The Cellar - Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected.

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected. (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=27907)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 827544)

You can't just say it's a fact because you borrowed some phrasing from scientific papers and expect people to just take your word for its veracity.

I will not spend a half day researching what was published so many times so long ago. I summarized the studies I learned from. Cited enough details from those studies that you can go find them, if you must.

But the point reamins. I learned this stuff before posting. Big_V clearly has zero research. He only has his feelings. He only posts denials - not even one fact. Repeated denials when he clearly never learned this stuff is only a cheapshot. Politicians called it swiftboating.

Should I also cite the paper that proves a Higgs Bosum exists? Or will you take my word for it without quoting phrases used by those researchers.

The point is obvious. Big_V has conclusions accented by only by insults and denials. Without knowledge of even one study. If he had learned this stuff, then expressions such as "forced extramarital liaisons" and "copulatory ambushes" would not inspire displeasure. Why that emotion? Because Big_V is posting denials without learning any of this. He never read any of those phrases. In the tradition of UG and Akins.

Now, if you have a problem with these summarized studies, then quote a contrarian study. Don't deny because you don't like the conclusion. These things were written even at a layman level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 827548)

Secretion. That's a science word!

Well, I'm not a gynecologist. But I'll take a look.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 827503)

The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.

Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.

Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.

We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.

Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.

Akins only made it interesting.

You're not originally from this planet, are you?

I'm outclassed when it comes to trying to connect with you, trying to understand the logic behind your discussion. It is clear to me that we have dramatically different standards of proof, of cheapshots, of English, of the concept of linear, sequential time... that kind of stuff.

You've failed to convince me, or instruct me, or persuade me. There's been a bit of aggravation and a bit of amusement, but I've got better things to do than to teach you to sing. I withdraw from the field of debate. See ya!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 827572)

I'm outclassed when it comes to trying to connect with you, trying to understand the logic behind your discussion.

I never expected to convince you of anything when 1) you deny published and summarized research, 2) makes denials without every having learned any of this stuff, and 3) attack phrases because you cannot dispute the concept, and 4) reply only with insults such as calling me 'dumb'. I had to confirm this was not UG.

Meanwhile, interesting that McCaskill has increased her polls by 15%. A major shift in any election. Implies MO does have a higher percentage of moderates. Also curious why such a major change did not get reported in any of my information sources.

In some polls, this race is still close. Just wondering is this one could become a barometer for national results now that exposed extremist rhetoric might have created a backlash against soundbytes reasoning.

You are welcome, friend.

Classic! Where ya been?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 827504)

So what in those DNA tests are relevant here?

Women don't need to go on Maury if they've cheated. They know it's the lover's baby.

Quote:

BTW, I believe UK was considering laws that banned using someone's DNA to perform a paternity test without their knowledge. Did that become law?

No idea. Not relevant as Maury is an American show and anyway the DNA tests on it are consensual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 827734)

Classic! Where ya been?

workin and life and stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae (Post 827736)

Women don't need to go on Maury if they've cheated. They know it's the lover's baby.

Yes, but the go on Maury to find out which lover. Or if it that 3-D porn film she watched.:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 827400)

Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.

Also curious - and I don't understand what this means. McCaskill had manipulated her primary campaign ads to feed or encourage support to Akin. I do believe Cellar dwellers exist in MO. What was that report saying?

I believe I read some of the Republicans were supporting a younger candidate, wanting to dump Akin, but McCaskill felt she had a better shot against Akin.

Years ago, letting Akin run with his foot in his mouth would have been the RNC saying he's been a loyal old war horse, he'll probably lose but let him run and retire. But not now, they will fight tooth and nail for every seat, especially in the senate. If they didn't think he could win, they'd probably assassinate him. Besides, Ryan and company agree with him.

This 11 year old's body must have really wanted it...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...-several-times

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...?quick_picks=1

Though I suspect Akin would focus on the Mom and say something about lack of family values...

More Akin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moron

Apologizing to all people, a lot of countries who are enemies, and apologizing to them and everything, you know, if we did something wrong that's one thing, but he's just apologizing because he didn't like America. I think that's the wrong thing to do.

Richard Mourdock the GOP candidate for the Senate says pregnancy from rape is "something God intended". Romney had supported him yesterday but today not so much.