Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Almost half of the world has below average intelligence, the fact that that group of people do something is not indicative of it being a good idea.
and who measures that one? just because you know how to spell and use grammer correctly lets you judge? oh pppppppppppllllllease.another moron that dont know the differance between knowledge and wisdom.
Let's just say that criticizing someone else's intelligence publicly in that nearly incoherent form is NOT a demonstration of wisdom, hmmm?
Soooo, just what the hell is the point of your OP?Obviously, the point sailed right over your head.
Look, if you're going to start a thread, that basically tries to state that somehow liberals are more intelligent than conservatives, which is laughable to say the least, then maybe you should show your so-called superior intelligence, by at least demonstrating basic grammar skills.
In a nutshell, if you're going to attempt to talk the talk, then at least show you have the ability to walk the walk. Otherwise, you end up looking as uneducated as TruthMatters, Rdean, and many other liberals on this board.
You seem like an OK guy, try not to lower yourself to their below ground crawlspace. You're better than that.
Again, I never said I was smarter than anyone. I am not making a statement that says every liberal is smarter than every conservative. If I was, maybe you would have a point.
The funny thing is, just a couple of posts back, you slammed another poster on THEIR grammar, and tried to say they couldn't have possibly gone to college because of it, yet your grammar is no better.....I guess, that I could say the same of you, seeing as though your grammar is so atrocious, eh?
And, I guess it begs yet another question,....just what kind of university would graduate somebody in the field of psychology, or whatever, with such atrocious grammar being so obvious?
Seriously, how old are you, btw?
Yes... because there can be no bias among those giving the review.
OMG, this guy did he really say the bold part? Really? He really loves the academy and is into it......bias is impossible.....LOLOLOLOLOL, this guy is a joke. I supopose he thinks there is no bias with the Nobel Prizes either....especially the Peace prize.
I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective.
That's what you keep telling yourself.Soooo, just what the hell is the point of your OP?Again, I never said I was smarter than anyone. I am not making a statement that says every liberal is smarter than every conservative. If I was, maybe you would have a point.
The funny thing is, just a couple of posts back, you slammed another poster on THEIR grammar, and tried to say they couldn't have possibly gone to college because of it, yet your grammar is no better.....I guess, that I could say the same of you, seeing as though your grammar is so atrocious, eh?
And, I guess it begs yet another question,....just what kind of university would graduate somebody in the field of psychology, or whatever, with such atrocious grammar being so obvious?
Seriously, how old are you, btw?
I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.
"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.
The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas.
Soooo, just what the hell is the point of your OP?Again, I never said I was smarter than anyone. I am not making a statement that says every liberal is smarter than every conservative. If I was, maybe you would have a point.
The funny thing is, just a couple of posts back, you slammed another poster on THEIR grammar, and tried to say they couldn't have possibly gone to college because of it, yet your grammar is no better.....I guess, that I could say the same of you, seeing as though your grammar is so atrocious, eh?
And, I guess it begs yet another question,....just what kind of university would graduate somebody in the field of psychology, or whatever, with such atrocious grammar being so obvious?
Seriously, how old are you, btw?
I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.
"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.
The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?
Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.Soooo, just what the hell is the point of your OP?Again, I never said I was smarter than anyone. I am not making a statement that says every liberal is smarter than every conservative. If I was, maybe you would have a point.
The funny thing is, just a couple of posts back, you slammed another poster on THEIR grammar, and tried to say they couldn't have possibly gone to college because of it, yet your grammar is no better.....I guess, that I could say the same of you, seeing as though your grammar is so atrocious, eh?
And, I guess it begs yet another question,....just what kind of university would graduate somebody in the field of psychology, or whatever, with such atrocious grammar being so obvious?
Seriously, how old are you, btw?
I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.
"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.
The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?
Soooo, just what the hell is the point of your OP?Again, I never said I was smarter than anyone. I am not making a statement that says every liberal is smarter than every conservative. If I was, maybe you would have a point.
The funny thing is, just a couple of posts back, you slammed another poster on THEIR grammar, and tried to say they couldn't have possibly gone to college because of it, yet your grammar is no better.....I guess, that I could say the same of you, seeing as though your grammar is so atrocious, eh?
And, I guess it begs yet another question,....just what kind of university would graduate somebody in the field of psychology, or whatever, with such atrocious grammar being so obvious?
Seriously, how old are you, btw?
I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.
"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.
The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?
Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.Soooo, just what the hell is the point of your OP?
The funny thing is, just a couple of posts back, you slammed another poster on THEIR grammar, and tried to say they couldn't have possibly gone to college because of it, yet your grammar is no better.....I guess, that I could say the same of you, seeing as though your grammar is so atrocious, eh?
And, I guess it begs yet another question,....just what kind of university would graduate somebody in the field of psychology, or whatever, with such atrocious grammar being so obvious?
Seriously, how old are you, btw?
I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.
"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.
The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?
And, just what is so "intellectual" about liberal ideas that equal failure?
Basically, the only "ideas" liberals come up with are, "ideas" that have already been tried, and have abjectly failed, time and time again.
I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.
With all due respect, Billy...if someone HAS a liberal bias then in their mind they may think they are being "objective" when in fact they are not. Bias is not impossible. Bias is not unlikely. Bias occurs on a daily basis. You need look no further than this board. Posters from both ends of the political spectrum back up those who support their political agendas...even when those others post some really ridiculous stuff. You think college faculty members are really all that different?
Okay but what you don't seem to understand is that unless the psychologist is examining some politically related topic, there is no reason to think his liberal ideology is making his findings biased. Also, just because liberalism is prevalent higher education, it does not mean that every professor is liberal. It doesn't even mean that most of them are liberal. Psychologists for the most part don't even give a shit a politics. It isn't their field.
Soooo, just what the hell is the point of your OP?Again, I never said I was smarter than anyone. I am not making a statement that says every liberal is smarter than every conservative. If I was, maybe you would have a point.
The funny thing is, just a couple of posts back, you slammed another poster on THEIR grammar, and tried to say they couldn't have possibly gone to college because of it, yet your grammar is no better.....I guess, that I could say the same of you, seeing as though your grammar is so atrocious, eh?
And, I guess it begs yet another question,....just what kind of university would graduate somebody in the field of psychology, or whatever, with such atrocious grammar being so obvious?
Seriously, how old are you, btw?
I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.
"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.
The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?
Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.
"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.
The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?
And, just what is so "intellectual" about liberal ideas that equal failure?
Basically, the only "ideas" liberals come up with are, "ideas" that have already been tried, and have abjectly failed, time and time again.
Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.
Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.
And, just what is so "intellectual" about liberal ideas that equal failure?
Basically, the only "ideas" liberals come up with are, "ideas" that have already been tried, and have abjectly failed, time and time again.
Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.
Ah, Billy? The Stimulus was supposed to "create" jobs...not "save" them. The whole "jobs saved" thing is something that the Obama Administration came up with to obscure the fact that their stimulus DIDN'T come close to creating the number of jobs that they said it would. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that there IS no way of getting a verifiable number.
Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.
Ah, Billy? The Stimulus was supposed to "create" jobs...not "save" them. The whole "jobs saved" thing is something that the Obama Administration came up with to obscure the fact that their stimulus DIDN'T come close to creating the number of jobs that they said it would. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that there IS no way of getting a verifiable number.
Actually, the estimates say "saved or created" 2.5 million jobs. The stimulus was a big success, unfortunately, it wasn't as big as it should have been.
You cited Paul Krugman as a source. Your argument - not to mention your entire existence - is invalid.
You don't think a liberal blogger is a good source? Hmm...I think you might be right...
I think Paul Krugman specifically is barely a good source of body heat for the room. As a source for intelligence, I would go to my teenager before I would go to Paul Krugman.
Ah, Billy? The Stimulus was supposed to "create" jobs...not "save" them. The whole "jobs saved" thing is something that the Obama Administration came up with to obscure the fact that their stimulus DIDN'T come close to creating the number of jobs that they said it would. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that there IS no way of getting a verifiable number.
Actually, the estimates say "saved or created" 2.5 million jobs. The stimulus was a big success, unfortunately, it wasn't as big as it should have been.
total horseshit. there is no way to calculate "saved" jobs. Its a lie and you bought it. Doesn't say much for your intellect does it?
Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.
Ah, Billy? The Stimulus was supposed to "create" jobs...not "save" them. The whole "jobs saved" thing is something that the Obama Administration came up with to obscure the fact that their stimulus DIDN'T come close to creating the number of jobs that they said it would. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that there IS no way of getting a verifiable number.
Actually, the estimates say "saved or created" 2.5 million jobs. The stimulus was a big success, unfortunately, it wasn't as big as it should have been.
Actually, the estimates say "saved or created" 2.5 million jobs. The stimulus was a big success, unfortunately, it wasn't as big as it should have been.
total horseshit. there is no way to calculate "saved" jobs. Its a lie and you bought it. Doesn't say much for your intellect does it?
Look up the stimulus on Wikipedia. It gives a detailed analysis on all of the independent studies conducted on the package. It is without question that the stimulus had a dramatic effect. Don't like Wikipedia as a source? Look at the references. They are all there. Read those if you aren't satisfied.
You don't think a liberal blogger is a good source? Hmm...I think you might be right...
I think Paul Krugman specifically is barely a good source of body heat for the room. As a source for intelligence, I would go to my teenager before I would go to Paul Krugman.
The problem with using Paul Krugman as your "source" is that at the moment Krugman is essentially the poster boy for an economic solution that has been shown not to work. Sorry, progressives but Krugman, Summers and the rest of your pet economists got a trillion bucks plus to play with and they couldn't create jobs. They espoused a warped Keynesian form of economics that called for tax increases in the midst of a bad recession and then couldn't understand why the economy wouldn't respond with growth. Their answer to that failure was to demand more money and promise that if we just give them more stimulus that what didn't work the first time will somehow miraculously work THIS time.
