Obama’s layoff bomb goes BOOM!

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course you don't. A couple of the studies go into the makeup of the con mind. They found that cons believe they are extremely smart. Which has to do with an internal need to have answers. But in fact they are completely ignorant. Sound familiar? You could not debate your way out of a third grade debate. And you actually believe you are smart. Pathetic. So, take the brock study, dipshit. Should be interesting.

Any of them, I bet I can tear it apart better than you can defend it. What have you got to lose, cons are inherently dumber than you, you have dozens of studies that prove it.

obviously you are dumber. I gave you a study. And you are still looking for one.

You gave me lots of studies. I challenged you to pick one, and defend it.

Still waiting.

 

[Rozman]

It's a win win for the administration....
If things go well it's all hail Obama...
If they do not...It's time to blame Bush again....

They can't lose.

 

[william the wie]

It's a win win for the administration....
If things go well it's all hail Obama...
If they do not...It's time to blame Bush again....

They can't lose.

I think that's over.

 

[Rshermr]

It's a win win for the administration....
If things go well it's all hail Obama...
If they do not...It's time to blame Bush again....

They can't lose.

You have to have some concept of how things happen in the gov. Pres of any party can do little if some other parts, as in house or senate does not want to cooperate. Cons have blamed the pres even though he was unable to get any cooperation from repubs in the senate, or in congress after the first year or so. If one party wants to kill the legislation a pres wants, either repub or dem, then the party can kill it. And nothing will happen.
So, record filibusters. Absolute refusal by the house to pass any of the pres programs. And you want to blame him for lack of progress.
So, what you had was an effort to make obama a one term pres, by keeping the pres programs from being implimented. No problem for them. The only problem was that it did not work. They got way too much blow back.
So, now what? Repubs are owned by corporations. Corporations want no new taxes. So, they will continue to refuse to allow the pres to increase taxes (eliminate the bush tax cuts) on the wealthy.
So, you tell me. Who is blaming who incorrectly?? Repubs created the great republican recession of '08, refuse to allow pres to do stimulus spending to any major degree, and then blame him for the mess. Sorry, does not pass the giggle test to thinking adults.

 

[Rshermr]

Any of them, I bet I can tear it apart better than you can defend it. What have you got to lose, cons are inherently dumber than you, you have dozens of studies that prove it.

obviously you are dumber. I gave you a study. And you are still looking for one.

You gave me lots of studies. I challenged you to pick one, and defend it.

Still waiting.

So, my pathetically ignorant con. I gave you one. Here is the quote:

So, take the brock study, dipshit. Should be interesting.

That was on post number 18. since then you have claimed I did not give you a study twice. How the hell do you debate anything when you can not understand a simple sentence??
There are hundreds of studies out there all saying the same thing. Mostly done by people who understand the whole concept of a study. Sampling methods, etc, etc. But you can not understand a simple sentence. What are your credentials to critique any study, Why do you think anyone should listen to you? Kind of like having an ignoramus critiquing a software developers work. He can critique, and believe he is really smart. But of course, he looks to those who understand like an idiot. That be you, quantam. I think you have no game.
And I think you are stalling.

 

[The Infidel]

i don't get this bomb.

why didn't they explode it in october?

They were rigged to have slow fuses, so their messiah could get re-elected.

Funny thing is blacks were going vote for Obama no matter what.

 

[The Infidel]

It's a win win for the administration....
If things go well it's all hail Obama...
If they do not...It's time to blame Bush again....

They can't lose.

I think that's over.

Judging from attitudes prevalent here, I doubt it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

obviously you are dumber. I gave you a study. And you are still looking for one.

You gave me lots of studies. I challenged you to pick one, and defend it.

Still waiting.

So, my pathetically ignorant con. I gave you one. Here is the quote:

So, take the brock study, dipshit. Should be interesting.

That was on post number 18. since then you have claimed I did not give you a study twice. How the hell do you debate anything when you can not understand a simple sentence??
There are hundreds of studies out there all saying the same thing. Mostly done by people who understand the whole concept of a study. Sampling methods, etc, etc. But you can not understand a simple sentence. What are your credentials to critique any study, Why do you think anyone should listen to you? Kind of like having an ignoramus critiquing a software developers work. He can critique, and believe he is really smart. But of course, he looks to those who understand like an idiot. That be you, quantam. I think you have no game.
And I think you are stalling.

I missed that, my apologies.

One question, did you read the link you provided?

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

For the mentally challenged among us, what that is saying is that you are wrong when you claim that liberals are smarter than conservatives.

Then we have this.

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.
The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.
"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Gee, look at that, they are talking about people like you. do you really want to argue that you are both socially conservative and stupid?

By the way, when I challenged you to pick a study and defend it, I thought you would actually pick a study, not an article that shows that the study is not very reliable. I guess I expected to much of you.

Maybe you are evidence for the study's accuracy. If you actually have a link to the study itself, and want to attempt to defend it now that I used your own link to prove you don't actually read, feel free to post it.

 

[Ernie S.]

Michelle Malkin » You were warned: Obama’s layoff bomb goes BOOM!

This is just the beginning.

In case you missed it, Boeing announced massive layoffs and facilities closures yesterday. More: Small business owners are dropping the axe as they brace for the costs and burdens of Obamacare.

In June, a diffident and self-deluded President Obama claimed that “the private sector is doing fine.” Last week, the private sector responded: Speak for yourself, buster. Who needs an “October Surprise” when the business headlines are broadcasting the imminent layoff bomb in neon lights?

All part of Obama's move forward plan.

And if we needed more proof, here we find Nova off on another bat shit crazy con web site. This time quoting the ever nuts Michelle Malkin. Damn, nova, if you ever used impartial data, then it would be possible to take you somewhat seriously. Though it will take some time and effort on your part at this point after the hundreds of bat shit crazy con links you have provided to this point.

You, of course have information to refute the OP?

Like I figured, you don't, so in stead you insult the author.

Neg on the way, hypocrite.

 

[Rshermr]

You gave me lots of studies. I challenged you to pick one, and defend it.

Still waiting.

So, my pathetically ignorant con. I gave you one. Here is the quote:

That was on post number 18. since then you have claimed I did not give you a study twice. How the hell do you debate anything when you can not understand a simple sentence??
There are hundreds of studies out there all saying the same thing. Mostly done by people who understand the whole concept of a study. Sampling methods, etc, etc. But you can not understand a simple sentence. What are your credentials to critique any study, Why do you think anyone should listen to you? Kind of like having an ignoramus critiquing a software developers work. He can critique, and believe he is really smart. But of course, he looks to those who understand like an idiot. That be you, quantam. I think you have no game.
And I think you are stalling.

I missed that, my apologies.

One question, did you read the link you provided?

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

For the mentally challenged among us, what that is saying is that you are wrong when you claim that liberals are smarter than conservatives.

Then we have this.

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.
The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.
"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Gee, look at that, they are talking about people like you. do you really want to argue that you are both socially conservative and stupid?

By the way, when I challenged you to pick a study and defend it, I thought you would actually pick a study, not an article that shows that the study is not very reliable. I guess I expected to much of you.

Maybe you are evidence for the study's accuracy. If you actually have a link to the study itself, and want to attempt to defend it now that I used your own link to prove you don't actually read, feel free to post it.

Windbag, you are wasting my time. I certainly never said that all cons are stupider than all libs. It is indeed an issue of averages. But, what all of the studies say is that cons are, on average, stupider than libs.
If you want a link to the study, just type in the term conservatives are stupid. It will provide you with a link to the study itself.

 

[Ernie S.]

i don't get this bomb.

why didn't they explode it in october?

They live and breathe defense contracts. If they didn't wait til after the election, the well would dry up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, my pathetically ignorant con. I gave you one. Here is the quote:

That was on post number 18. since then you have claimed I did not give you a study twice. How the hell do you debate anything when you can not understand a simple sentence??
There are hundreds of studies out there all saying the same thing. Mostly done by people who understand the whole concept of a study. Sampling methods, etc, etc. But you can not understand a simple sentence. What are your credentials to critique any study, Why do you think anyone should listen to you? Kind of like having an ignoramus critiquing a software developers work. He can critique, and believe he is really smart. But of course, he looks to those who understand like an idiot. That be you, quantam. I think you have no game.
And I think you are stalling.

I missed that, my apologies.

One question, did you read the link you provided?



For the mentally challenged among us, what that is saying is that you are wrong when you claim that liberals are smarter than conservatives.

Then we have this.

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.
The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.
"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Gee, look at that, they are talking about people like you. do you really want to argue that you are both socially conservative and stupid?

By the way, when I challenged you to pick a study and defend it, I thought you would actually pick a study, not an article that shows that the study is not very reliable. I guess I expected to much of you.

Maybe you are evidence for the study's accuracy. If you actually have a link to the study itself, and want to attempt to defend it now that I used your own link to prove you don't actually read, feel free to post it.

Windbag, you are wasting my time. I certainly never said that all cons are stupider than all libs. It is indeed an issue of averages. But, what all of the studies say is that cons are, on average, stupider than libs.
If you want a link to the study, just type in the term conservatives are stupid. It will provide you with a link to the study itself.

I thought you were going to defend the study? Did the fact that I used your own link to prove that you didn't even read far enough to know that your link effectively debunked the study disturb your universe that much?

C'mon, show us how smart you are.

 

[Rshermr]

Michelle Malkin » You were warned: Obama’s layoff bomb goes BOOM!

This is just the beginning.

In case you missed it, Boeing announced massive layoffs and facilities closures yesterday. More: Small business owners are dropping the axe as they brace for the costs and burdens of Obamacare.

In June, a diffident and self-deluded President Obama claimed that “the private sector is doing fine.” Last week, the private sector responded: Speak for yourself, buster. Who needs an “October Surprise” when the business headlines are broadcasting the imminent layoff bomb in neon lights?

All part of Obama's move forward plan.

And if we needed more proof, here we find Nova off on another bat shit crazy con web site. This time quoting the ever nuts Michelle Malkin. Damn, nova, if you ever used impartial data, then it would be possible to take you somewhat seriously. Though it will take some time and effort on your part at this point after the hundreds of bat shit crazy con links you have provided to this point.

You, of course have information to refute the OP?

Like I figured, you don't, so in stead you insult the author.

Neg on the way, hypocrite.

Earnie S had the following profound statements:

You, of course have information to refute the OP?

I don't read the drivel of partial sources. Malkin is a right wing hack who is one of the continual sources of criticism of the dems. Also one of the biggest liars out there. And I would no more bother to read her drivel than that of moveon.org. So you see, I do not like to waste my time looking at information that I am relatively certain will be untrue. It WASTES MY TIME. And time, my boy, is the ultimate scarce resource.
So, do I believe that such sources are never correct. No. But I believe if I take something from moveon, or Malkin, I will need to vet it using impartial sources to determine truth or fiction or opinion. Is that too hard to understand??

Like I figured, you don't, so in stead you insult the author

.
Again, based on the source (Malkin) I would not take the time to read the drivel, much less to vet it.

Neg on the way, hypocrite.

Your opinion, me boy, and you must know how much I respect your opinion. You seem to lack the smarts to understand what I just said, but I tried.

 

[Black_Label]

And if we needed more proof, here we find Nova off on another bat shit crazy con web site. This time quoting the ever nuts Michelle Malkin. Damn, nova, if you ever used impartial data, then it would be possible to take you somewhat seriously. Though it will take some time and effort on your part at this point after the hundreds of bat shit crazy con links you have provided to this point.

You, of course have information to refute the OP?

Like I figured, you don't, so in stead you insult the author.

Neg on the way, hypocrite.

Earnie S had the following profound statements:

I don't read the drivel of partial sources. Malkin is a right wing hack who is one of the continual sources of criticism of the dems. Also one of the biggest liars out there. And I would no more bother to read her drivel than that of moveon.org. So you see, I do not like to waste my time looking at information that I am relatively certain will be untrue. It WASTES MY TIME. And time, my boy, is the ultimate scarce resource.
So, do I believe that such sources are never correct. No. But I believe if I take something from moveon, or Malkin, I will need to vet it using impartial sources to determine truth or fiction or opinion. Is that too hard to understand??

Like I figured, you don't, so in stead you insult the author

.
Again, based on the source (Malkin) I would not take the time to read the drivel, much less to vet it.

Neg on the way, hypocrite.

Your opinion, me boy, and you must know how much I respect your opinion. You seem to lack the smarts to understand what I just said, but I tried.

Well put. Ernie is a fucking idiot that doesn't have a clue to what he's talking about.

 

[daveman]

Actually dear unemployment went from 7.8 to 7.9%. Thats a decrease in employment.


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

ed, me boy. You need to look up numerators and denominators. Then apply it. Poor ignorant delusional con.

Unemployment rose. Therefore, employment decreased, exactly as Ed said.


You raging dumbass. You know how you like to pretend you're so smart?

You don't have the smarts to actually pull it off.

 

[daveman]

Yes, because I feel no need to. I provided the studies. If you disagree with one, have at it. Dipshit. Are you completely incapable. But of course you are.

Pick any of them, I don't even need to read it first.

Of course you don't. A couple of the studies go into the makeup of the con mind. They found that cons believe they are extremely smart. Which has to do with an internal need to have answers. But in fact they are completely ignorant. Sound familiar? You could not debate your way out of a third grade debate. And you actually believe you are smart. Pathetic. So, take the brock study, dipshit. Should be interesting.

...says the guy who can't tell the difference between the words "unemployment" and "employment".

Run along, boy.

 

[daveman]

I missed that, my apologies.

One question, did you read the link you provided?



For the mentally challenged among us, what that is saying is that you are wrong when you claim that liberals are smarter than conservatives.

Then we have this.

Gee, look at that, they are talking about people like you. do you really want to argue that you are both socially conservative and stupid?

By the way, when I challenged you to pick a study and defend it, I thought you would actually pick a study, not an article that shows that the study is not very reliable. I guess I expected to much of you.

Maybe you are evidence for the study's accuracy. If you actually have a link to the study itself, and want to attempt to defend it now that I used your own link to prove you don't actually read, feel free to post it.

Windbag, you are wasting my time. I certainly never said that all cons are stupider than all libs. It is indeed an issue of averages. But, what all of the studies say is that cons are, on average, stupider than libs.
If you want a link to the study, just type in the term conservatives are stupid. It will provide you with a link to the study itself.

I thought you were going to defend the study? Did the fact that I used your own link to prove that you didn't even read far enough to know that your link effectively debunked the study disturb your universe that much?

C'mon, show us how smart you are.

He already has.

 

[Sallow]

Michelle Malkin » You were warned: Obama’s layoff bomb goes BOOM!

This is just the beginning.

In case you missed it, Boeing announced massive layoffs and facilities closures yesterday. More: Small business owners are dropping the axe as they brace for the costs and burdens of Obamacare.

In June, a diffident and self-deluded President Obama claimed that “the private sector is doing fine.” Last week, the private sector responded: Speak for yourself, buster. Who needs an “October Surprise” when the business headlines are broadcasting the imminent layoff bomb in neon lights?

All part of Obama's move forward plan.

That's not why Boeing would be laying off.

It's the military spending cuts that are part of the "Fiscal Cliff".

You folks should be pleased with this news.

 

[Sallow]

i don't get this bomb.

why didn't they explode it in october?

They live and breathe defense contracts. If they didn't wait til after the election, the well would dry up.

Sho' nuff.

Now dat big fat gubmint check might not be a comin'.

 

[Rshermr]

Pick any of them, I don't even need to read it first.

Of course you don't. A couple of the studies go into the makeup of the con mind. They found that cons believe they are extremely smart. Which has to do with an internal need to have answers. But in fact they are completely ignorant. Sound familiar? You could not debate your way out of a third grade debate. And you actually believe you are smart. Pathetic. So, take the brock study, dipshit. Should be interesting.

...says the guy who can't tell the difference between the words "unemployment" and "employment".

Run along, boy.

You, daveman, think you have the ability to tell someone to "run along"? You are delusional.
But, providing support to Quantum is typical of cons. The concept you seem to have is that between the two of you you can have the sum total of two IQ's that would bring you up to average.