Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
> 
> Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led.  All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.
Click to expand...


I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
What is legitimate rape to a liberal?


----------



## flacaltenn

edthecynic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's what it said.* Tea Partiers are better versed in science than liberals*.
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't! It made absolutely no comparison between Libs and the Tea Bag Brotherhood. Your false claim only proves the ignorance of the Right!
> 
> It compared Baggers to NON-Baggers, not Libs. *The NON-Baggers included the smarter Libs and the dumber CON$ dragging down the Libs score*. IOW, it was a comparison between Baggers and Libs with NON-Bagger CON$.
> 
> You could REASON this from the study if you had any simple arithmetic skills. Each chart has the breakdown of the sample's participants in the upper right corner. In the Libs/CON$ chart there were 1168 Libs and 1148 CON$ for a total of 2,316. In the Bagger chart there were 430 Baggers and 1886 NON-Baggers for a total of 2,316.
> 
> A comparison between Baggers and Libs would have had 430 Baggers and 1168 Libs for a total of 1,598. Since no such study was done then only a stupid fool would claim the study said Baggers were better versed in science than Libs!!!!!
Click to expand...


It's that one assertion Ed that shows why INTERPRETING statistical studies are so hard.
Because everyone interprets them differently. 

Your comment about smarter "libs" and dumber "rest of the cons" is funny.. 

Because the way I READ THAT --- it's libs versus cons with the cons having all their* first team players* removed !!!  All in all, if that happened in the NFL --- the outcome would have been WORSE for the cons.. 

As THO --- you've never seen a "dumb lib" or they don't exist.. 
This is supposed to be for fun actually.. No one is winning here --- except that a certain political stereotype of the Tea Party just took a hit amidships..

Here's a truth.. Any group of people with the conviction and skills to ORGANIZE a national movement or "party" ---- is gonna be smarter than the average voter...  You "libs" should get to work...


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
> 
> 1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
> 
> 2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
> 
> 3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
> 
> 4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
> 
> So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
> 
> Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
> 
> Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led.  All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
> You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
> What is legitimate rape to a liberal?
Click to expand...


Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party.  Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?

Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?

I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.


----------



## koshergrl

Liberal said:


> There have been countless studies that prove one way or the other on this subject. It's tiring at this point.
> 
> Don't let it get your head, most of you guys have already proven in this thread alone that you are not this rare animal called the "intelligent" conservative.


 
Ah yes, it's the old "don't believe what you see, believe what I tell you" schtick.

As the study proved, not only is the assumption that tea partiers are ignorant WRONG, liberals  just assume that anyone who doesn't prescribe to their views is *dumb*. Based on their own innate sense of superiority.

Which is, in itself, rather *dumb*.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it?  I too would have thought the reverse was true.



Why would you have had that misconception?


----------



## Meathead

Asclepias said:


> So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it?  I too would have thought the reverse was true.


I wonder what blacks do the Democrat average.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it?  I too would have thought the reverse was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have had that misconception?
Click to expand...


Because I was doing an experiment.


----------



## Asclepias

Meathead said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it?  I too would have thought the reverse was true.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what blacks do the Democrat average.
Click to expand...


Since its higher than the GOP's they probably raise it.


----------



## Meathead

Asclepias said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it?  I too would have thought the reverse was true.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what blacks do the Democrat average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since its higher than the GOP's they probably raise it.
Click to expand...

Well, a bit incongruous, but then if blacks raise the Democrat average you have to seriously wonder if Democrat are indeed as ignorant as they seem.


----------



## Asclepias

Meathead said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what blacks do the Democrat average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since its higher than the GOP's they probably raise it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, a bit incongruous, but then if blacks raise the Democrat average you have to seriously wonder if Democrat are indeed as ignorant as they seem.
Click to expand...


Whatever the level of ignorance they still are ahead of the GOP in intelligence.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it?  I too would have thought the reverse was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have had that misconception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I was doing an experiment.
Click to expand...


Care to elaborate? I'm sure there's a more concrete reason.


----------



## Meathead

Asclepias said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since its higher than the GOP's they probably raise it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a bit incongruous, but then if blacks raise the Democrat average you have to seriously wonder if Democrat are indeed as ignorant as they seem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever the level of ignorance they still are ahead of the GOP in intelligence.
Click to expand...

So then black Democrats are more scientifically knowledgeable than their white counterparts?!  Whew.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Grampa Murked U said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in your DREAMS you can do anything!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one and prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He just kind of vanished lol
Click to expand...


He kinda always does.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

mamooth said:


> Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
> 
> 1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
> 
> 2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
> 
> 3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
> 
> 4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
> 
> So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
> 
> Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
> 
> Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.



Do you understand basic math?

Conservatives scored 0,05 lower than liberals. Tea PArty members scored 0.85 higher than non Tea Party members. Unless you are trying to argue that liberals are part of the Tea Party, that means liberals scored 0.80 lower than Tea Partiers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Anyone want to guess how long it will take a liberal to point out what I did wrong?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
> 
> 1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
> 
> 2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
> 
> 3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
> 
> 4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
> 
> So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
> 
> Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
> 
> Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led.  All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.
Click to expand...


You managed to fool a dyed in the wool, knee jerk progressive?

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led.  All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
> You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
> What is legitimate rape to a liberal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party.  Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?
> 
> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?
> 
> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.
Click to expand...


Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have had that misconception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I was doing an experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate? I'm sure there's a more concrete reason.
Click to expand...


The more concrete reason is he can't admit he was wrong, which leads him to pretend he was doing an experiment when he gets caught in a lie.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
> 
> 1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
> 
> 2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
> 
> 3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
> 
> 4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
> 
> So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
> 
> Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
> 
> Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led.  All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You managed to fool a dyed in the wool, knee jerk progressive?
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?


----------



## Vox

koshergrl said:


> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> &#8220;I&#8217;ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  I&#8217;d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension,&#8221; Kahan wrote.
> &#8220;But then again, I don&#8217;t know a single person who identifies with the  tea party,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;All my impressions come from watching cable  tv &#8212; & I don&#8217;t watch Fox News very often &#8212; and reading the &#8216;paper&#8217;  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). I&#8217;m a little embarrassed, but  mainly, I&#8217;m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.&#8221;
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​



This one is at least HONEST.

Ones on our board are not. Just few days ago two of them were spewing around the hatred toward the TP and one was actually promoting the very policies by Paul Ryan( 2010) of increasing the SS age to 70 ( or at least 67)and was extremely surprised that 67 has been there a long time ago - everybody born after 1960 will be SS eligible 67+. The other one had no idea that TP proposed tax code overhaul as their fundamental agenda.

Talk about low informed voter.
The problem is - ours don't even WANT to get informed unlike Kahan


----------



## Vox

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
> You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
> What is legitimate rape to a liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party.  Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?
> 
> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?
> 
> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.
Click to expand...


he is a typical low information leftard


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have had that misconception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I was doing an experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate? I'm sure there's a more concrete reason.
Click to expand...


You guys fall for everything. If you read all the way down on his post you would see he doesn't think his findings are significant and more a result of the size of his pool.  Basically a bad data set.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
> You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
> What is legitimate rape to a liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party.  Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?
> 
> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?
> 
> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.
Click to expand...


Why would Fox lie then?  I thought I could trust these guys to be truthful.  Which one of you guys are lying?

Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News


----------



## Vox

Asclepias said:


> *Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member. *.



no, the ones leaning conservative are definite dimocrap and rino supporters 
you, leftard guys, are amazing in your ... _originality_ 

there is no Tea Party* membership* - it is a unassociated pool of groups and their sympathizers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led.  All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You managed to fool a dyed in the wool, knee jerk progressive?
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Mamooth is not a Tea Party member. In fact, he hates the Tea Party more than you do, and, like you, thinks they are all ignorant white redneck racists.

But you managed to fool him, so good for you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party.  Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?
> 
> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?
> 
> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Fox lie then?  I thought I could trust these guys to be truthful.  Which one of you guys are lying?
> 
> Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News
Click to expand...


How would I know why they would lie?

From your link.



> In doing so, he beat out Sarah Palin's candidate of choice, former state  treasurer Sarah Steelman, and John Brunner, a businessman who poured  more than $7.5 million of his own money into the race.


----------



## Asclepias

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member. *.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, the ones leaning conservative are definite dimocrap and rino supporters
> you, leftard guys, are amazing in your ... _originality_
> 
> there is no Tea Party* membership* - it is a unassociated pool of groups and their sympathizers.
Click to expand...


i didnt say membership I said member. There is no membership to be a male but you may be a member of that group.  People professed they identified as part of the Tea Party. Therefore they are members.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You managed to fool a dyed in the wool, knee jerk progressive?
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mamooth is not a Tea Party member. In fact, he hates the Tea Party more than you do, and, like you, thinks they are all ignorant white redneck racists.
> 
> But you managed to fool him, so good for you.
Click to expand...


I'm well aware of that Mamooth is not a tea party member.  Did you notice I thanked Mamooth and proceeded to post my confession since the beans were spilled?  You seem to be 1 of 2 people fooled by that.  How did you guys miss it?


----------



## Vox

Asclepias said:


> If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.  -Todd Akin
Click to expand...


which was actually a mistake in terminology - what he meant was FORCIBLE rape and yes, rape to be considered rape has to be forcible - and yes, forcible rape is a very rare cause of pregnancy.
So his fundamental reasoning was accurate.
However, I still consider him an idiot.

Not for what he said, but for him getting involved into the discussion.
He should have invoked Newt's tactic


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Fox lie then?  I thought I could trust these guys to be truthful.  Which one of you guys are lying?
> 
> Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would I know why they would lie?
> 
> From your link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In doing so, he beat out Sarah Palin's candidate of choice, former state  treasurer Sarah Steelman, and John Brunner, a businessman who poured  more than $7.5 million of his own money into the race.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Fox says he is tea party backed. Is he or is he not?


----------



## Vox

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member. *.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, the ones leaning conservative are definite dimocrap and rino supporters
> you, leftard guys, are amazing in your ... _originality_
> 
> there is no Tea Party* membership* - it is a unassociated pool of groups and their sympathizers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i didnt say membership I said member. There is no membership to be a male but you may be a member of that group.  People professed they identified as part of the Tea Party. Therefore they are members.
Click to expand...


if there is no official membership, there are no official members.


----------



## Asclepias

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;If it&#8217;s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.&#8221;  -Todd Akin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which was actually a mistake in terminology - what he meant was FORCIBLE rape and yes, rape to be considered rape has to be forcible - and yes, forcible rape is a very rare cause of pregnancy.
> So his fundamental reasoning was accurate.
> However, I still consider him an idiot.
> 
> Not for what he said, but for him getting involved into the discussion.
> He should have invoked Newt's tactic
Click to expand...


Did the fact that women do not have "a way of shutting that whole thing down" ring any alarms?  What part of his reasoning was fundamentally sound BTW?


----------



## Vox

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which was actually a mistake in terminology - what he meant was FORCIBLE rape and yes, rape to be considered rape has to be forcible - and yes, forcible rape is a very rare cause of pregnancy.
> So his fundamental reasoning was accurate.
> However, I still consider him an idiot.
> 
> Not for what he said, but for him getting involved into the discussion.
> He should have invoked Newt's tactic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the fact that women do not have "a way of shutting that whole thing down" ring any alarms?  What part of his reasoning was fundamentally sound BTW?
Click to expand...


there are no alarms because, except his weird wording(shutting down the body for me is multiorgan failure, which might happen, but some other factors have to be involved) it is physiologically true - the high level of stress hormones prevent pregnancy occurring upon forcible rape.
It is a well and long known fact in OB/GYN.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mamooth is not a Tea Party member. In fact, he hates the Tea Party more than you do, and, like you, thinks they are all ignorant white redneck racists.
> 
> But you managed to fool him, so good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of that Mamooth is not a tea party member.  Did you notice I thanked Mamooth and proceeded to post my confession since the beans were spilled?  You seem to be 1 of 2 people fooled by that.  How did you guys miss it?
Click to expand...


You seem to think that people believe you never thought the Tea Party were stupid and part of the KKK.



Asclepias said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Democraps are skilled at demagoguery.......especially against blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are the party that spawned the Ku Klux Klan - and their Klan roots still shine bright to this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pledged allegiance to the Tea Party and dominate there now.
Click to expand...


Look at that, I proved you are a racist, and that you lied about not thinking the Tea Party is the worst part of the Republican party with one quote.

Feel free to pretend that you are outsmarting me, but even smart racists aren't smart enough to fool me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Fox lie then?  I thought I could trust these guys to be truthful.  Which one of you guys are lying?
> 
> Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would I know why they would lie?
> 
> From your link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In doing so, he beat out Sarah Palin's candidate of choice, former state  treasurer Sarah Steelman, and John Brunner, a businessman who poured  more than $7.5 million of his own money into the race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox says he is tea party backed. Is he or is he not?
Click to expand...


Fox also said that Palin had a candidate running against him before he stepped in the crap with his legitimate rape statement. I believe that makes me right, even if Fox says he was backed by the Tea Party.


----------



## Pauli007001

Hoffstra said:


> denying Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and contraception doesn't show much knowledge of science.



Changing the subject and spouting nonsense is however the liberal definition of genius.
Throw in a few lies, some hate, accessory to murder and you got yourself a bonefide messiah!


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats scary to know.  I just thought they were ignorant and harmless.  How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't believe everything nbc tells you!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NBC didnt tell me they just showed the dumb comments on TV.
Click to expand...

Yeah.  How many intelligent comments did they NOT show?


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which was actually a mistake in terminology - what he meant was FORCIBLE rape and yes, rape to be considered rape has to be forcible - and yes, forcible rape is a very rare cause of pregnancy.
> So his fundamental reasoning was accurate.
> However, I still consider him an idiot.
> 
> Not for what he said, but for him getting involved into the discussion.
> He should have invoked Newt's tactic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the fact that women do not have "a way of shutting that whole thing down" ring any alarms?  What part of his reasoning was fundamentally sound BTW?
Click to expand...


From Todd Aiken who is not a tea party member.

How about the card carrying liberal Whoopie goldburgs rant about rape not being rape unless it is rape rape??


----------



## Asclepias

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> which was actually a mistake in terminology - what he meant was FORCIBLE rape and yes, rape to be considered rape has to be forcible - and yes, forcible rape is a very rare cause of pregnancy.
> So his fundamental reasoning was accurate.
> However, I still consider him an idiot.
> 
> Not for what he said, but for him getting involved into the discussion.
> He should have invoked Newt's tactic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the fact that women do not have "a way of shutting that whole thing down" ring any alarms?  What part of his reasoning was fundamentally sound BTW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there are no alarms because, except his weird wording(shutting down the body for me is multiorgan failure, which might happen, but some other factors have to be involved) it is physiologically true - the high level of stress hormones prevent pregnancy occurring upon forcible rape.
> It is a well and long known fact in OB/GYN.
Click to expand...


I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?


----------



## daveman

Liberal said:


> There have been countless studies that prove one way or the other on this subject. It's tiring at this point.
> 
> Don't let it get your head, most of you guys have already proven in this thread alone that you are not this rare animal called the "intelligent" conservative.



That you believe intelligent conservatives are rare proves you're not an intelligent liberal.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mamooth is not a Tea Party member. In fact, he hates the Tea Party more than you do, and, like you, thinks they are all ignorant white redneck racists.
> 
> But you managed to fool him, so good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of that Mamooth is not a tea party member.  Did you notice I thanked Mamooth and proceeded to post my confession since the beans were spilled?  You seem to be 1 of 2 people fooled by that.  How did you guys miss it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think that people believe you never thought the Tea Party were stupid and part of the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are the party that spawned the Ku Klux Klan - and their Klan roots still shine bright to this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pledged allegiance to the Tea Party and dominate there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at that, I proved you are a racist, and that you lied about not thinking the Tea Party is the worst part of the Republican party with one quote.
> 
> Feel free to pretend that you are outsmarting me, but even smart racists aren't smart enough to fool me.
Click to expand...


You must be confused. i still think the Tea Party members are stupid. I was pretending I was surprised.

You didnt prove I was a racist.  You proved I think some members of the Tea Party are KKK>


----------



## percysunshine

Like this is some sort of surprise? 

Tea Partiers Raison d'être is that liberals suck at basic math.


----------



## mudwhistle

Bump


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member. *.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, the ones leaning conservative are definite dimocrap and rino supporters
> you, leftard guys, are amazing in your ... _originality_
> 
> there is no Tea Party* membership* - it is a unassociated pool of groups and their sympathizers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i didnt say membership I said member. There is no membership to be a male but you may be a member of that group.  People professed they identified as part of the Tea Party. Therefore they are members.
Click to expand...


So link to where Todd Aiken said he was a tea party member?

I understand you struggle with basic literacy above 3rd grade, but surely you see that the tea party is a single issue group!
Taxed
Enough
Already

Nothing religious or social, just fiscal.
Now go with that and tell us about the Tea party's stance on social issues.
Then tell us about whoopies stance on rape.
That reflects the opinion of the entire Obamacult liberal movement.


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?


Wait for it...


Asclepias said:


> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.


So.  You don't like being broad-brushed with the views of one liberal -- but you don't mind broad-brushing all conservatives with the views of one conservative.

There's a word for that...what is it?  Hypothermia?  Hypodermic?  Oh, yeah -- hypocrite.


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of that Mamooth is not a tea party member.  Did you notice I thanked Mamooth and proceeded to post my confession since the beans were spilled?  You seem to be 1 of 2 people fooled by that.  How did you guys miss it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think that people believe you never thought the Tea Party were stupid and part of the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> They pledged allegiance to the Tea Party and dominate there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at that, I proved you are a racist, and that you lied about not thinking the Tea Party is the worst part of the Republican party with one quote.
> 
> Feel free to pretend that you are outsmarting me, but even smart racists aren't smart enough to fool me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be confused. i still think the Tea Party members are stupid. I was pretending I was surprised.
> 
> You didnt prove I was a racist.  You proved I think some members of the Tea Party are KKK>
Click to expand...

You did? Where ?

I proved you were an illiterate retard.
Who believes he can count all the way to potato!


----------



## Pauli007001

daveman said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it...
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.  You don't like being broad-brushed with the views of one liberal -- but you don't mind broad-brushing all conservatives with the views of one conservative.
> 
> There's a word for that...what is it?  Hypothermia?  Hypodermic?  Oh, yeah -- hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Don't confuse the retard with big numbers like "broad brush"!!


----------



## Asclepias

daveman said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it...
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.  You don't like being broad-brushed with the views of one liberal -- but you don't mind broad-brushing all conservatives with the views of one conservative.
> 
> There's a word for that...what is it?  Hypothermia?  Hypodermic?  Oh, yeah -- hypocrite.
Click to expand...


I guess you got me on that one.   You better check you boy Vox though.


----------



## itfitzme

koshergrl said:


> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> Ive got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  Id be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension, Kahan wrote.
> But then again, I dont know a single person who identifies with the  tea party, he continued. All my impressions come from watching cable  tv  & I dont watch Fox News very often  and reading the paper  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). Im a little embarrassed, but  mainly, Im just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​



I see that the p-value is incrementally raised from .01 to .05 as the data is presented.  And the coefficient of correlation drops from .26 down to .05.

A coefficient of .05 is an r^2 of .025.  That is, party affiliation for tea party vs EVERYONE ELSE is 2.5% at a 95% confidence level. While it is 12.9% at a 99% confidence level for college vs non-college.

I have to wonder how that stands up at a 99% confidence level. Oh, it would be statistically insignificant.

Something is awkward about this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of that Mamooth is not a tea party member.  Did you notice I thanked Mamooth and proceeded to post my confession since the beans were spilled?  You seem to be 1 of 2 people fooled by that.  How did you guys miss it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think that people believe you never thought the Tea Party were stupid and part of the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> They pledged allegiance to the Tea Party and dominate there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at that, I proved you are a racist, and that you lied about not thinking the Tea Party is the worst part of the Republican party with one quote.
> 
> Feel free to pretend that you are outsmarting me, but even smart racists aren't smart enough to fool me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be confused. i still think the Tea Party members are stupid. I was pretending I was surprised.
> 
> You didnt prove I was a racist.  You proved I think some members of the Tea Party are KKK>
Click to expand...


When did you pretend you were surprised that you are a racist?


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the fact that women do not have "a way of shutting that whole thing down" ring any alarms?  What part of his reasoning was fundamentally sound BTW?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are no alarms because, except his weird wording(shutting down the body for me is multiorgan failure, which might happen, but some other factors have to be involved) it is physiologically true - the high level of stress hormones prevent pregnancy occurring upon forcible rape.
> It is a well and long known fact in OB/GYN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
Click to expand...

Given that rape is given as a reason for seeking an abortion in around 1% of all abortions, I'd say the evidence shows that to be true.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think that people believe you never thought the Tea Party were stupid and part of the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at that, I proved you are a racist, and that you lied about not thinking the Tea Party is the worst part of the Republican party with one quote.
> 
> Feel free to pretend that you are outsmarting me, but even smart racists aren't smart enough to fool me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confused. i still think the Tea Party members are stupid. I was pretending I was surprised.
> 
> You didnt prove I was a racist.  You proved I think some members of the Tea Party are KKK>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you pretend you were surprised that you are a racist?
Click to expand...


About the same time you pretended you proved I was a racist but was wrong in thinking I was.


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it...
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.  You don't like being broad-brushed with the views of one liberal -- but you don't mind broad-brushing all conservatives with the views of one conservative.
> 
> There's a word for that...what is it?  Hypothermia?  Hypodermic?  Oh, yeah -- hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you got me on that one.   You better check you boy Vox though.
Click to expand...

I don't have any boys.  I'm responsible ONLY for what I say; others are each responsible ONLY for what they say.

I know progressives are great believers in the concept of collective punishment, but really, that's just intellectually lazy.


----------



## Asclepias

daveman said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no alarms because, except his weird wording(shutting down the body for me is multiorgan failure, which might happen, but some other factors have to be involved) it is physiologically true - the high level of stress hormones prevent pregnancy occurring upon forcible rape.
> It is a well and long known fact in OB/GYN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that rape is given as a reason for seeking an abortion in around 1% of all abortions, I'd say the evidence shows that to be true.
Click to expand...


Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion?  At least a little bit?


----------



## Asclepias

daveman said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it...
> 
> So.  You don't like being broad-brushed with the views of one liberal -- but you don't mind broad-brushing all conservatives with the views of one conservative.
> 
> There's a word for that...what is it?  Hypothermia?  Hypodermic?  Oh, yeah -- hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you got me on that one.   You better check you boy Vox though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have any boys.  I'm responsible ONLY for what I say; others are each responsible ONLY for what they say.
> 
> I know progressives are great believers in the concept of collective punishment, but really, that's just intellectually lazy.
Click to expand...


You just agreed with him about the rape thing Dave.  Please tell me you were kidding?


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> Given that rape is given as a reason for seeking an abortion in around 1% of all abortions, I'd say the evidence shows that to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion?  At least a little bit?
Click to expand...


If your boy Malcolm x was still around he would have rape victims stoned to death. It's the way of Islam.


----------



## LoneLaugher

How has this thread gone? It does not matter. I will kill it. 

Sarah Palin
Christine O'Donnell
Todd Akin
Rand Paul
Any USMB Tea Party nutjob.

Finis.


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that rape is given as a reason for seeking an abortion in around 1% of all abortions, I'd say the evidence shows that to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion?  At least a little bit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your boy Malcolm x was still around he would have rape victims stones to death. It's the way of Islam.
Click to expand...


Paul I know you are in a frenzy but try and calm down.


----------



## koshergrl

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that. I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance. Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> Given that rape is given as a reason for seeking an abortion in around 1% of all abortions, I'd say the evidence shows that to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion? At least a little bit?
Click to expand...

 
Ah, one of those *things that must not be tracked*...we must kill babies because sometimes women get raped and don't want to turn in the rapists.

Thanks to legalized abortion, women can be raped over..and over...and over...and over....and nobody ever knows. The abortion clinic will keep mum about it, there's never a baby to show for it...and the men who abuse them know that.

Late term abortions do not take place because women wake up at 9 months suddenly wanting to kill the babies they previously wanted. Late term abortions take place because women HIDE their pregnancies from people they know will force them to abort...the other side of that disgusting coin is the game of the abuser that plays like this...get the woman pregnant, tell her to get an abortion, refuse to take her to her abortion appointment, tell her you want the baby, wait until she's far along in her pregnancy, then tell her you don't want the baby and threaten her if she has it.

Let's hear it for the abortion industry! You guys are the best friends pimps and abusers EVER had!

When abortion is illegal, then #1, pimps and abusers can't play that particular game...#2, it becomes a LOT more difficult to hide crimes like incest and sex abuse, and #3, women aren't put at risk by coersive tactics when they're pregnant. 

Instead of telling women that it's okay not to report rape, how about directing some of that zealous fervor towards educating girls to respect themselves, respect their bodies, report the men who abuse them, and teach them what resources are available to help them get out of those situations?

Abortion doesnt' cure abuse. It doesn't cure rape. It makes it worse because it is the means used to hide it.


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that rape is given as a reason for seeking an abortion in around 1% of all abortions, I'd say the evidence shows that to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion? At least a little bit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, one of those *things that must not be tracked*...we must kill babies because sometimes women get raped and don't want to turn in the rapists.
> 
> Thanks to legalized abortion, women can be raped over..and over...and over...and over....and nobody ever knows. The abortion clinic will keep mum about it, there's never a baby to show for it...and the men who abuse them know that.
> 
> Late term abortions do not take place because women wake up at 9 months suddenly wanting to kill the babies they previously wanted. Late term abortions take place because women HIDE their pregnancies from people they know will force them to abort...the other side of that disgusting coin is the game of the abuser that plays like this...get the woman pregnant, tell her to get an abortion, refuse to take her to her abortion appointment, tell her you want the baby, wait until she's far along in her pregnancy, then tell her you don't want the baby and threaten her if she has it.
> 
> Let's hear it for the abortion industry! You guys are the best friends pimps and abusers EVER had!
Click to expand...


So are you with Dave and Vox on this?  Do you think a womans body has a way of preventing pregnancy due to stress hormones preventing pregnancy?


----------



## koshergrl

Where on earth did you get that from my post?

When you choose to make sense, I will respond further.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's what it said.* Tea Partiers are better versed in science than liberals*.
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't! It made absolutely no comparison between Libs and the Tea Bag Brotherhood. Your false claim only proves the ignorance of the Right!
> 
> It compared Baggers to NON-Baggers, not Libs. The NON-Baggers included the smarter Libs and the dumber CON$ dragging down the Libs score. IOW, it was a comparison between Baggers and Libs with NON-Bagger CON$.
> 
> You could REASON this from the study if you had any simple arithmetic skills. Each chart has the breakdown of the sample's participants in the upper right corner. In the Libs/CON$ chart there were 1168 Libs and 1148 CON$ for a total of 2,316. In the Bagger chart there were 430 Baggers and 1886 NON-Baggers for a total of 2,316.
> 
> A comparison between Baggers and Libs would have had 430 Baggers and 1168 Libs for a total of 1,598. Since no such study was done then only a stupid fool would claim the study said Baggers were better versed in science than Libs!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, some people sure do bitterly cling to their bigotry when it's shown to be wrong, don't they?
> 
> Ed, your little hissy fit refutes nothing.
Click to expand...

It shows that the Right lack basic comprehension skills even after the facts are laid out for them. The law "study" compared Libs to CON$ and Baggers to NON-Baggers but NOT Baggers to Libs, so any claim of a comparison of Baggers to Libs from the "study" comes from an inability to read, comprehend and analyze!


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> Where on earth did you get that from my post?
> 
> When you choose to make sense, I will respond further.



Why did you post that in reply to my post then?


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion?  At least a little bit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your boy Malcolm x was still around he would have rape victims stones to death. It's the way of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul I know you are in a frenzy but try and calm down.
Click to expand...


You say frenzy, I say on a roll showing the world exactly how retarded you are!


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your boy Malcolm x was still around he would have rape victims stones to death. It's the way of Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul I know you are in a frenzy but try and calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say frenzy, I say on a roll showing the world exactly how retarded you are!
Click to expand...


Youve been trying for awhile now and its not working.  Give up.  You sound deranged.


----------



## Pauli007001

Tell us about the difference between "rape" and "rape rape".


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Tell us about the difference between "rape" and "rape rape".



There is none except for the extra rape.  Why do you ask?


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul I know you are in a frenzy but try and calm down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say frenzy, I say on a roll showing the world exactly how retarded you are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youve been trying for awhile now and its not working.  Give up.  You sound deranged.
Click to expand...


It worked, you cannot use the English Language correctly.
You are a retard.
The fact that you made such retarded mistakes whilst boasting that you would catch me doing the same is ironic to say the least.
It's a karma thing perhaps.
You retard.
Low intelligence type.
Idiot.
Nutcase.
Dumb fuck racist.


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say frenzy, I say on a roll showing the world exactly how retarded you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youve been trying for awhile now and its not working.  Give up.  You sound deranged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It worked, you cannot use the English Language correctly.
> You are a retard.
> The fact that you made such retarded mistakes whilst boasting that you would catch me doing the same is ironic to say the least.
> It's a karma thing perhaps.
> You retard.
> Low intelligence type.
> Idiot.
> Nutcase.
> Dumb fuck racist.
Click to expand...


Ok.


----------



## edthecynic

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.  -Todd Akin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Todd Aiken is not a tea party republican.
> *
Click to expand...

See how fast the Tea Bag Brotherhood abandons their losers!

BTW, your bullshit was already debunked earlier in this thread when another fool made the same false claim! Further proof the Right is incapable of learning even when exposed to the facts!

To refresh your memory:

Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News

*Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill*

Score another win for the Tea Party. 

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall.* Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials*, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal. 

The results send yet another Tea Party-backed candidate into the general election, with the McCaskill face-off considered one of the most closely watched Senate races of the year.


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us about the difference between "rape" and "rape rape".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is none except for the extra rape.  Why do you ask?
Click to expand...


So why did Whoopie, imply that rape was ok but rape rape is wrong?
Has it something to do with the legitimacy of the rape?
Like it's ok for a liberal to forcibly sodomize a 13 year old girl ( Roman Polanski) but if it's not a liberal then it's "RAPE RAPE", is that your liberal reasoning?


----------



## Pauli007001

edthecynic said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Todd Aiken is not a tea party republican.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how fast the Tea Bag Brotherhood abandons their losers!
> 
> BTW, your bullshit was already debunked earlier in this thread when another fool made the same false claim! Further proof the Right is incapable of learning even when exposed to the facts!
> 
> To refresh your memory:
> 
> Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News
> 
> *Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill*
> 
> Score another win for the Tea Party.
> 
> Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall.* Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials*, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal.
> 
> The results send yet another Tea Party-backed candidate into the general election, with the McCaskill face-off considered one of the most closely watched Senate races of the year.
Click to expand...


Show me the Tea party statements supporting any social issue?
It's a single issue grass roots organization, you fucking retard.
Taxed Enough Already.
Consider your retarded self de bunked.


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us about the difference between "rape" and "rape rape".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is none except for the extra rape.  Why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did Whoopie, imply that rape was ok but rape rape is wrong?
> Has it something to do with the legitimacy of the rape?
> Like it's ok for a liberal to forcibly sodomize a 13 year old girl ( Roman Polanski) but if it's not a liberal then it's "RAPE RAPE", is that your liberal reasoning?
Click to expand...


You'd have to ask Whoopie.  i do not believe any rape is legit.  Why are you so confused about that?


----------



## Pauli007001

Nambla has funded the democrat election fund.
All dems are therefore Nambla members.


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is none except for the extra rape.  Why do you ask?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did Whoopie, imply that rape was ok but rape rape is wrong?
> Has it something to do with the legitimacy of the rape?
> Like it's ok for a liberal to forcibly sodomize a 13 year old girl ( Roman Polanski) but if it's not a liberal then it's "RAPE RAPE", is that your liberal reasoning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have to ask Whoopie.  i do not believe any rape is legit.  Why are you so confused about that?
Click to expand...

You are both liberals, so you believe exactly what she says.
You can't disagree with another black liberal, that would make you an Uncle Tom.

Your rules Re Uncle Tom.

Unless you agree with her completely.....
So are you a rape supporter or an Uncle Tom?


----------



## edthecynic

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
> You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
> What is legitimate rape to a liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party.  Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?
> 
> Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?
> 
> I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him,* but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.
Click to expand...

Already nailed you on your Akin lie, some people never learn.

The Tea Bag Brotherhood keeps telling us they have no leader, but now YOU say Celebutard Palin in the leader who decides just who is and isn't a Bagger. Either you are a liar or the Baggers are liars, but you both can't be telling the truth.

For a refresher:

Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News

*Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill*

Score another win for the Tea Party. 

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall.* Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials*, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal. 

*The results send yet another Tea Party-backed candidate into the general election*, with the McCaskill face-off considered one of the most closely watched Senate races of the year.


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did Whoopie, imply that rape was ok but rape rape is wrong?
> Has it something to do with the legitimacy of the rape?
> Like it's ok for a liberal to forcibly sodomize a 13 year old girl ( Roman Polanski) but if it's not a liberal then it's "RAPE RAPE", is that your liberal reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have to ask Whoopie.  i do not believe any rape is legit.  Why are you so confused about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both liberals, so you believe exactly what she says.
> You can't disagree with another black liberal, that would make you an Uncle Tom.
> 
> Your rules Re Uncle Tom.
> 
> Unless you agree with her completely.....
> So are you a rape supporter or an Uncle Tom?
Click to expand...


Who told you i believe what she believes?


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> Given that rape is given as a reason for seeking an abortion in around 1% of all abortions, I'd say the evidence shows that to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion?  At least a little bit?
Click to expand...

Certainly.  The link discusses the issues with rape-related statistics.  It's under the section titled "Issues with rape-related statistics".


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have to ask Whoopie.  i do not believe any rape is legit.  Why are you so confused about that?
> 
> 
> 
> You are both liberals, so you believe exactly what she says.
> You can't disagree with another black liberal, that would make you an Uncle Tom.
> 
> Your rules Re Uncle Tom.
> 
> Unless you agree with her completely.....
> So are you a rape supporter or an Uncle Tom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who told you i believe what she believes?
Click to expand...


She is a liberal, you are a liberal.
She is a famous black, if you deny her then you are an Uncle Tom.
Which is it?
An apologist for rape or an Uncle Tom ?


----------



## Asclepias

daveman said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that rape is given as a reason for seeking an abortion in around 1% of all abortions, I'd say the evidence shows that to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion?  At least a little bit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly.  The link discusses the issues with rape-related statistics.  It's under the section titled "Issues with rape-related statistics".
Click to expand...


So how do they know its 1% then?  Educated guess?


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are both liberals, so you believe exactly what she says.
> You can't disagree with another black liberal, that would make you an Uncle Tom.
> 
> Your rules Re Uncle Tom.
> 
> Unless you agree with her completely.....
> So are you a rape supporter or an Uncle Tom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you i believe what she believes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a liberal, you are a liberal.
> She is a famous black, if you deny her then you are an Uncle Tom.
> Which is it?
> An apologist for rape or an Uncle Tom ?
Click to expand...

But I'm not a liberal. Who told you that?


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you got me on that one.   You better check you boy Vox though.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any boys.  I'm responsible ONLY for what I say; others are each responsible ONLY for what they say.
> 
> I know progressives are great believers in the concept of collective punishment, but really, that's just intellectually lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just agreed with him about the rape thing Dave.  Please tell me you were kidding?
Click to expand...

I brought up a point that hadn't been discussed or considered with this issue.

Further:  Ever know a couple trying to have a baby for years?  No medical reason for the inability, but they just can't catch pregnant.  Calendars, taking temperatures, scheduling sex...and it doesn't work.  Lots of stress.

So they decide to adopt.  They find the perfect child, and welcome the new addition to the family.  Everybody's happy.

BAM!!  They get pregnant.  

What's different?  The stress of trying to get pregnant is gone.

There's another point that hasn't been discussed or considered.

Do you believe stress has no impact of the chances of pregnancy?  I'd like to see you make that case.


----------



## Two Thumbs

koshergrl said:


> "
> Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
> Ive got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I  pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected  Id be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the  Tea Party and science comprehension, Kahan wrote.
> But then again, I dont know a single person who identifies with the  tea party, he continued. All my impressions come from watching cable  tv  & I dont watch Fox News very often  and reading the paper  (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites  like Huffington Post and POLITICO). Im a little embarrassed, but  mainly, Im just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken  view.
> 
> Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
> ​



Most TP are working professionals that have to pay taxes.

Only liberals require a study to find out they, as a group, are dumber than they people they think are dumb.

Wonder if it dawned on him that he's been lied to the whole time?  Probably not, being liberal, free thought isn't common.


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you i believe what she believes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is a liberal, you are a liberal.
> She is a famous black, if you deny her then you are an Uncle Tom.
> Which is it?
> An apologist for rape or an Uncle Tom ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not a liberal. Who told you that?
Click to expand...


Your blind support for all liberal policies.
Your arguments defending the monstrosity called Obama care.
Your arguments for cutting the military, your desire to appease our enemies.
What you say basically.
You are a far left fanatical liberal totalitarian of the Obamacult.
So are you a rape apologist or an Uncle Tom?


----------



## daveman

LoneLaugher said:


> How has this thread gone? It does not matter. I will kill it.
> 
> Sarah Palin
> Christine O'Donnell
> Todd Akin
> Rand Paul
> Any USMB Tea Party nutjob.
> 
> Finis.



The dumbest person in your list is still smarter than you.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't! It made absolutely no comparison between Libs and the Tea Bag Brotherhood. Your false claim only proves the ignorance of the Right!
> 
> It compared Baggers to NON-Baggers, not Libs. The NON-Baggers included the smarter Libs and the dumber CON$ dragging down the Libs score. IOW, it was a comparison between Baggers and Libs with NON-Bagger CON$.
> 
> You could REASON this from the study if you had any simple arithmetic skills. Each chart has the breakdown of the sample's participants in the upper right corner. In the Libs/CON$ chart there were 1168 Libs and 1148 CON$ for a total of 2,316. In the Bagger chart there were 430 Baggers and 1886 NON-Baggers for a total of 2,316.
> 
> A comparison between Baggers and Libs would have had 430 Baggers and 1168 Libs for a total of 1,598. Since no such study was done then only a stupid fool would claim the study said Baggers were better versed in science than Libs!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, some people sure do bitterly cling to their bigotry when it's shown to be wrong, don't they?
> 
> Ed, your little hissy fit refutes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shows that the Right lack basic comprehension skills even after the facts are laid out for them. The law "study" compared Libs to CON$ and Baggers to NON-Baggers but NOT Baggers to Libs, so any claim of a comparison of Baggers to Libs from the "study" comes from an inability to read, comprehend and analyze!
Click to expand...

So, how's that whole hissy-fit thing working out for you?


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other.  However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit.  My personal favorite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Todd Aiken is not a tea party republican.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how fast the Tea Bag Brotherhood abandons their losers!
> 
> BTW, your bullshit was already debunked earlier in this thread when another fool made the same false claim! Further proof the Right is incapable of learning even when exposed to the facts!
> 
> To refresh your memory:
> 
> Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News
> 
> *Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill*
> 
> Score another win for the Tea Party.
> 
> Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall.* Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials*, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal.
> 
> The results send yet another Tea Party-backed candidate into the general election, with the McCaskill face-off considered one of the most closely watched Senate races of the year.
Click to expand...

I thought Faux Snooz lies all the time.


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that many women dont even report rapes make you consider they would also be reluctant to give that as a reason for having an abortion?  At least a little bit?
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly.  The link discusses the issues with rape-related statistics.  It's under the section titled "Issues with rape-related statistics".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how do they know its 1% then?  Educated guess?
Click to expand...


I'm rather tired of spoon-feeding people.  Click the link.


----------



## Asclepias

daveman said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any boys.  I'm responsible ONLY for what I say; others are each responsible ONLY for what they say.
> 
> I know progressives are great believers in the concept of collective punishment, but really, that's just intellectually lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just agreed with him about the rape thing Dave.  Please tell me you were kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I brought up a point that hadn't been discussed or considered with this issue.
> 
> Further:  Ever know a couple trying to have a baby for years?  No medical reason for the inability, but they just can't catch pregnant.  Calendars, taking temperatures, scheduling sex...and it doesn't work.  Lots of stress.
> 
> So they decide to adopt.  They find the perfect child, and welcome the new addition to the family.  Everybody's happy.
> 
> BAM!!  They get pregnant.
> 
> What's different?  The stress of trying to get pregnant is gone.
> 
> There's another point that hasn't been discussed or considered.
> 
> Do you believe stress has no impact of the chances of pregnancy?  I'd like to see you make that case.
Click to expand...


No I get what you are saying but I think those are 2 different kinds of stress. Without researching I'm going to guess that stress from being raped and stress from trying to conceive will net you 2 different results to the body. With rape I bet you get a lot more adrenaline which dissipates quickly.  BRB. 

Just had to verify that sperm can live up to 3 days.  If you are trying to get pregnant the stress levels will stay up during the time you are hoping to conceive because you are anxious.  I know that a lot of rape victims are sedated by medical personnel so that would reduce stress enough for them to get pregnant even if stress was 100% effective in preventing pregnancy in all cases. Then you factor in a women that has a strong personality and coping mechanism or even the fact they may have been drugged during the rape.  All it takes is for the sperm to get to the egg which may already be there waiting or come later when the woman is calmed down and no longer in the freeze, flight, of fight mode.  its all timing.  All stress can do is keep you from ovulating the way I understand it.


----------



## shikaki

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a liberal, you are a liberal.
> She is a famous black, if you deny her then you are an Uncle Tom.
> Which is it?
> An apologist for rape or an Uncle Tom ?
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not a liberal. Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your blind support for all liberal policies.
> Your arguments defending the monstrosity called Obama care.
> Your arguments for cutting the military, your desire to appease our enemies.
> What you say basically.
> You are a far left fanatical liberal totalitarian of the Obamacult.
> So are you a rape apologist or an Uncle Tom?
Click to expand...


WOW..  So if you are liberal, you are liberal about all issues.  If you are conservative, you are conservative about all issues?  These "labels" do nothing but stall a conversation/discussion.  

You sir are British.  LOL


----------



## Asclepias

Pauli007001 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a liberal, you are a liberal.
> She is a famous black, if you deny her then you are an Uncle Tom.
> Which is it?
> An apologist for rape or an Uncle Tom ?
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not a liberal. Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your blind support for all liberal policies.
> Your arguments defending the monstrosity called Obama care.
> Your arguments for cutting the military, your desire to appease our enemies.
> What you say basically.
> You are a far left fanatical liberal totalitarian of the Obamacult.
> So are you a rape apologist or an Uncle Tom?
Click to expand...


But I dont support all liberal policies.  Who told you that I did?


----------



## edthecynic

Pauli007001 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Todd Aiken is not a tea party republican.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> See how fast the Tea Bag Brotherhood abandons their losers!
> 
> BTW, your bullshit was already debunked earlier in this thread when another fool made the same false claim! Further proof the Right is incapable of learning even when exposed to the facts!
> 
> To refresh your memory:
> 
> Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News
> 
> *Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill*
> 
> Score another win for the Tea Party.
> 
> Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall.* Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials*, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal.
> 
> The results send yet another Tea Party-backed candidate into the general election, with the McCaskill face-off considered one of the most closely watched Senate races of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the Tea party statements supporting any social issue?
> It's a single issue grass roots organization, you fucking retard.
> Taxed Enough Already.
> Consider your retarded self de bunked.
Click to expand...

When I get the Right cursing me I know they believe deep down in their own hearts that I am right!

Akin was an original member of the Tea Bag Brotherhood caucus

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/24282/akin_tea_party_endorsement_041212

*Touting tea party backing, Akin's endorsed by Bachmann and King
*
WASHINGTON &#8211; The struggle for tea party-related support among Missouri&#8217;s Republican Senate contenders continued Thursday as* U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Wildwood, announced the endorsement of former presidential hopeful and congressional Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann.*

Akin&#8217;s corralling of U.S. Reps. Bachmann, R-Minn., and Steve King, R-Iowa &#8211; staunch conservatives who, *along with Akin, were among the caucus&#8217; founding members in 2010* &#8211; follows last month&#8217;s dispute over the significance of the Tea Party Express&#8217; endorsement of GOP Senate contender and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman.

Upset with that decision by the nation&#8217;s biggest tea party political action committee, *18 Missouri-based tea party groups issued a statement in March disavowing the endorsement, saying the California-based Tea Party Express does &#8220;not speak for Missouri tea party organizations when stating they have identified a 'true Tea Party candidate in Missouri.'&#8221; *Two other tea party-aligned groups &#8211; the Missouri Conservative Coalition and the Gateway Grassroots Initiative &#8211; later issued similar statements.

The Gateway Grassroots Initiative, which includes activists who broke away from  the St. Louis Tea Party, said in a statement that the Tea Party Express' support for Steelman &#8220;was done without consulting or reaching out to local groups to gauge whether or not their endorsement was a wise one.&#8221;


----------



## Pauli007001

Asclepias said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not a liberal. Who told you that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your blind support for all liberal policies.
> Your arguments defending the monstrosity called Obama care.
> Your arguments for cutting the military, your desire to appease our enemies.
> What you say basically.
> You are a far left fanatical liberal totalitarian of the Obamacult.
> So are you a rape apologist or an Uncle Tom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I dont support all liberal policies.  Who told you that I did?
Click to expand...


You must , if every Christian nut is representative of the tea party.
You do broad brush constantly?
Tell me about those multigenerational race crimes I commit scores of every day?
List one, just one racist crime I commit every day?


----------



## Pauli007001

edthecynic said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See how fast the Tea Bag Brotherhood abandons their losers!
> 
> BTW, your bullshit was already debunked earlier in this thread when another fool made the same false claim! Further proof the Right is incapable of learning even when exposed to the facts!
> 
> To refresh your memory:
> 
> Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News
> 
> *Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill*
> 
> Score another win for the Tea Party.
> 
> Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall.* Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials*, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal.
> 
> The results send yet another Tea Party-backed candidate into the general election, with the McCaskill face-off considered one of the most closely watched Senate races of the year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the Tea party statements supporting any social issue?
> It's a single issue grass roots organization, you fucking retard.
> Taxed Enough Already.
> Consider your retarded self de bunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I get the Right cursing me I know they believe deep down in their own hearts that I am right!
> 
> Akin was an original member of the Tea Bag Brotherhood caucus
> 
> https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/24282/akin_tea_party_endorsement_041212
> 
> *Touting tea party backing, Akin's endorsed by Bachmann and King
> *
> WASHINGTON  The struggle for tea party-related support among Missouris Republican Senate contenders continued Thursday as* U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Wildwood, announced the endorsement of former presidential hopeful and congressional Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann.*
> 
> Akins corralling of U.S. Reps. Bachmann, R-Minn., and Steve King, R-Iowa  staunch conservatives who, *along with Akin, were among the caucus founding members in 2010*  follows last months dispute over the significance of the Tea Party Express endorsement of GOP Senate contender and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman.
> 
> Upset with that decision by the nations biggest tea party political action committee, *18 Missouri-based tea party groups issued a statement in March disavowing the endorsement, saying the California-based Tea Party Express does not speak for Missouri tea party organizations when stating they have identified a 'true Tea Party candidate in Missouri.' *Two other tea party-aligned groups  the Missouri Conservative Coalition and the Gateway Grassroots Initiative  later issued similar statements.
> 
> The Gateway Grassroots Initiative, which includes activists who broke away from  the St. Louis Tea Party, said in a statement that the Tea Party Express' support for Steelman was done without consulting or reaching out to local groups to gauge whether or not their endorsement was a wise one.
Click to expand...


Whatever your party apparatchiks tell you.
You are wrong.


----------



## LoneLaugher

daveman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has this thread gone? It does not matter. I will kill it.
> 
> Sarah Palin
> Christine O'Donnell
> Todd Akin
> Rand Paul
> Any USMB Tea Party nutjob.
> 
> Finis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dumbest person in your list is still smarter than you.
Click to expand...


Why lie? Does it work for you?


----------



## Vox

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the fact that women do not have "a way of shutting that whole thing down" ring any alarms?  What part of his reasoning was fundamentally sound BTW?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are no alarms because, except his weird wording(shutting down the body for me is multiorgan failure, which might happen, but some other factors have to be involved) it is physiologically true - the high level of stress hormones prevent pregnancy occurring upon forcible rape.
> It is a well and long known fact in OB/GYN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
Click to expand...

 not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.


----------



## driveby

LoneLaugher said:


> How has this thread gone? It does not matter. I will kill it.
> 
> Sarah Palin
> Christine O'Donnell
> Todd Akin
> Rand Paul
> Any USMB Tea Party nutjob.
> 
> Finis.




Nancy Pelosi
Maxine Waters
Sheila Jackson Lee
Joe Biden
Charley Rangel
Any USMB Moonbat kook.

End thread..........


----------



## Vox

driveby said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has this thread gone? It does not matter. I will kill it.
> 
> Sarah Palin
> Christine O'Donnell
> Todd Akin
> Rand Paul
> Any USMB Tea Party nutjob.
> 
> Finis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy Pelosi
> Maxine Waters
> Sheila Jackson Lee
> Joe Biden
> Charley Rangel
> Any USMB Moonbat kook.
> 
> End thread..........
Click to expand...


you forgot the messiah who is useless without a teleprompter


----------



## Asclepias

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no alarms because, except his weird wording(shutting down the body for me is multiorgan failure, which might happen, but some other factors have to be involved) it is physiologically true - the high level of stress hormones prevent pregnancy occurring upon forcible rape.
> It is a well and long known fact in OB/GYN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
Click to expand...


How could you possibly know that without getting all rape victims to tell the truth?  You do understand all that is needed is for the egg to merge with the sperm?  That can happen no matter how violent the rape is. This is why people think the Tea Party is looney when they support candidates like Aikens.


----------



## Vox

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How could you possibly know that* without getting all rape victims to tell the truth?  You do understand all that is needed is for the egg to merge with the sperm?  That can happen no matter how violent the rape is. This is why people think the Tea Party is looney when they support candidates like Aikens.
Click to expand...


because I know some medical statistics 
and as I have mentioned before high level of stress hormones might make implementation impossible.
egg meeting the sperm is not the end of the story 

and being ignorant like you are does not make you less looney on running with false LSM outrage.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no alarms because, except his weird wording(shutting down the body for me is multiorgan failure, which might happen, but some other factors have to be involved) it is physiologically true - the high level of stress hormones prevent pregnancy occurring upon forcible rape.
> It is a well and long known fact in OB/GYN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
Click to expand...


Yeeeeeeehaw! Ya can't get pregnant if you are raped! And if you do get pregnant.....it was not rape! It must have been consensual!

Ladies...........how about that!


----------



## driveby

LoneLaugher said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeeehaw! Ya can't get pregnant if you are raped! And if you do get pregnant.....it was not rape! It must have been consensual!
> 
> Ladies...........how about that!
Click to expand...


Did Sheila Jackson Lee, driving the Mars Rover with the spinning rims ever find that flag the astronauts planted on Mars?.......


----------



## Vox

LoneLaugher said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeeehaw! Ya can't get pregnant if you are raped! And if you do get pregnant.....it was not rape! It must have been consensual!
> 
> Ladies...........how about that!
Click to expand...


I know you are an idiot and do not understand that "not in 100% cases" and "occurrence is miniscule" means exactly that pregnancy after violent rape is rare. and it translates in your leftard mind into "you can not get pregnant after a rape" - but then, that should be expected from a lying leftard


----------



## LoneLaugher

driveby said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeeehaw! Ya can't get pregnant if you are raped! And if you do get pregnant.....it was not rape! It must have been consensual!
> 
> Ladies...........how about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Sheila Jackson Lee, driving the Mars Rover with the spinning rims ever find that flag the astronauts planted on Mars?.......
Click to expand...


No.....no.....no.....not funny.  You should apply for that writing gig at "The Five". You'll fit right in.


----------



## Asclepias

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How could you possibly know that* without getting all rape victims to tell the truth?  You do understand all that is needed is for the egg to merge with the sperm?  That can happen no matter how violent the rape is. This is why people think the Tea Party is looney when they support candidates like Aikens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because I know some medical statistics
> and as I have mentioned before high level of stress hormones might make implementation impossible.
> egg meeting the sperm is not the end of the story
Click to expand...


Stats are not reliable unless you have all the variables covered.  I know you know this.  Its all guessing..not valid science.  No one knows how stressed or not stressed and individual can be even if everyone reported a rape correctly.


----------



## Asclepias

LoneLaugher said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.  I just want to make sure that I am clear on your stance.  Are you saying that if a woman is forcibly raped she will not get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeeehaw! Ya can't get pregnant if you are raped! And if you do get pregnant.....it was not rape! It must have been consensual!
> 
> Ladies...........how about that!
Click to expand...


Those dreaded, all variables covered stats evidently say you can.  Now I see why the Tea Party is going to go down as one of the most destructive forces known to intelligence.


----------



## edthecynic

Pauli007001 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the Tea party statements supporting any social issue?
> It's a single issue grass roots organization, you fucking retard.
> Taxed Enough Already.
> Consider your retarded self de bunked.
> 
> 
> 
> When I get the Right cursing me I know they believe deep down in their own hearts that I am right!
> 
> Akin was an original member of the Tea Bag Brotherhood caucus
> 
> https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/24282/akin_tea_party_endorsement_041212
> 
> *Touting tea party backing, Akin's endorsed by Bachmann and King
> *
> WASHINGTON  The struggle for tea party-related support among Missouris Republican Senate contenders continued Thursday as* U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Wildwood, announced the endorsement of former presidential hopeful and congressional Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann.*
> 
> Akins corralling of U.S. Reps. Bachmann, R-Minn., and Steve King, R-Iowa  staunch conservatives who, *along with Akin, were among the caucus founding members in 2010*  follows last months dispute over the significance of the Tea Party Express endorsement of GOP Senate contender and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman.
> 
> Upset with that decision by the nations biggest tea party political action committee, *18 Missouri-based tea party groups issued a statement in March disavowing the endorsement, saying the California-based Tea Party Express does not speak for Missouri tea party organizations when stating they have identified a 'true Tea Party candidate in Missouri.' *Two other tea party-aligned groups  the Missouri Conservative Coalition and the Gateway Grassroots Initiative  later issued similar statements.
> 
> The Gateway Grassroots Initiative, which includes activists who broke away from  the St. Louis Tea Party, said in a statement that the Tea Party Express' support for Steelman was done without consulting or reaching out to local groups to gauge whether or not their endorsement was a wise one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever your party apparatchiks tell you.
> You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! And very scientific too. 

Like I said, the Right is incapable of learning even after being handed the facts on a silver platter.


----------



## Vox

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How could you possibly know that* without getting all rape victims to tell the truth?  You do understand all that is needed is for the egg to merge with the sperm?  That can happen no matter how violent the rape is. This is why people think the Tea Party is looney when they support candidates like Aikens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I know some medical statistics
> and as I have mentioned before high level of stress hormones might make implementation impossible.
> egg meeting the sperm is not the end of the story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stats are not reliable unless you have all the variables covered.  I know you know this.  Its all guessing..not valid science.  No one knows how stressed or not stressed and individual can be even if everyone reported a rape correctly.
Click to expand...


Variables ARE covered. I am talking about violent rape.

and it is a well known fact for all the reproduction specialists - if you are under stress - the implementation is highly questionable.

Now, I know your tendency to engage in a menace of splitting the hair into the 4 parts, so I won't go any further.

as i said - Akin is an idiot - for getting involved into a discussion which he should avoided.
But I am not


----------



## Asclepias

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> because I know some medical statistics
> and as I have mentioned before high level of stress hormones might make implementation impossible.
> egg meeting the sperm is not the end of the story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stats are not reliable unless you have all the variables covered.  I know you know this.  Its all guessing..not valid science.  No one knows how stressed or not stressed and individual can be even if everyone reported a rape correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Variables ARE covered. I am talking about violent rape.
> 
> and it is a well known fact for all the reproduction specialists - if you are under stress - the implementation is highly questionable.
> 
> Now, I know your tendency to engage in a menace of splitting the hair into the 4 parts, so I won't go any further.
> 
> as i said - Akin is an idiot - for getting involved into a discussion which he should avoided.
> But I am not
Click to expand...


Not everyone reports the variable of the rape being violent.  How are you missing that?  How are they measuring the levels of stress in the subjects and the levels of hormones and timing it to the moment of conception and attachment to the uterus?  Are you really trying to say I'm splitting hairs? All you can say with any assurance is that it may be  possible that stress may play a part in preventing pregnancy in violent rape cases. Thats about as useless as used toilet paper.


----------



## Vox

Asclepias said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stats are not reliable unless you have all the variables covered.  I know you know this.  Its all guessing..not valid science.  No one knows how stressed or not stressed and individual can be even if everyone reported a rape correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Variables ARE covered. I am talking about violent rape.
> 
> and it is a well known fact for all the reproduction specialists - if you are under stress - the implementation is highly questionable.
> 
> Now, I know your tendency to engage in a menace of splitting the hair into the 4 parts, so I won't go any further.
> 
> as i said - Akin is an idiot - for getting involved into a discussion which he should avoided.
> But I am not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everyone reports the variable of the rape being violent.  How are you missing that?  How are they measuring the levels of stress in the subjects and the levels of hormones and timing it to the moment of conception and attachment to the uterus?  Are you really trying to say I'm splitting hairs? All you can say with any assurance is that it may be  possible that stress may play a part in preventing pregnancy in violent rape cases. Thats about as useless as used toilet paper.
Click to expand...


google is your friend


----------



## Unkotare

Asclepias said:


> Now I see why the Tea Party is going to go down as one of the most destructive forces known to intelligence.





Well, that means that _you_ are safe from destruction.


----------



## LoneLaugher

All rapes are violent.


----------



## Asclepias

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Variables ARE covered. I am talking about violent rape.
> 
> and it is a well known fact for all the reproduction specialists - if you are under stress - the implementation is highly questionable.
> 
> Now, I know your tendency to engage in a menace of splitting the hair into the 4 parts, so I won't go any further.
> 
> as i said - Akin is an idiot - for getting involved into a discussion which he should avoided.
> But I am not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone reports the variable of the rape being violent.  How are you missing that?  How are they measuring the levels of stress in the subjects and the levels of hormones and timing it to the moment of conception and attachment to the uterus?  Are you really trying to say I'm splitting hairs? All you can say with any assurance is that it may be  possible that stress may play a part in preventing pregnancy in violent rape cases. Thats about as useless as used toilet paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> google is your friend
Click to expand...


I dont need google to tell me they are not getting a true sampling of people reporting violent rapes or they can measure the stress levels and time it to conception.  You guys are scary. RW's have some good policies but you are out to lunch on most other things as a group.


----------



## Rambunctious

Old Rocks said:


> Well, given the degree of scientifc literacy displayed here by the "Conservatives", I find it difficut to believe that the Teabaggers have any scientific literacy above that of a sixth grader.



Every study I've seen slams Obama supporters as being some of the stupidest and most uninformed people on the planet.  Bama phone!!!got my free Bama Phone!

Tea Baggers are much smarter than ObamaBots.


----------



## petro

Mr. H. said:


> Even he doesn't mention what the letters T E A stand for.



Taxed
Enough 
Already

No problem here with that message.


----------



## Rambunctious

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tpAOwJvTOio#t=4]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rambunctious

Need we say more?


----------



## petro

Rambunctious said:


> Need we say more?



Classic Obamabot.


----------



## flacaltenn

Vox said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> not in 100% cases. but the occurrence of pregnancy after violent rape is miniscule.
> but it has to be violent. the case - she agreed and then decided it was a rape - is not the one discussed here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeeehaw! Ya can't get pregnant if you are raped! And if you do get pregnant.....it was not rape! It must have been consensual!
> 
> Ladies...........how about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are an idiot and do not understand that "not in 100% cases" and "occurrence is miniscule" means exactly that pregnancy after violent rape is rare. and it translates in your leftard mind into "you can not get pregnant after a rape" - but then, that should be expected from a lying leftard
Click to expand...


I wanna believe you actually some facts here.. But it's hard. Because all you've said is that case "is rare".. Well so is rape in general... (unless you're a women in military at an away conference)

How about just some GENERAL numbers comparing conception for rape versus non-stress intercourse? 


**can't believe I'm asking for this..... "non-stress intercourse" ----- oxymoron?


----------



## AquaAthena

Destroyer2 said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says a Yale Professor.... very interesting.
> 
> 
> Yale Professor: Media Biased Me Against Tea Party, But They're More Scientifically Literate | Truth Revolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To think there are no educated people in the Tea Party is downright silly.
> 
> Doesn't mean I agree with the beliefs though.
Click to expand...


The rarest form of intelligence, is commonsense. Highly educated people are not always synonymous with wisdom. Presidents Washington, Truman, and Reagan did not have higher educations, yet they were profoundly intelligent and wise.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

I see A LOT of REALLY dumbass posts in this thread. Don't worry lefties you can still be king of EVERYTHING in your own minds!

Carry on.


----------



## petro

AquaAthena said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says a Yale Professor.... very interesting.
> 
> 
> Yale Professor: Media Biased Me Against Tea Party, But They're More Scientifically Literate | Truth Revolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To think there are no educated people in the Tea Party is downright silly.
> 
> Doesn't mean I agree with the beliefs though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rarest form of intelligence, is commonsense. Highly educated people are not always synonymous with wisdom. Presidents Washington, Truman, and Reagan did not have higher educations, yet they were profoundly intelligent and wise.
Click to expand...



How true. I can't even count the amount of so-called educated folks who can't even balance their own finances. Higher education does not teach common sense or wisdom, that comes from the lessons of life. I have met many more people with a high school education who display much more wisdom as their life demanded it.

On another note about the religious comments. The assumption is made that those who believe in their faith are simpletons, when in fact a majority of scientists believe in God, just not the literal Bible. Based on the design and  physical nature of the universe, this God is most likely a scientist. By attacking those of faith it only weakens a person argument in a debate and is a shameful tactic.

Not a believer myself, but I would never attack a person based upon their faith.


----------



## shikaki

Vox said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Variables ARE covered. I am talking about violent rape.
> 
> and it is a well known fact for all the reproduction specialists - if you are under stress - the implementation is highly questionable.
> 
> Now, I know your tendency to engage in a menace of splitting the hair into the 4 parts, so I won't go any further.
> 
> as i said - Akin is an idiot - for getting involved into a discussion which he should avoided.
> But I am not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone reports the variable of the rape being violent.  How are you missing that?  How are they measuring the levels of stress in the subjects and the levels of hormones and timing it to the moment of conception and attachment to the uterus?  Are you really trying to say I'm splitting hairs? All you can say with any assurance is that it may be  possible that stress may play a part in preventing pregnancy in violent rape cases. Thats about as useless as used toilet paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> google is your friend
Click to expand...


Oh no...  Google has become the go to for specific medical information?  Now that explains a lot in the medical industry..


----------



## Wyld Kard

koshergrl said:


> Certainly better educated than the average foodstamp liberal.



Actually, it doesn't take much to be smarter than the average moronic liberal.


----------



## edthecynic

AquaAthena said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says a Yale Professor.... very interesting.
> 
> 
> Yale Professor: Media Biased Me Against Tea Party, But They're More Scientifically Literate | Truth Revolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To think there are no educated people in the Tea Party is downright silly.
> 
> Doesn't mean I agree with the beliefs though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The rarest form of intelligence, is commonsense.* Highly educated people are not always synonymous with wisdom. Presidents Washington, Truman, and Reagan did not have higher educations, yet they were profoundly intelligent and wise.
Click to expand...

Hollywood Reagan was a doofus who could only read a script from a teleprompter well.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein


----------



## edthecynic

petro said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To think there are no educated people in the Tea Party is downright silly.
> 
> Doesn't mean I agree with the beliefs though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rarest form of intelligence, is commonsense. Highly educated people are not always synonymous with wisdom. Presidents Washington, Truman, and Reagan did not have higher educations, yet they were profoundly intelligent and wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How true. I can't even count the amount of so-called educated folks who can't even balance their own finances. *Higher education does not teach common sense or wisdom, that comes from the lessons of life.* I have met many more people with a high school education who display much more wisdom as their life demanded it.
Click to expand...

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein


----------



## LoneLaugher

petro said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To think there are no educated people in the Tea Party is downright silly.
> 
> Doesn't mean I agree with the beliefs though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rarest form of intelligence, is commonsense. Highly educated people are not always synonymous with wisdom. Presidents Washington, Truman, and Reagan did not have higher educations, yet they were profoundly intelligent and wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How true. I can't even count the amount of so-called educated folks who can't even balance their own finances. Higher education does not teach common sense or wisdom, that comes from the lessons of life. I have met many more people with a high school education who display much more wisdom as their life demanded it.
> 
> On another note about the religious comments. The assumption is made that those who believe in their faith are simpletons, when in fact a majority of scientists believe in God, just not the literal Bible. Based on the design and  physical nature of the universe, this God is most likely a scientist. By attacking those of faith it only weakens a person argument in a debate and is a shameful tactic.
> 
> Not a believer myself, but I would never attack a person based upon their faith.
Click to expand...


Everyone knows that common sense is not learned in a classroom....and that wisdom is the product of experience. Your stating the obvious isn't blowing anyone's mind. 

None of that explains why so many of the "tea party" folks here display no ability to discern fact from fiction and think someone like Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz could lead this nation.


----------



## koshergrl

What this proves is that the average progressive is a bigoted idiot, insulated from reality, who has no idea what they're talking about at any given time.


----------



## petro

koshergrl said:


> What this proves is that the average progressive is a bigoted idiot, insulated from reality, who has no idea what they're talking about at any given time.


Watch out you might be accused of stating the obvious. 
At least for those of us who think.


----------



## mamooth

Quantum Windbag said:


> Do you understand basic math?



Yep. Which is why my jaw dropped at just how badly you botched it here. You've often demonstrated before how awful you are at logical thinking, not to mention your membership in the Dunning-Kruger club, but you took it to a shocking new low this time.



> Conservatives scored 0.05 lower than liberals. Tea Party members scored 0.85 higher than non Tea Party members. Unless you are trying to argue that liberals are part of the Tea Party, that means liberals scored 0.80 lower than Tea Partiers.



First bonehead error, you can't read. It was 0.05, not 0.85. Hence, your whole theory collapses.

Second bonehead error, your claim that "non-tea-party" = "liberal". Someone with at least an average grasp of logic (which excludes you) would understand that "non-tea-party" includes conservative evangelicals, conservative businessmen, independents, liberals, and other groups. The study never compared "Tea Party" to "liberal", hence no conclusion can be made in that regard.



> Anyone want to guess how long it will take a liberal to point out what I did wrong?



Understanding you screwed up is good, but the next step is admitting it, instead of trying a "Ha! It was a big joke! I fooled you liberals!" deflection.



> Mamooth is not a Tea Party member. In fact, he hates the Tea Party more than you do, and, like you, thinks they are all ignorant white redneck racists.



Lying about me isn't helping your credibility either.

So, my point stands. Which is that every conservative on this thread has been a raging 'tard concerning the study. We can't generalize from that to conservatives as a whole, due to the small sample size. We can only definitively state that every conservative on this thread has been acting like a 'tard.

Why those conservatives act like such 'tards is another topic. Some of 'em actually are 'tards, while some of them just deliberately choose to act like 'tards because their political cult orders them to act like 'tards. In their cult, anyone who doesn't act like a 'tard is viewed with suspicion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

LoneLaugher said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rarest form of intelligence, is commonsense. Highly educated people are not always synonymous with wisdom. Presidents Washington, Truman, and Reagan did not have higher educations, yet they were profoundly intelligent and wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How true. I can't even count the amount of so-called educated folks who can't even balance their own finances. Higher education does not teach common sense or wisdom, that comes from the lessons of life. I have met many more people with a high school education who display much more wisdom as their life demanded it.
> 
> On another note about the religious comments. The assumption is made that those who believe in their faith are simpletons, when in fact a majority of scientists believe in God, just not the literal Bible. Based on the design and  physical nature of the universe, this God is most likely a scientist. By attacking those of faith it only weakens a person argument in a debate and is a shameful tactic.
> 
> Not a believer myself, but I would never attack a person based upon their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that common sense is not learned in a classroom....and that wisdom is the product of experience. Your stating the obvious isn't blowing anyone's mind.
> 
> None of that explains why so many of the "tea party" folks here display no ability to discern fact from fiction and think someone like Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz could lead this nation.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be calling anyone else on their ability to discern reality if I were you. We are almost 6 years into Obama's term and you still think he can.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

mamooth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand basic math?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Which is why my jaw dropped at just how badly you botched it here. You've often demonstrated before how awful you are at logical thinking, not to mention your membership in the Dunning-Kruger club, but you took it to a shocking new low this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives scored 0.05 lower than liberals. Tea Party members scored 0.85 higher than non Tea Party members. Unless you are trying to argue that liberals are part of the Tea Party, that means liberals scored 0.80 lower than Tea Partiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First bonehead error, you can't read. It was 0.05, not 0.85. Hence, your whole theory collapses.
> 
> Second bonehead error, your claim that "non-tea-party" = "liberal". Someone with at least an average grasp of logic (which excludes you) would understand that "non-tea-party" includes conservative evangelicals, conservative businessmen, independents, liberals, and other groups. The study never compared "Tea Party" to "liberal", hence no conclusion can be made in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to guess how long it will take a liberal to point out what I did wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding you screwed up is good, but the next step is admitting it, instead of trying a "Ha! It was a big joke! I fooled you liberals!" deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mamooth is not a Tea Party member. In fact, he hates the Tea Party more than you do, and, like you, thinks they are all ignorant white redneck racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying about me isn't helping your credibility either.
> 
> So, my point stands. Which is that every conservative on this thread has been a raging 'tard concerning the study. We can't generalize from that to conservatives as a whole, due to the small sample size. We can only definitively state that every conservative on this thread has been acting like a 'tard.
> 
> Why those conservatives act like such 'tards is another topic. Some of 'em actually are 'tards, while some of them just deliberately choose to act like 'tards because their political cult orders them to act like 'tards. In their cult, anyone who doesn't act like a 'tard is viewed with suspicion.
Click to expand...


All studies that prove one group is smarter than another are flawed, yet you managed to dig into my deliberate misstatement of the math and conclude that you are smarter than I am.

Great job.


----------



## edthecynic

Quantum Windbag said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> How true. I can't even count the amount of so-called educated folks who can't even balance their own finances. Higher education does not teach common sense or wisdom, that comes from the lessons of life. I have met many more people with a high school education who display much more wisdom as their life demanded it.
> 
> On another note about the religious comments. The assumption is made that those who believe in their faith are simpletons, when in fact a majority of scientists believe in God, just not the literal Bible. Based on the design and  physical nature of the universe, this God is most likely a scientist. By attacking those of faith it only weakens a person argument in a debate and is a shameful tactic.
> 
> Not a believer myself, but I would never attack a person based upon their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that common sense is not learned in a classroom....and that wisdom is the product of experience. Your stating the obvious isn't blowing anyone's mind.
> 
> None of that explains why* so many of the "tea party" folks here display no ability to discern fact from fiction* and think someone like Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz could lead this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be calling anyone else on their ability to discern reality if I were you. *We are almost 6 years into Obama's term* and you still think he can.
Click to expand...

Well it is obvious YOU can't! We are less than 5 years into Obama's terms and you as a member of the Tea Bag Brotherhood feel obligated to at least exaggerate about everything because you know you have no case otherwise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that common sense is not learned in a classroom....and that wisdom is the product of experience. Your stating the obvious isn't blowing anyone's mind.
> 
> None of that explains why* so many of the "tea party" folks here display no ability to discern fact from fiction* and think someone like Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz could lead this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be calling anyone else on their ability to discern reality if I were you. *We are almost 6 years into Obama's term* and you still think he can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it is obvious YOU can't! We are less than 5 years into Obama's terms and you as a member of the Tea Bag Brotherhood feel obligated to at least exaggerate about everything because you know you have no case otherwise.
Click to expand...


That would have been funny if you hadn't delved into a delusional rant.


----------



## driveby

Quantum Windbag said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> How true. I can't even count the amount of so-called educated folks who can't even balance their own finances. Higher education does not teach common sense or wisdom, that comes from the lessons of life. I have met many more people with a high school education who display much more wisdom as their life demanded it.
> 
> On another note about the religious comments. The assumption is made that those who believe in their faith are simpletons, when in fact a majority of scientists believe in God, just not the literal Bible. Based on the design and  physical nature of the universe, this God is most likely a scientist. By attacking those of faith it only weakens a person argument in a debate and is a shameful tactic.
> 
> Not a believer myself, but I would never attack a person based upon their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that common sense is not learned in a classroom....and that wisdom is the product of experience. Your stating the obvious isn't blowing anyone's mind.
> 
> None of that explains why so many of the "tea party" folks here display no ability to discern fact from fiction and think someone like Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz could lead this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be calling anyone else on their ability to discern reality if I were you. We are almost 6 years into Obama's term and you still think he can.
Click to expand...



Well he won two elections, so that obviously means Obama is a great leader and has nothing to do with over half of this country being entitled morons......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

driveby said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that common sense is not learned in a classroom....and that wisdom is the product of experience. Your stating the obvious isn't blowing anyone's mind.
> 
> None of that explains why so many of the "tea party" folks here display no ability to discern fact from fiction and think someone like Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz could lead this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be calling anyone else on their ability to discern reality if I were you. We are almost 6 years into Obama's term and you still think he can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well he won two elections, so that obviously means Obama is a great leader and has nothing to do with over half of this country being entitled morons......
Click to expand...


Winning elections has as much to do with leadership as paining does with building a website.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Quantum Windbag said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> How true. I can't even count the amount of so-called educated folks who can't even balance their own finances. Higher education does not teach common sense or wisdom, that comes from the lessons of life. I have met many more people with a high school education who display much more wisdom as their life demanded it.
> 
> On another note about the religious comments. The assumption is made that those who believe in their faith are simpletons, when in fact a majority of scientists believe in God, just not the literal Bible. Based on the design and  physical nature of the universe, this God is most likely a scientist. By attacking those of faith it only weakens a person argument in a debate and is a shameful tactic.
> 
> Not a believer myself, but I would never attack a person based upon their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that common sense is not learned in a classroom....and that wisdom is the product of experience. Your stating the obvious isn't blowing anyone's mind.
> 
> None of that explains why so many of the "tea party" folks here display no ability to discern fact from fiction and think someone like Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz could lead this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be calling anyone else on their ability to discern reality if I were you. We are almost 6 years into Obama's term and you still think he can.
Click to expand...


Burst that bubble. He is known the world over as a pragmatic, competent leader. You and those like you represent 20-30% of the US adult population. That means you represent about 1.3% of the world's adult population. Everyone else knows the man is brilliant. 

Man....if it ever hits you, you are gonna feel stoooooooooooopid!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

LoneLaugher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that common sense is not learned in a classroom....and that wisdom is the product of experience. Your stating the obvious isn't blowing anyone's mind.
> 
> None of that explains why so many of the "tea party" folks here display no ability to discern fact from fiction and think someone like Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz could lead this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be calling anyone else on their ability to discern reality if I were you. We are almost 6 years into Obama's term and you still think he can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burst that bubble. He is known the world over as a pragmatic, competent leader. You and those like you represent 20-30% of the US adult population. That means you represent about 1.3% of the world's adult population. Everyone else knows the man is brilliant.
> 
> Man....if it ever hits you, you are gonna feel stoooooooooooopid!!
Click to expand...


Sure he is, which explains why Russia didn't interfere with his plan to punish Syria for using WMDs, and why North Korea didn't cut off all relations with us.

On the other hand, it did answer the question about why you would think Obama is a leader, you are batshit crazy.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Quantum Windbag said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be calling anyone else on their ability to discern reality if I were you. We are almost 6 years into Obama's term and you still think he can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burst that bubble. He is known the world over as a pragmatic, competent leader. You and those like you represent 20-30% of the US adult population. That means you represent about 1.3% of the world's adult population. Everyone else knows the man is brilliant.
> 
> Man....if it ever hits you, you are gonna feel stoooooooooooopid!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he is, which explains why Russia didn't interfere with his plan to punish Syria for using WMDs, and why North Korea didn't cut off all relations with us.
> 
> On the other hand, it did answer the question about why you would think Obama is a leader, you are batshit crazy.
Click to expand...


Do you feel as though most Americans think President Obama is stupid?


----------



## daveman

Asclepias said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just agreed with him about the rape thing Dave.  Please tell me you were kidding?
> 
> 
> 
> I brought up a point that hadn't been discussed or considered with this issue.
> 
> Further:  Ever know a couple trying to have a baby for years?  No medical reason for the inability, but they just can't catch pregnant.  Calendars, taking temperatures, scheduling sex...and it doesn't work.  Lots of stress.
> 
> So they decide to adopt.  They find the perfect child, and welcome the new addition to the family.  Everybody's happy.
> 
> BAM!!  They get pregnant.
> 
> What's different?  The stress of trying to get pregnant is gone.
> 
> There's another point that hasn't been discussed or considered.
> 
> Do you believe stress has no impact of the chances of pregnancy?  I'd like to see you make that case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I get what you are saying but I think those are 2 different kinds of stress. Without researching I'm going to guess that stress from being raped and stress from trying to conceive will net you 2 different results to the body. With rape I bet you get a lot more adrenaline which dissipates quickly.  BRB.
> 
> Just had to verify that sperm can live up to 3 days.  If you are trying to get pregnant the stress levels will stay up during the time you are hoping to conceive because you are anxious.  I know that a lot of rape victims are sedated by medical personnel so that would reduce stress enough for them to get pregnant even if stress was 100% effective in preventing pregnancy in all cases. Then you factor in a women that has a strong personality and coping mechanism or even the fact they may have been drugged during the rape.  All it takes is for the sperm to get to the egg which may already be there waiting or come later when the woman is calmed down and no longer in the freeze, flight, of fight mode.  its all timing.  All stress can do is keep you from ovulating the way I understand it.
Click to expand...

I've been doing some research on the subject, and it appears I was wrong.  One study puts the rape-related pregnancy rate at 5%, while noting the chance of getting pregnant from a single act of unprotected sex is 3.1 percent.
Though the study is nearly two decades old, it has not been updated. The 5 percent figure is a little higher than a separate study that estimates the chance of getting pregnant from a single act of unprotected sex was 3.1 percent; a European study pegged the chances of getting pregnant as 25 percent at two days before ovulation but a 5 percent average over the rest of the cycle, though the possibilities rapidly dwindled within days of ovulation.

Indeed, a 2002 study speculated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape could be even higher  6.4 percent  in part because women have no choice in refusing sex, whereas in consensual sex a woman may refuse if she thinks the chances of pregnancy are higher.​I retract my statements.


----------



## daveman

LoneLaugher said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has this thread gone? It does not matter. I will kill it.
> 
> Sarah Palin
> Christine O'Donnell
> Todd Akin
> Rand Paul
> Any USMB Tea Party nutjob.
> 
> Finis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dumbest person in your list is still smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why lie? Does it work for you?
Click to expand...

You posted opinion as fact.  I posted opinion as fact.

The thing is, I know the difference between opinion and fact.  You don't seem to have figured that out yet.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> Hollywood Reagan was a doofus who could only read a script from a teleprompter well.



You have him confused with Obama.


----------

