stay the course and brain function

[truthmatters]

4.

[jimnyc]

http://tinyurl.com/32fetf

Fasinating study fo the differance between the brains of republicans and Democrats.

Man it explains alot.

Does it give an explanation as to why some brains make it so difficult for some to spell properly?

[avatar4321]

you really believe this?

Besides, Id rather be with someone who sees things through than those who will stop whenever its most convenient.

[shattered]

The study, conducted at New York University, suggested that while conservatives are known to be more structured and persistent when making decisions, liberals are more open to new experiences. Researchers have traced these stereotypes to differences in brain activity.

So, one party can make up their mind, and stick to something, and the other is wishy-washy?

You're RIGHT, TDM, it DOES explain a lot. :clap:

[darin]

Lends to the quip: "Liberalism is a mental disorder". :)

Conservative: Do it this way. This way works.
Liberal: In the interest of doing something different, I'm going to do it a DIFFERENT way. I know, I know it works your way, but I like the esteem-boost I get from calling myself 'progressive'. Seriously! I have a LOT to prove! My parents didn't instill me with self-confidence or common sense, so I'm going to do it a way that fails, ONLY because I MUST...BE...DIFFERENT.

[truthmatters]

4

[shattered]

I love you none of you even bothered to read this.

Science is just too scary huh?

*points out that I read it - even quoted from it*

Doesn't make you any less of an idiot.

[darin]

I love you none of you even bothered to read this.

Science is just too scary huh?

Wha? Did YOU read it? lmao...you are the QUEEN of not-reading (or not understanding) the stories you post. :)

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

I love you none of you even bothered to read this.

Science is just too scary huh?

I read it.

You still can't spell any better than my dog.

You're still a blathering idiot.

Have a wonderful evening.

[shattered]

Less time posting; more time taking night classes, please?

At this point, even if you happen to be right about something (which has yet to happen), nobody is going to give you the time of day, because you post like an illiterate fool.

Perhaps THAT'S why you don't have a job...the inability to fill out a simple application.

[Mr. P]

What researchers found was that liberals were better at processing this conflicting information. The liberals were about 10 percent more likely to hold back from an incorrect response than their conservative counterparts.

Conservatives, on the other hand, were more likely to stay the course. They kept pressing the button even when the letter W flashed on the screen.


maybe you people need to realise staying the course is not inherently the right choice.

Is that like repeatedly making the same claims? Or chanting?
Like "study after study", or "Bush stole the election", or "Bush lied"?
Who really is the idiot here TM? Yer the bestest player on our side. :poke::laugh2:

[truthmatters]

4

[Mr. P]

Why dont you find a man who will be willing to marry you?

You see telling other people how to live their lives (espcially when their lives are better than yours) is not an arguement is it?

Ready set......:popcorn:...GO!

[jimnyc]

(espcially when their lives are better than yours) is not an arguement is it?

What does "espcially" mean and what is an "arguement"?

[Said1]

The article was filled with maybes and mights, scary when science can't take a definitive stance on their own test results, isn't it.......kind of a kin to a 'WASTE OF MONEY'. Even researchers 'unaffiliated' with the experiment agree that it reveals nothing about political affiliation. It should also be noted that their opinion means squat given that they could be researching the speed with which mold appears on pig shit for all we know. :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

The article was filled with maybes and mights, scary when science can't take a definitive stance on their own test results, isn't it.......kind of a kin to a 'WASTE OF MONEY'. Even researchers 'unaffiliated' with the experiment agree that it reveals nothing about political affiliation. It should be noted that their opinion means squat given that they could be researching the speed with which mold appears on pig shit for all we know. :laugh2:

that hasnt stopped liberals from declaring this study conclusive that Republicans are evil and that we should use these tests to conduct a global genocide.

[Said1]

that hasnt stopped liberals from declaring this study conclusive that Republicans are evil and that we should use these tests to conduct a global genocide.

You are evil. At least that's what the voices tell me.

[Abbey Marie]

The article was filled with maybes and mights, scary when science can't take a definitive stance on their own test results, isn't it.......kind of a kin to a 'WASTE OF MONEY'. Even researchers 'unaffiliated' with the experiment agree that it reveals nothing about political affiliation. It should also be noted that their opinion means squat given that they could be researching the speed with which mold appears on pig shit for all we know. :laugh2:

A study of mold growth would be more useful.

[shattered]

Why dont you find a man who will be willing to marry you?

You see telling other people how to live their lives (espcially when their lives are better than yours) is not an arguement is it?

Eh? Married 12 years this past April, toots..

Obviously, your life ISN'T better than anyone elses, since your life consists of 24/7 here..

My guess is since you ARE able to do that, your family doesn't want a thing to do with you..

[hjmick]

I love you none of you even bothered to read this.

Science is just too scary huh?

I read it, last night. When Edward originally posted it on that other board. I wasn't impressed with it then either.

[truthmatters]

4

[Said1]

science again denied by the right.

Prove it. Get down off your soap box and quote something definitive from the article. I dare you.

[truthmatters]

4

[Said1]

calling science a wste of money.

Wha?

[truthmatters]

4

[shattered]

[QUOTE=shattered;121618]Eh? Married 12 years this past April, toots..

Obviously, your life ISN'T better than anyone elses, since your life consists of 24/7 here..

My guess is since you ARE able to do that, your family doesn't want a thing to do with you..[/QUOTEThen whats with all the flirting on here?

I'm not going to waste the time to repair your mangled quote.. But, where?

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

insults ,insults ,insults is that all you are capable of?

You were asked for proof from Shattered regarding your claims. Are you now going to ignore her too and fail to produce?

[shattered]

insults ,insults ,insults is that all you are capable of?

*sigh* For the love of God...

capital letter
word
comma
space
word
comma
space
word
comma
period
double space
capital letter

You got the question mark right. Congratulations.

Now, where is this flirting you speak of?

[avatar4321]

You are evil. At least that's what the voices tell me.

yeah. well after you kill the first dozen or so people, you learn to ignore the voices.

[hjmick]

not impressed by science.

No, not impressed with the article or it's conclusions. I am always impressed by good science.

[avatar4321]

OK not really denying it but just acting kinda crazy.

Nothing crazy about them. The liberals posting this study and calling for mass genocide are evil.

[avatar4321]

not believing science

You seem to not understand what science is. I suggest you learn sometime.

[Gunny]

http://tinyurl.com/32fetf

Fasinating study fo the differance between the brains of republicans and Democrats.

Man it explains alot.

But what explains YOU? I don't know many of either as completely oblivious to reality as you.

And spare me the "insults" bull ... your initial post here is intended as nothing but, and your every post is an insult to the intelligence of others.

btw ... your spelling and grammar are atrocious, Miss Intelligent.

[Gunny]

What researchers found was that liberals were better at processing this conflicting information. The liberals were about 10 percent more likely to hold back from an incorrect response than their conservative counterparts.

Conservatives, on the other hand, were more likely to stay the course. They kept pressing the button even when the letter W flashed on the screen.


maybe you people need to realise staying the course is not inherently the right choice.

Maybe you need to realize wobbling around in the breeze like Jell-O means you have no spine?

[shattered]

Maybe you need to realize wobbling around in the breeze like Jell-O means you have no spine?

LMFAO!!!!

Wait..is laughing at funnies kinda like flirting?

[Gunny]

insults ,insults ,insults is that all you are capable of?

:boohoo:

[Said1]

Wha?

*hoot, hooot*

That's an owl you can hear of in the distance as I await for response #2 or is it 3? Probably 20 if you include past threads.

[jimnyc]

*hoot, hooot*

That's an owl you can hear of in the distance as I await for response #2 or is it 3? Probably 20 if you include past threads.

Don't hold your breath. It's her MO to not reply to questions that don't support her agenda.

[Said1]

Don't hold your breath. It's her MO to not reply to questions that don't support her agenda.

I know. Funny how SHE can stick with the course too. In your face LiesLiesAndMoreLies.

[Said1]

yeah. well after you kill the first dozen or so people, you learn to ignore the voices.


I never ignore the voices cause I KNOW it's Jack White and Steve McQueen. I always listen to Steve and little Jackie. ALWAYS.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

[quote=shattered;121656]


I have not read many of your posts on this site but on the usmessageboards it seemed like kyou followed a couple of posters arround telling they were right about eveything they said.

It sure looked like to me you were more interested in in buddying up than really commenting.

Didn't you say she was flirting with other members? Why do you hate to provide proof of your own statements?

[shattered]

I have not read many of your posts on this site but on the usmessageboards it seemed like kyou followed a couple of posters arround telling they were right about eveything they said.

It sure looked like to me you were more interested in in buddying up than really commenting.

And as you know the avitars you pick have always reminded of something my teenage niece would choose.

First off, I've known most of these people for a few years.. a couple of them longer than these boards have been around. What business is it of yours if I tell them they're right, when they're right?

Second, I make the avatars I display.. So, again, what's your point, and what business is it if yours what I choose to display?

How's that flirting, again, exactly? Sees to me you're jealous because you don't have friends; just a bunch of people telling you what an idiot you are.

[jimnyc]

Sees to me you're jealous because you don't have friends; just a bunch of people telling you what an idiot you are.

The sad truth is, we don't even really need to tell her. She does a fine job all by her lonesome every time she hits the submit button.

[shattered]

Seeing as my avatars are such a point of contention for you, and bother you so bad that this is the second place, and the third time you've brought them into a discussion, this one's just for you, and I think I'll keep it for awhile...

[truthmatters]

4

[Nukeman]

[QUOTE=jimnyc;121909]


I could show you film and you would say it was not evidence?

Why dont you ask shattered why she doesnt prove my family wants nothign to do with me?

Because you have an agenda and expect 1000 times more out of me than anyone else on this board because you dont like my point of view.

If you go back and read this thread from the begining look at my comments on this study you will actually find them very mild.

Then if you look at the hostility they were met with by the other side you will see they acttually back the studies findings. Much ado about nothing but a couple of words which requested the conservatives on here to take another look at the reasons for war.

Then you all went cablooooey!

I can take the insults, I can take the inability to accept new facts , I can take the pretending I didnt answer , I can take the attacks on my family, I can take the attacks on my intellect ,I can take it all.

The truth getting out is worth all of it and more.If there was but just a liitle of this in your post you might get just a little acknowledgement from others around here... since you dont actually present "TRUTH" but editorials and maybe's and supposedly's you will get exactly what you deserve which is nothing....

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

I could show you film and you would say it was not evidence?

Not true, but the reality of the matter is that you DON'T provide proof of your statements. You THINK you do, but you've been proven wrong countless times. I've conceded MANY points on this very board when evidence has been reported disproving me. Just the other day I conceded to MFM that the "majority of democrats did not in fact vote to authorize the war". I can admit when I'm wrong, unlike you.


Why dont you ask shattered why she doesnt prove my family wants nothign to do with me?

It's a statement of opinion and can't be entered as fact here on the board.


Because you have an agenda and expect 1000 times more out of me than anyone else on this board because you dont like my point of view.

I have no agenda. I am an equal opportunity asshole! I am equally arrogant towards those who make statements and refuse to back them up.


If you go back and read this thread from the begining look at my comments on this study you will actually find them very mild.

Mild, yes. Nonetheless you were asked to provide FACTS from the article by one person, and failed to address that. Now you were asked by another to provide proof of things you claim existed on these boards, and have again failed to do so.


Then if you look at the hostility they were met with by the other side you will see they acttually back the studies findings. Much ado about nothing but a couple of words which requested the conservatives on here to take another look at the reasons for war.

Then you all went cablooooey!

You've likely never actually see me go "cablooooey". Trust me, you'd know if I did! I'm also being very mild! LOL


Im can take the insults, I can take the inability to accept new facts , I can take the pretending I didnt answer , I can take the attacks on my family, I can take the attacks on my intellect ,I can take it all.

You just can't take being questioned and asked to provide actual real time facts to backup some of your statements. When this occurs, you argue and offer endless opinion, but never provide the facts/data/proof asked of you.


The truth getting out is worth all of it and more.

Agreed, now if you could only lead by example and actually provide it, instead of spouting rhetoric and misstatements.

[jimnyc]

Where have I lied?

When you wrote that major companies use the polls you referred to to make major financial decisions.

[truthmatters]

4

[Hagbard Celine]

So, one party can make up their mind, and stick to something, and the other is wishy-washy?

You're RIGHT, TDM, it DOES explain a lot. :clap:

You do realize that making up your mind and being stubborn in the face of new information is a bad thing right?

[truthmatters]

4

[Monkeybone]

unless i missed it, i would like to know the age of the ppl that took the test. was it consistent or vary? that would make a dif.

and I agree with Hag that just cause something is new or the results ain't something that you like doesn't mean it is bad. but when they say that nohting was definitive, or maybe thei or maybe this other than this is what it is. it ain't bad to be a little stubborn and question the test and findings

[Dilloduck]

You do realize that making up your mind and being stubborn in the face of new information can be a bad thing right?

Has the goal of bin ladens' cult changed any ? Has he presented us with any new information that causes you to feel all warm and fuzzy ?

[shattered]

You do realize that making up your mind and being stubborn in the face of new information is a bad thing right?

Just because a new user presents what they think is new information, regardless of the fact that it's been previously debunked, doesn't mean it's actually new information worthy of consideration. In this case, TM's been chewed up and spit back out.

[truthmatters]

4

[Dilloduck]

You can let OBL determine your every move and thought in life but you only do his biddig by doing so.

Cooler heads are begining to prevail and we will soon put this guy in his place by sending him to the trash heap of history instead of doing his work of terrifing the American people for him every day like you wish on us.

Don't be absurd. Your latest ruse of claiming that bin laden is controlling our every move isn't working. I'm fully able to support the war on terror and carry on all my daily activivties at the same time. I act out of conviction -not fear.

[Hagbard Celine]

Has the goal of bin ladens' cult changed any ? Has he presented us with any new information that causes you to feel all warm and fuzzy ?

Stupid question. Of course I don't feel "warm and fuzzy" about Bin Laden. I still think Bin Laden should be hunted down. However, new information has come to light on other subjects: the Iraq War for instance. We went into Iraq thinking we were saving the world and ourselves from an imminent attack from Saddam's vast wmd stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Now we know for sure that those never existed. And people like me take that new information into account and revise our thinking on the subject, like "hmm, maybe going into Iraq was a bad idea." Others who will remain un-named, ignore new information like this and in effect "stay the course" regardless of how wrong they are. When Galileo discovered Heliocentricity, there were those who accepted this new information and those who refused to take it into account who tried to "conserve" the status quo.

I definately see the point of this study and I do think there's something to it. It doesn't necessarily insult either side to admit there may be something to it. It's obvious to me that there are two types of thinkers: those who base their decisions on what they see as black and white ideology that is written in stone AND those who make decisions based on what they see as the best current information who keep in mind that the information may change, which will necessitate a change in their actions.

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind about something every now and then. It proves that you actually think about things as opposed to just being obusely obstinate.

[Dilloduck]

Stupid question. Of course I don't feel "warm and fuzzy" about Bin Laden. I still think Bin Laden should be hunted down. However, new information has come to light on other subjects: the Iraq War for instance. We went into Iraq thinking we were saving the world and ourselves from an imminent attack from Saddam's vast wmd stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Now we know for sure that those never existed. And people like me take that new information into account and revise our thinking on the subject, like "hmm, maybe going into Iraq was a bad idea." Others who will remain un-named, ignore new information like this and in effect "stay the course" regardless of how wrong they are. When Galileo discovered Heliocentricity, there were those who accepted this new information and those who refused to take it into account who tried to "conserve" the status quo.

I definately see the point of this study and I do think there's something to it. It doesn't necessarily insult either side to admit there may be something to it. It's obvious to me that there are two types of thinkers: those who base their decisions on what they see as black and white ideology that is written in stone AND those who make decisions based on what they see as the best current information who keep in mind that the information may change, which will necessitate a change in their actions.

You assume that new information REQUIRES a change of action and if no new action is taken that the new information was ignored.
It's just as plausible that the information was heard and analyzed yet it was decided that the same OVER ALL decisions were still sound.

[truthmatters]

4

[darin]

You assume that new information REQUIRES a change of action and if no new action is taken that the new information was ignored.
It's just as plausible that the information was heard and analyzed yet it was decided that the same OVER ALL decisions were still sound.

It's like I said - Liberals want to change actions for the sake of change. They tend to believe 'if it's a new idea, it MUST be good!'

:)

[Hagbard Celine]

You assume that new information REQUIRES a change of action and if no new action is taken that the new information was ignored.
It's just as plausible that the information was heard and analyzed yet it was decided that the same OVER ALL decisions were still sound.

True, but more often than not reality displays the opposite.

[Dilloduck]

True, but more often than not reality displays the opposite.

got something to back that up? I gotta think we are hit with new information constantly yet only a minority of it calls for some major alteration that anyone would even notice.

[truthmatters]

4

[darin]

Yours and their words and actions. My Experience. Common Sense.

[truthmatters]

4

[typomaniac]

And now research has proved it.


Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
...
[L]iberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy [in a speed-based letter recognition test].


Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-politics10sep10,1,7735909.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)

[Hagbard Celine]

Next you'll be posting that there's a "liberal" gene. :rolleyes:

[darin]

Perhaps it is just your inability to accept new information because it challenges your exsisting beliefs?

I think it's more my ability to exercise my BullshitFilter™. I am in the business of strategy and forward and progressive thinking. It's how I earn my $10/hr. When people like, oh...say....YOU approach me with a new idea, I use my God-Given BullshitFilter™ to measure what you're saying. If it's a new idea that WORKS, I'm all for it. What's ironic is, MOST liberals have no 'new' ideas - they have ideas which have been tried and tested and found to be 'bad'. The difference isn't in accepting the 'idea' - the difference is Conservatives have a GOOD memory. And the "new" ideas Liberals tend to spout remind us of somebody trying it years ago, and failing (see "Communism" for instance).

I believe what I believe because MY beliefs are 100% Right in my view. I actively apply criteria to what I believe to make sure I'm not believing a lie. You seem to believe ANYTHING which is different - said another way, it seems to me you buy into ANYTHING which is not the current way of doing something - you love it simply for it's uniqueness.


I know many people who are conservatives who now have changed their minds about Bush and the war which to me shows that not all conservatives have this problem but the study showed that also.

It could very well be they formed their opinions from the wrong pool of information. ;)

[typomaniac]

Next you'll be posting that there's a "liberal" gene. :rolleyes:

When computer processing power gets cheap enough to be able to crunch a lot of people's DNA info in a reasonable time, there's bound to be a study on that. :D

[darin]

Repost....will combine threads.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=6921

[truthmatters]

4

[Dilloduck]

You beleive you are the only one who is right and new information is not acceptable unless it fits your already formed view.

This is what this study finds.

Im glad you make money thinking progressively but you should try to apply that to your world view.

I get it---you don't have any new ideas but it doesn't matter if you can establish that no one woud listen to them anyway. :lame2:

[darin]

You beleive you are the only one who is right and new information is not acceptable unless it fits your already formed view.

This is what this study finds.

Im glad you make money thinking progressively but you should try to apply that to your world view.

Absolutely NOT.

I didn't say "I'm the only one who is right." Stop LYING...you're either lying or you're REALLY having trouble reading.

:-/

(sigh).

Have you lived outside the US of A?

[typomaniac]

So, one party can make up their mind, and stick to something, and the other is wishy-washy?

You're RIGHT, TDM, it DOES explain a lot. :clap:

It also goes to show why one party is shooting itself in the foot by believing the same crap they believed in 1957 when it's already 2007. :lol:

The world changes, sister, and only the adapters will survive.

[Dilloduck]

It also goes to show why one party is shooting itself in the foot by believing the same crap they believed in 1957 when it's already 2007. :lol:

The world changes, sister, and only the adapters will survive.

I strongly encourage you to throw out every idea you have had for more than a month and replace it with a new one.

[avatar4321]

First off, I've known most of these people for a few years.. a couple of them longer than these boards have been around. What business is it of yours if I tell them they're right, when they're right?

Second, I make the avatars I display.. So, again, what's your point, and what business is it if yours what I choose to display?

How's that flirting, again, exactly? Sees to me you're jealous because you don't have friends; just a bunch of people telling you what an idiot you are.

you make those huh? not bad. much better than some things ive seen kids come up with.

[avatar4321]

The truth getting out is worth all of it and more.

Maybe one of these days youll actually have some truth to get out.

[avatar4321]

Where have I lied?

we've demonstrated it numerously.

For example in one of the voting fraud threads, you claimed the court invalidated IDs. Yet the very article that started the thread claimed the court upheld the Voting ID statute.

Conveniently you ignored it.

[typomaniac]

I strongly encourage you to throw out every idea you have had for more than a month and replace it with a new one.

I don't expect you'd want me to do that: I've tolerated you for more than a month.

[avatar4321]

Stupid question. Of course I don't feel "warm and fuzzy" about Bin Laden. I still think Bin Laden should be hunted down. However, new information has come to light on other subjects: the Iraq War for instance. We went into Iraq thinking we were saving the world and ourselves from an imminent attack from Saddam's vast wmd stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Now we know for sure that those never existed. And people like me take that new information into account and revise our thinking on the subject, like "hmm, maybe going into Iraq was a bad idea." Others who will remain un-named, ignore new information like this and in effect "stay the course" regardless of how wrong they are. When Galileo discovered Heliocentricity, there were those who accepted this new information and those who refused to take it into account who tried to "conserve" the status quo.

I definately see the point of this study and I do think there's something to it. It doesn't necessarily insult either side to admit there may be something to it. It's obvious to me that there are two types of thinkers: those who base their decisions on what they see as black and white ideology that is written in stone AND those who make decisions based on what they see as the best current information who keep in mind that the information may change, which will necessitate a change in their actions.

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind about something every now and then. It proves that you actually think about things as opposed to just being obusely obstinate.

The strawman you guys keep setting up is ridiculous.

No one (other than Democrats) stated that Saddam was an immediate threat. If he was, then the war wouldnt have been preemption. The whole point of preemption was to eliminate Saddam before he was an imminent threat. If we wait till an enemy is an imminent threat, then we've waited to long and people are going to die.

Taking Saddam out was a good idea. It was the right idea. There hasnt been any information thats been revealed to change that. Not only have we made it sure Iraq wont be giving Weapons of Mass destruction to terrorists, we have ensured that Libya wont either. We have exposed Iran as the threat they are. We have brought freedom to another group of people.

[Dilloduck]

I don't expect you'd want me to do that: I've tolerated you for more than a month.

Oh go for it----wouldn't want to hang on to those old worn out concepts. Even if they work.

[avatar4321]

It's like I said - Liberals want to change actions for the sake of change. They tend to believe 'if it's a new idea, it MUST be good!'

:)

Maybe thats why they think that idea that conservatives are alive is a bad idea.

[avatar4321]

It also goes to show why one party is shooting itself in the foot by believing the same crap they believed in 1957 when it's already 2007. :lol:

The world changes, sister, and only the adapters will survive.

its better than believing the same crap they believed in 1930

[truthmatters]

4

[avatar4321]

Please direct me to the exact quote and I will clairfy it for you?

There are courts who have denied the the IDs so I think you may be confused.

Im not confused at all. I think you may be though. I mean there are only two threads on the matter and it wouldnt be hard to find the quote. But you cant seem to.

Nevermind the fact that the entire thread was about upholding the law. Something you completely contradicted with your statement.

BTW i think this study is clearly false. Ive never seen a liberal adjust their thinking when "conflicting" information is presented. just pick about any thread and you will see liberals who will conclude that Bush is evil and any amount of evidence to the contrary is completely ignored.

[truthmatters]

[4

[avatar4321]

I think it is you who are confused. You made the claim so please direct me to what you have claimed to be true or retract it if you are a honorable person. You would not just let me walk awy from such a claim. Will you hold yourself to as high a standard as you do me?

Ive already directed you to them twice. I am not going to retract a claim simply because you are too lazy to follow directions.

[Said1]

I think it is you who are confused. You made the claim so please direct me to what you have claimed to be true or retract it if you are a honorable person. You would not just let me walk awy from such a claim. Will you hold yourself to as high a standard as you do me?

Where is the link to the actual study? Where is the DEFINITIVE proof I asked YOU for many, many posts back.

You do know that this would solidify your position wherein you claim this study to be factual. That is, the proof you post, supporting your position, would show more than statistical correlations, quoted in the original article (op-ed) ABOUT the study. And by the way, statistical correlations are not considered proof in the real scientific community. Just bear that in mind while you are copying and pasting from the actual study done by psychologist, David Amodio and associates.

[truthmatters]

4

[Said1]

And now research has proved it.



Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-politics10sep10,1,7735909.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)

The original thread started quoted Liberals as being almost 10% more likely,, which is it? No wait, they added all the numbers together and came up with almost 10%. Got it. *winka, winka*

[Said1]

If you could link me to the thread and question I will do my best to answer you.
I may not be able to access it.


WHAT????????

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

WHAT????????

Another one of her games when cornered. Acting as if she can't remember what threads she posted in for almost all of yesterday. It was so long ago, y'know.:laugh2:

[Said1]

Can you just tell me what the direct question is you want answered?

tell me what # post it was in this thread please?

Ok. I'll go slow. Again. I asked you to first quote definitive proof substantiating YOUR claims, from the article. That means, I want you to find something in the article showing that those who did the study stand firmly behind their findings - showing what is, not what might be. Easy.

Then, a few posts up, I asked where the link to the actual study was - or, can be found? In other words, an op-ed piece barely supporting one political view point is not good enough for me. I want to see the math and everything else. I also (in the same above post) explained that although statistical correlations may seem like proof of a hypothesis, they are not - hence my request for a quote where someone (not people who are not involved in the study make comments) takes a firm position, on the experiments findings, which supports their hypothesis - not "maybes' or "might bes". I want to see "IS". Not hard.

[Said1]

Another one of her games when cornered. Acting as if she can't remember what threads she posted in for almost all of yesterday. It was so long ago, y'know.:laugh2:

And today. Ancient history. :laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

Another one of her games when cornered. Acting as if she can't remember what threads she posted in for almost all of yesterday. It was so long ago, y'know.:laugh2:

She may be busy googling to find out who it was that declared war on the US . :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

4

[Said1]

I asked you and you never answered me.



I posted in # 59 that I tried to find the study link and could not but gave the name of the director of the study and the name of the university where you have to register to get into the study.

I never claimed the study ws definative so why should I have to prove it is?

Then why do you care if we take it seriously or not? What is your fucken point?

I also think you said somewhere that our attitude in this thread validates the studies findings, did you or did you not? Am I mistaken?

[truthmatters]

4

[Said1]

I already stated that one too but here you go.

I was hoping to get people to realise that accepting new information is a benifit to our society instead of refusing to accept any bit of information which does not fit their preconcieved notions of this war and admin.

By posting that bullshit article? Whatfuckingever.

[truthmatters]

4

[Said1]

There have been other studies along the same vein which have come up with pretty much the same insights.

Where are they? Links?

[Dilloduck]

There have been other studies along the same vein which have come up with pretty much the same insights.

Hey--that post was jam packed with facts and content !!! :laugh2::laugh2:

[typomaniac]

The original thread started quoted Liberals as being almost 10% more likely,, which is it? No wait, they added all the numbers together and came up with almost 10%. Got it. *winka, winka*

ABC News may or may not have misquoted the study with the 10% figure. I couldn't care less either way.

The percentages from the study itself are large enough to be "statistically significant," and mathematically that's all that matters.

[truthmatters]

4

[Dilloduck]

http://tinyurl.com/2e4adj
Remember I did not title this article.

another article you obviously didn't read all the way through. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

4

[Said1]

http://tinyurl.com/2e4adj
Remember I did not title this article.


Publishing his findings in the Journal of Research into Personality (a must read, I’m sure), the UC Berkeley professor claims to have found a correlation between being a “whiny,” insecure child in nursery school and an embrace of conservatism in later life. Describing the research in the Toronto Star, science writer Kurt Kleiner says,

Again, it's another correlation. A correlation does NOT imply causation in any way, shape or form. Simply put, two events that are correlated do not automatically result in one causing the other, nor does it have any direct relation to the other. Correlations deal only with observed occurances of events. Conclusions that usually support a hypothesis can't be taken from a correlation alone.

[Dilloduck]

Do you ever say anything of real substance?

maybe----but if I did, i seriously doubt that you would understand it. You don't even know who declared war on America. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

4

[Said1]

This article mentions two studies which found a correlation with behavior and political affiation.

As I have already explained more than once (and please commit this to memory this time) .....now say it with me..."a study finding correlations alone, does not prove of a hypothesis". Make it your mantra. \

What it does, is possibly show those conducting the study that they might be on the right track leading to further testing and investigations, further proving their hypothesis.


I again am not even saying I agree the findings in any of the studies.
Please remember you asked for what I just provided.

No, you didn't provide what I asked for. But that's ok, because you probably can't as it doesn't exist. You tried, though. I'll give you that much.

You also seemed like you agreed with the studies through out much of this thread????

[Dilloduck]

This article mentions two studies which found a correlation with behavior and political affiation.
I again am not even saying I agree the findings in any of the studies.
Please remember you asked for what I just provided.




I never said I did not know . I asked you a question and you have yet to answer it

If you knew the answer why did you ask me ?--let me guess--you were just testing me.:laugh2::laugh2:

from the article you posted:

I realized many moons ago that the social sciences today mainly serve to provide a specious scientific basis for liberalism. Do you want to give criminals a slap on the wrist and substitute rehabilitation for punishment or legislate against spanking? Simply point to studies that “show” that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. Would you like to eliminate personal responsibility and cast everyone as a victim? Just highlight research that “proves” that being a lush or a homosexual is caused by genes and childhood bad behavior by ADD. Yes, psychology has long been attacking tenets of conservatism, as it veils its agenda with a facade of science. And given this antipathy for the ideology, it’s little wonder that psycho-babblers’ zeal would eventually compel them to tip their hand and label conservatism itself as just another symptom of psychological inadequacy. Maybe we should rename introductory psychology “How to Prove Liberalism Correct 101.”

[jimnyc]

http://tinyurl.com/2e4adj
Remember I did not title this article.

I agree with Dilloduck. Did you even read the full article before using it as a reference? I think maybe you did a quick search and posted this thinking you had a winner. Problem is, if you read the ENTIRE article you will see all you have done is present an argument against yourself. Pretty soon no one will have to even debate with you as you'll fully blow your own views out of the water! :laugh2:

[Gunny]

I already stated that one too but here you go.

I was hoping to get people to realise that accepting new information is a benifit to our society instead of refusing to accept any bit of information which does not fit their preconcieved notions of this war and admin.




I sometimes can not access threads to check.

You're hoping to get people to accept any extreme leftwing propaganda you put out here as blindly and you do.

Pot meet kettle ... your preconceived notions of this war and admin are as extreme as anyone's.

[Gunny]

If you knew the answer why did you ask me ?--let me guess--you were just testing me.:laugh2::laugh2:

from the article you posted:

If you get on I-35 N heading for Dallas, where would you be going? (only two guesses allowed!):poke:

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

I read it and I know the author is not pro the studies.

The studies are mentioned and exsist by this guys own admission.

I was asked to provide proof other similar studies exsisted and I did so.

I noted that I dont find any of these studies conclusive and posted the first one in an attempt some people would also find them inconclusive and think about how this type of mind set is something they do not want to aspire to and let new information in.

The negative response and immediate assumtions made by some of my friends on the right show I may have been being a pollyanna.

I will continue to take the slings and arrows and keep my hope because I do believe they can still see the light of truth yet.

I have seen it happen before.

The problem is that your "studies" are laughable and have no basis in fact. Most of us here prefer to deal in reality and facts. I could post a study at this very moment of you, claim it was an in depth analysis, and it would be worth as much as the crap you have posted.

[truthmatters]

4

[shattered]

I even hope for you Jim

I have hope for him, too..

Hope that he'll confine your silly worthless ass to a single thread so there's not so much trash to wade through.

[jimnyc]

I even hope for you Jim

You are very sad, and your every post demonstrates that. The fact that you believe any crap you read makes me have pity for you.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

I see abosolutely nothing wrong with holding out hope that people will accept facts in their decision making process.

Maybe you should ask yourselves why you find this idea so disagreeable?

And yet at the same time YOU are disagreeing with our assessment of things. Why are YOU so disagreeable?

And notice I bolded "facts" above, because you HAVEN'T given facts in this thread, and rarely ever do.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

I have given the studies which in FACT do exsist.

But they are NOT facts. You state "I see abosolutely nothing wrong with holding out hope that people will accept facts in their decision making process." - but you haven't given us facts! Why is this so terribly hard for you to understand?

[manu1959]

http://tinyurl.com/32fetf

Fasinating study fo the differance between the brains of republicans and Democrats.

Man it explains alot.

certainly explains how some one can be for the study before they were against it......

any port in a storm liberals

[truthmatters]

4

[Dilloduck]

I see abosolutely nothing wrong with holding out hope that people will accept facts in their decision making process.

Maybe you should ask yourselves why you find this idea so disagreeable?

Disagreeable? not me--it's a great compliment for you to say that conservatives are mentally deficient. :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Am I to understand that the author of the very article that TM posted disagrees with the studies she wants us to believe?! Seriously? Jim, this thread should be closed for being ludicrous.

[Dilloduck]

Am I to understand that the author of the very article that TM posted disagrees with the studies she wants us to believe?! Seriously? Jim, this thread should be closed for being ludicrous.

You understand correctly !! Funny huh?

[Abbey Marie]

You understand correctly !! Funny huh?

Shoot, it's almost pee your pants funny. :lmao:

[truthmatters]

4

[Dilloduck]

You asked for proof of other studies and I gave it.

It should bolster you belief that these two studies do exsist because they are quoted by someone whos trying to counter them.

LMAO--ya it might it exist but it's sort of stupid to prove it exists by posting an acticle that says it's bullshit. :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

You asked for proof of other studies and I gave it.

It should bolster you belief that these two studies do exsist because they are quoted by someone whos trying to counter them.

I didn't ask for anything from you.

How about addressing the fact that your own author disagrees? Or doesn't truth matter?

[Abbey Marie]

LMAO--ya it might it exist but it's sort of stupid to prove it exists by posting an acticle that says it's bullshit. :laugh2:

Wish I could rep you for distilling it down in classic Dillo style. :clap:

[truthmatters]

4

[Dilloduck]

My mistake and Im sorry it was Said1 who asked for other studies.

I did address that by telling you I was answering a request for proof of others studies. It does not matter that the aricle was written by someone who dissagrees with the studies.

I can't speak for Said1 but I gotta hunch she wanted to see other studies that actually supported your article.

[Abbey Marie]

My mistake and Im sorry it was Said1 who asked for other studies.

I did address that by telling you I was answering a request for proof of others studies. It does not matter that the aricle was written by someone who dissagrees with the studies.

Oh but it does matter. It matters tremendously. You know why? Because TRUTH matters. Yes indeedy, it truly does.

[truthmatters]

[4

[Dilloduck]

How does it bring into question the exsistance of the studies he quotes?

Oh your study exists alright---this guy just verifies that your study is full of shit. Somehow you try to spin this as a good thing. You're funny ! :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

How does it bring into question the exsistance of the studies he quotes?

Not their existence. Their usefulness. Their credibility. How does it not?

[truthmatters]

4

[manu1959]

I do believe there is a pattern of Bush supporters not taking in all the facts. I think many Americans agree that pattern exsist.

Why does it exsist?

Why is there an attempt to deny any facts that point to this Administration not having Americas best interests at heart?

Do you think it is possible for any president to act in the interest of party and the monied interests over party?

1. i think you are wrong....
2. it doesn't...
3. i think you are wrong....
4. i think presidents love to party....but it takes money to party.....

[truthmatters]

4

[Abbey Marie]

I was giving evidence of the exsistance of other studies and this article does that.

How about the credentials of the author to make such a claim?


How about your posting an article which directly refutes the point you are trying to make? It still cracks me up. How about you?

Do you know that one defintion of insanity is repeating the same behavior while expecting different results?

[Abbey Marie]

1. i think you are wrong....
2. it doesn't...
3. i think you are wrong....
4. i think presidents love to party....but it takes money to party.....



:laugh2: Partyin at da House

In my White House
With black curtains
at the station...

[manu1959]

As Americans have learned the real facts they have stepped away from supporting Bush and hiw foriegn policy.
There is still a group who refuse to accept certain facts.



yes and that would be the libs....they belive everything they read....saddam is bad....saddam is good....bush is good...bush is bad....obl is real....obl is fake....

whichever way the wind blows all yall are there.....

i love libs....they make good employees.....just tell them what they want to hear....

[truthmatters]

4

[manu1959]

Im a liberal and knew these facts from the very begining.

Im guessing you used to tout Saddam WMDs and AQ ties and would never admitt it.

really .... why was iraq invaded?

[typomaniac]

1. i think you are wrong....
2. it doesn't...
3. i think you are wrong....
4. i think presidents love to party....but it takes money to party.....

You forgot the "Sorry bout that" and "Regards, SirManuOfTheBrainless." :rolleyes:

If you're taking your marching orders from chessy now, at least follow them correctly.
:lame2:

[truthmatters]

4

[manu1959]

ON what information do you make that observation?


you......and my 30 liberal employees

[truthmatters]

4

[manu1959]

What type of work do they do?

good work of course ....

[truthmatters]

4

[typomaniac]

Oh your study exists alright---this guy just verifies that your study is full of shit. Somehow you try to spin this as a good thing. You're funny ! :laugh2:

Actually, Dildo, you're considerably funnier when it comes to this discussion. At least based on the quote you pulled from the second guy.

Guess what? It does absolutely nothing to "verify," prove, or in any way present compelling evidence that the NYU study is full of shit. And yet you and your fellow wingnuts latch onto it as though it's the Ten Commandments.

You crack me up. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

You crack me up.

I feel sad when I read YOUR posts. Not nearly as said as I felt when you stated Karlmarx was "trash" for stating that the disgusting article posted yesterday by gabby was trash. I guess you think someone is trash when they disapprove of 9/11 being made to sound like some lame sexual joke.

[manu1959]

do you hate them?

i don't hate anyone....

[typomaniac]

I feel sad when I read YOUR posts. Not nearly as said as I felt when you stated Karlmarx was "trash" for stating that the disgusting article posted yesterday by gabby was trash. I guess you think someone is trash when they disapprove of 9/11 being made to sound like some lame sexual joke.

My "trash" reference was to Bush/Cheney/Rove and all their supporters, of whom I supposed KarlMarx is one.

I think people are trash when they try to exploit the memory of a murder victim to further their own agenda. Particularly for personal gain. Sorry if it makes you feel sad that I feel that way. :dunno:

[manu1959]

My "trash" reference was to Bush/Cheney/Rove and all their supporters, of whom I supposed KarlMarx is one.

I think people are trash when they try to exploit the memory of a murder victim to further their own agenda. Particularly for personal gain. Sorry if it makes you feel sad that I feel that way. :dunno:

so putting a wreath on the tomb of the unkown solider on veterans day is explotation?

[typomaniac]

so putting a wreath on the tomb of the unkown solider on veterans day is explotation?

What part of "for personal gain" do you not understand? :poke:

[manu1959]

What part of "for personal gain" do you not understand? :poke:

placing a wreath .... gets the president on tv and shows he supports the military.....looks like personal gain to me....

could it be that you hate the current president so much that you project exploitation onto the president and thus confuse honoring the dead with exploiting the dead ....

no....i would imagine not....the left being so open to new information and accepting and tollerant of others...

[typomaniac]

placing a wreath .... gets the president on tv and shows he supports the military.....looks like personal gain to me....
Now you're being purposely silly (and you don't do it all that well). Every president is expected to place a wreath on Veterans' Day: it's a duty equivalent to shaking hands of people in a reception line. They gain nothing from doing it.


could it be that you hate the current president so much that you project exploitation onto the president and thus confuse honoring the dead with exploiting the dead ....

no....i would imagine not....the left being so open to new information and accepting and tollerant of others...For the record, GW has a long career of exploitation, so I have plenty of better reasons to conclude that he's trash.

[manu1959]

Now you're being purposely silly (and you don't do it all that well). Every president is expected to place a wreath on Veterans' Day: it's a duty equivalent to shaking hands of people in a reception line. They gain nothing from doing it.

For the record, GW has a long career of exploitation, so I have plenty of better reasons to conclude that he's trash.

i think you are full of squishy brown stuff.....

[typomaniac]

i think you are full of squishy brown stuff.....
Feeling's mutual, bro! :poop:

[avatar4321]

I think the Democrat response to the Petreous report is a perfect example why this study is complete bunk.

[typomaniac]

I think the Democrat response to the Petreous report is a perfect example why this study is complete bunk.

You can't possibly be serious about the above, if in fact you spent more than a semester in law school. The study has nothing to do with the response to the Petraeus report or vice versa.

[Dilloduck]

You can't possibly be serious about the above, if in fact you spent more than a semester in law school. The study has nothing to do with the response to the Petraeus report or vice versa.

It does however have a WHOLE lot to do with Democrats being unable to deal with new information. They just keep pressing the same old button. :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

You can't possibly be serious about the above, if in fact you spent more than a semester in law school. The study has nothing to do with the response to the Petraeus report or vice versa.

The liberal reaction to the Petraeus report has everything to do with refuting the study. Confronted with new information that contradicts their view point and they cant deal with it.

[shattered]

yes and that would be the libs....they belive everything they read....saddam is bad....saddam is good....bush is good...bush is bad....obl is real....obl is fake....

whichever way the wind blows all yall are there.....

i love libs....they make good employees.....just tell them what they want to hear....

You found one willing to WORK? Shit..

[truthmatters]

4

[Abbey Marie]

Can you show me the text of the study so we can go over it?

And so another day of nonsensical posting begins. You cite the study- you get it. That's how it works on a message board. And in real life, too!

[truthmatters]

4

[Abbey Marie]

I cant find it can you?

I am used to sites where people provide their own facts instead of asking the other person to do thier research for them.

It seems on here I am always asked to provide the other guys proof for him.

Its a first for me on a chat site.

Good lord, is there fuzz in your brain? It's YOUR cited study. Now, go fetch.

[Dilloduck]

I cant find it can you?

I am used to sites where people provide their own facts instead of asking the other person to do thier research for them.

It seems on here I am always asked to provide the other guys proof for him.

Its a first for me on a chat site.

Avatar was referring to the liberal reaction to the report. You were the one who asked to see the report itself.

[truthmatters]

4

[Dilloduck]

He mentioned the study and I would like to see it.

Why do you people always refuse requests to produce the things you site from?

He didnt cite from the Petraeus report-----

[Abbey Marie]

He didnt cite from the Petraeus report-----

:clap:

[truthmatters]

4.

[Abbey Marie]

He sites new information in it which contradicts a view point and I would like to go over that information.

Wrong again.

[typomaniac]

He sites new information in it which contradicts a view point and I would like to go over that information.

No point in trying to actually REASON with these types, TM. We're talking about someone who says that violence committed by Arabs is equivalent to violence committed by African-Americans. :eek:

[truthmatters]

4

[Abbey Marie]

How is it wrong look at the quote I provided?




Originally Posted by avatar4321
The liberal reaction to the Petraeus report has everything to do with refuting the study. Confronted with new information that contradicts their view pointand they cant deal with it.




Some one has to try and tell them the truth.


Wrong again.

[truthmatters]

4

[Abbey Marie]

Can you explain why its wrong?

No. I've seen people repeatedly trying explain the most obvious things to you, to no avail. You are either too unintelligent to understand, or purposely pulling our legs. Either way, waste of my time.

So, suffice to say, you are wrong. Again. In perpetuity, no doubt.

[jimnyc]

Can you explain why its wrong?


Oooh! Oooh! I will!

Because he used YOUR study against you about the Patraeus report. So the study he is referencing is the very study YOU posted. He toyed with YOUR words to make fun of you, but it worked even better than he could have possibly imagined! :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

No point in trying to actually REASON with these types, TM. We're talking about someone who says that violence committed by Arabs is equivalent to violence committed by African-Americans. :eek:

As opposed to YOUR types who are just plain stupid, and place said stupidity on display with just about every post?

[Abbey Marie]

Oooh! Oooh! I will!

Because he used YOUR study against you about the Patraeus report. So the study he is referencing is the very study YOU posted. He toyed with YOUR words to make fun of you, but it worked even better than he could have possibly imagined! :laugh2:

Masochist! :laugh2:

[typomaniac]

As opposed to YOUR types who are just plain stupid, and place said stupidity on display with just about every post?

Yayyyy! Glass house vandalism time!!!


I'm as dumb as a box of rocks.
:lol:

[jimnyc]

Yayyyy! Glass house vandalism time!!!


:lol:

Funny how the only way you can make my posts look ridiculous is by toying with them and changing the text, while yours alone with alteration does just fine!

Thanks for proving my point better than I could have! :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

Can you show me the text of the study so we can go over it?

You need a study to detail your reaction?

The reaction of you and your fellow liberals is pretty damn clear. You are unable to handle the new and conflicting information presented by the Petreous report. Rather you just ignore it and have to call anyone who presents differing information a liar.

[avatar4321]

No point in trying to actually REASON with these types, TM. We're talking about someone who says that violence committed by Arabs is equivalent to violence committed by African-Americans. :eek:

Ive yet to see anyone who says violence committed by arabs is equivalent to violence committed by African Americans. Cite your source.

[avatar4321]

Can you explain why its wrong?

This isnt brain surgery. The Petreous report has given us new information concerning how the surge is going. You liberals cant handle it. Your very reactions to it disproves the assertions in this study because when faced with conflicting information, you not only are not open to it, you have to resort to calling the man a liar because its contrary to your world view that everything in Iraq is bad.

I have no doubt that when Iraq is peaceful and strong, you are still going to be complaining about how we failed in Iraq.

[avatar4321]

Funny how the only way you can make my posts look ridiculous is by toying with them and changing the text, while yours alone with alteration does just fine!

Thanks for proving my point better than I could have! :laugh2:

Another example of the study posted being false! They cant deal with contrary information so they have to distort it to make it fit their world view!

[truthmatters]

4

[TheStripey1]

Does it give an explanation as to why some brains make it so difficult for some to spell properly?


laffs...

certainly there is no one here who can claim to be perfect when it comes to spelling... even those that use spell check... they're going to take their dog over there and let it take a crap.

to the topic... Tony Snow said yesterday that only a crazy person continues to use the same strategy over and over and over thinking it will come out differently... I LOL'ed when I heard him say that because hasn't bush, with his stay the courseness, done just that?

Sooooooo...... :coffee: Was Tony calling bush crazy? :coffee:

[jimnyc]

laffs...

certainly there is no one here who can claim to be perfect when it comes to spelling... even those that use spell check... they're going to take their dog over there and let it take a crap.

How ya doing, ya clawed bastard? :)

I agree with you, I really do. But you have to take a few moments to read her posts. EVERY SINGLE ONE is absolutely littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Then each "paragraph" she writes is one sentence long and she starts another. It is LITERALLY very hard to read. If it were just occasionally I wouldn't bother pointing it out.

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

How is it wrong look at the quote I provided?




Originally Posted by avatar4321
The liberal reaction to the Petraeus report has everything to do with refuting the study. Confronted with new information that contradicts their view pointand they cant deal with it.




Some one has to try and tell them the truth.

Served.:laugh2:

[truthmatters]

[4

[jimnyc]

can you find the text to the Patreus Report?

Anyone with 2% of a brain can find it with a simple search. Being as it was just a couple of days ago it is available on all government related sites and a billion media sites.

Why do you hate searching so much?

Here, I'll even help you! Here's a link to a search string on Yahoo. *Hint* click the first listing!

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=text+of+general+petraeus+report&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

[typomaniac]

Ive yet to see anyone who says violence committed by arabs is equivalent to violence committed by African Americans. Cite your source.

Abbey! (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=6997&page=3) :)

[Gunny]

can you find the text to the Patreus Report?

LMAO. Find it yourself.:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

LMAO. Find it yourself.:laugh2:

Are you trying to drive her insane? How can you expect someone to utilize so much energy?

Why do you hate doing all of TM's work for her? :)

[Gunny]

Are you trying to drive her insane? How can you expect someone to utilize so much energy?

Why do you hate doing all of TM's work for her? :)

I know ... it's a failing my therapist attributes to childhood trauma. The nerve of me expecting people to do their own groundwork.:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

I know ... it's a failing my therapist attributes to childhood trauma. The nerve of me expecting people to do their own groundwork.:laugh2:

Why do you hate your childhood?

Do you have a study to prove this is from your childhood?

Why do you hate people asking for you to do the groundwork?

You republicans have had an issue with nerve for too many years now.

[Gunny]

Why do you hate your childhood?

Do you have a study to prove this is from your childhood?

Why do you hate people asking for you to do the groundwork?

You republicans have had an issue with nerve for too many years now.


It started with being dropped on my head at delivery. It's THAT doctors fault and HE should be punished for anything I do.:tinfoil:

[TheStripey1]

How ya doing, ya clawed bastard? :)

I agree with you, I really do. But you have to take a few moments to read her posts. EVERY SINGLE ONE is absolutely littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Then each "paragraph" she writes is one sentence long and she starts another. It is LITERALLY very hard to read. If it were just occasionally I wouldn't bother pointing it out.

doing good, jimnyc, doin good... and I'm keepin them sharp... how about yerself?

If you got around as much as I, you'd see lots of people with uhhhh... spelling challenges... for instance, this one site I'm on used to have this guy that always started his posts with sorry bout that as if he'd just farted, followed by the most stupid shit one could possibly write... all numbered... he couldn't spell either and NEVER wrote in a paragraph...

it takes all kinds, jimnyc... it takes all kinds...

:dance:

[typomaniac]

Funny how the only way you can make my posts look ridiculous is by toying with them and changing the text, while yours alone with alteration does just fine!

Thanks for proving my point better than I could have! :laugh2:

Admit it: You're just upset because I kicked your ass on the NFL pool! :cool:

[jimnyc]

Admit it: You're just upset because I kicked your ass on the NFL pool! :cool:

Well, I wasn't thrilled with that! :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

doing good, jimnyc, doin good... and I'm keepin them sharp... how about yerself?

If you got around as much as I, you'd see lots of people with uhhhh... spelling challenges... for instance, this one site I'm on used to have this guy that always started his posts with sorry bout that as if he'd just farted, followed by the most stupid shit one could possibly write... all numbered... he couldn't spell either and NEVER wrote in a paragraph...

Sorry 'bout that,

1- I think I know who you're referring to!
2- At least he has some intelligence in him.
3- And he's rather humorous at times.
4- And I can't smell his farts through the internet.
5- But you're right, it takes all kinds.

Regards,
SirJimofNY

[Said1]

Abbey! (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=6997&page=3) :)

Did someone mention blacks in another post in that thread or did Abbey edit it

[remie]

Anyone with 2% of a brain can find it with a simple search. Being as it was just a couple of days ago it is available on all government related sites and a billion media sites.

Why do you hate searching so much?

Here, I'll even help you! Here's a link to a search string on Yahoo. *Hint* click the first listing!

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=text+of+general+petraeus+report&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

It took google all of .2 seconds to find it for me. I dont know if I can stand doing so much work.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Petraeus-Testimony20070910.pdf