Nilatai wrote:
If all else fails I have the Al-Jazeera app on my phone.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Liberals are stupid.
Liberals are stupid.Follow
OMG YOU FILTHY TERRORIST!
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
If all else fails I have the Al-Jazeera app on my phone.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Yeah, liberals are stupid.
By the way, in case you conservatives don't know, you don't need to take more birth control pills the more you have sex, it's a once a day thing. But I can't blame Rush for thinking that more pills = better.
Quote:
A study by US researchers suggests that the wealthier you are the more likely you are to lie, cheat and break the law.
Paul Piff is a researcher at the University of California Berkeley.
Paul Piff: We looked at whether someone was driving a Mercedes or a less fancy car like a Corolla or a Civic from the 80s and used that to see whether drivers of more expensive vehicles were actually more inclined to break the law while driving by, for instance cutting off other cars at a four way intersection and indeed they were.
They were four times more likely to do that than drivers of less expensive vehicles.
His study found the upper class are more likely than poorer people to break road rules. They are also more likely to pinch lollies from children and lie for financial gain.
We had participants play a game where we said the computer's going to virtually roll a die for you five times and please keep track of your score because the higher your score is, the better your chances are of winning a cash prize and you're going to have to report your total score at the end of the game. Now what participants didn't know that we knew is that the game was rigged so everyone’s score would equal 12. So anyone who over-reported their score, by reporting a total score of more than 12, we knew was cheating.
Wealthier individuals, who, by definition have more money, are also more likely to afford lawyers or to be able to pay for the downstream consequences of unethical behaviour.
They're also less likely to see the kinds of risks that are associated with acting unethically. But what we highlight in this paper is that individuals from the upper echelons of society are more likely to think that the pursuit of self-interest and greed is a moral and positive thing.
And it's as a result of those more favourable attitudes towards greed that they're actually more inclined to behave unethically.
SIMON LONGSTAFF: It's always been more than just money; I mean it's anything that gives you a special status to say that you are beyond the pack. So it can be celebrity, it can be an inherited title. I think it’s something which is conditioned. I think, we're not talking about monsters here. We're talking about you know moderately decent people who just lose touch I think with where they stand in the world.
Paul Piff is a researcher at the University of California Berkeley.
Paul Piff: We looked at whether someone was driving a Mercedes or a less fancy car like a Corolla or a Civic from the 80s and used that to see whether drivers of more expensive vehicles were actually more inclined to break the law while driving by, for instance cutting off other cars at a four way intersection and indeed they were.
They were four times more likely to do that than drivers of less expensive vehicles.
His study found the upper class are more likely than poorer people to break road rules. They are also more likely to pinch lollies from children and lie for financial gain.
We had participants play a game where we said the computer's going to virtually roll a die for you five times and please keep track of your score because the higher your score is, the better your chances are of winning a cash prize and you're going to have to report your total score at the end of the game. Now what participants didn't know that we knew is that the game was rigged so everyone’s score would equal 12. So anyone who over-reported their score, by reporting a total score of more than 12, we knew was cheating.
Wealthier individuals, who, by definition have more money, are also more likely to afford lawyers or to be able to pay for the downstream consequences of unethical behaviour.
They're also less likely to see the kinds of risks that are associated with acting unethically. But what we highlight in this paper is that individuals from the upper echelons of society are more likely to think that the pursuit of self-interest and greed is a moral and positive thing.
And it's as a result of those more favourable attitudes towards greed that they're actually more inclined to behave unethically.
SIMON LONGSTAFF: It's always been more than just money; I mean it's anything that gives you a special status to say that you are beyond the pack. So it can be celebrity, it can be an inherited title. I think it’s something which is conditioned. I think, we're not talking about monsters here. We're talking about you know moderately decent people who just lose touch I think with where they stand in the world.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3441695.htm?WT.svl=bestOfScroller
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
By the way, in case you conservatives don't know, you don't need to take more birth control pills the more you have sex, it's a once a day thing. But I can't blame Rush for thinking that more pills = better.
On the other hand, Viagra is something like $10 a shot and can easily run you several thousand for the year taking them solely on a as-needed basis. Yeah, I get that he pays for it out of pocket but if I'm supposed to be shocked that someone's prescription contraceptive costs are for "so much sex it costs $3,000"... well, glass houses and all that.
Edited, Mar 3rd 2012 9:15am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
By the way, in case you conservatives don't know, you don't need to take more birth control pills the more you have sex, it's a once a day thing. But I can't blame Rush for thinking that more pills = better.
Limbaugh's argument is based on Fluke saying women pay on average $3000 over three years for contraceptives. Craig Bannister (CNS director of communications), said that this means she must buy 1000 $1 condoms a year; and thus has sex 2.74 times a day. He shared it with Glenn Beck, who shared it with Limbaugh; hence his "she's having sex with 3 people tonight" comment.
Apparently none of these men have heard of the pill, OB-GYN visits, testing services, Plan B, or any of the other many types of birth control.
Makes me wonder; when someone discusses health insurance, do you think Bannister, Beck, and Limbaugh only think they're talking about band-aids?
Quote:
Yeah, liberals are stupid.
By the way, in case you conservatives don't know, you don't need to take more birth control pills the more you have sex, it's a once a day thing. But I can't blame Rush for thinking that more pills = better.
By the way, in case you conservatives don't know, you don't need to take more birth control pills the more you have sex, it's a once a day thing. But I can't blame Rush for thinking that more pills = better.
While I think calling her a **** was childish (it's something liberals would do and Rush is better than that) the "funny" thing has been watching liberals come unglued over this (while trying not to trip over their own hypocrisy)rubbing their hands together in hopes of making her another "victim" they can come to the rescue of (The Huffingtonpost has now started referring to her as the "Limbaugh's Victim") and of course Barry never missing a chance to pander (His poll numbers have been down with women so the only thing that could have made this better for him is if Sandra Fluke had been a illegal immigrant)made sure to give her a call (and made sure the media knew about it as soon as he picked the phone up) to tell her that he is there for her.
And yes we are aware that you don't need to take more birth control pills the more you have sex but that is not what Sandra Fluke who volunteered to testify before congress testified about. Sandra went before congress to state that her and her classmates could not afford the $3,000 worth of contraceptives they were using a year. (You see contraceptives is more than just birth control pills)and so despite the religious objections of the school she choose to go to they should give her and her friends "free" access to it.
Quote:
Quote:
A study by US researchers suggests that the wealthier you are the more likely you are to lie, cheat and break the law.
Paul Piff is a researcher at the University of California Berkeley.
Paul Piff: We looked at whether someone was driving a Mercedes or a less fancy car like a Corolla or a Civic from the 80s and used that to see whether drivers of more expensive vehicles were actually more inclined to break the law while driving by, for instance cutting off other cars at a four way intersection and indeed they were.
They were four times more likely to do that than drivers of less expensive vehicles.
His study found the upper class are more likely than poorer people to break road rules. They are also more likely to pinch lollies from children and lie for financial gain.
We had participants play a game where we said the computer's going to virtually roll a die for you five times and please keep track of your score because the higher your score is, the better your chances are of winning a cash prize and you're going to have to report your total score at the end of the game. Now what participants didn't know that we knew is that the game was rigged so everyone’s score would equal 12. So anyone who over-reported their score, by reporting a total score of more than 12, we knew was cheating.
Wealthier individuals, who, by definition have more money, are also more likely to afford lawyers or to be able to pay for the downstream consequences of unethical behaviour.
They're also less likely to see the kinds of risks that are associated with acting unethically. But what we highlight in this paper is that individuals from the upper echelons of society are more likely to think that the pursuit of self-interest and greed is a moral and positive thing.
And it's as a result of those more favourable attitudes towards greed that they're actually more inclined to behave unethically.
SIMON LONGSTAFF: It's always been more than just money; I mean it's anything that gives you a special status to say that you are beyond the pack. So it can be celebrity, it can be an inherited title. I think it’s something which is conditioned. I think, we're not talking about monsters here. We're talking about you know moderately decent people who just lose touch I think with where they stand in the world.
A study by US researchers suggests that the wealthier you are the more likely you are to lie, cheat and break the law.
Paul Piff is a researcher at the University of California Berkeley.
Paul Piff: We looked at whether someone was driving a Mercedes or a less fancy car like a Corolla or a Civic from the 80s and used that to see whether drivers of more expensive vehicles were actually more inclined to break the law while driving by, for instance cutting off other cars at a four way intersection and indeed they were.
They were four times more likely to do that than drivers of less expensive vehicles.
His study found the upper class are more likely than poorer people to break road rules. They are also more likely to pinch lollies from children and lie for financial gain.
We had participants play a game where we said the computer's going to virtually roll a die for you five times and please keep track of your score because the higher your score is, the better your chances are of winning a cash prize and you're going to have to report your total score at the end of the game. Now what participants didn't know that we knew is that the game was rigged so everyone’s score would equal 12. So anyone who over-reported their score, by reporting a total score of more than 12, we knew was cheating.
Wealthier individuals, who, by definition have more money, are also more likely to afford lawyers or to be able to pay for the downstream consequences of unethical behaviour.
They're also less likely to see the kinds of risks that are associated with acting unethically. But what we highlight in this paper is that individuals from the upper echelons of society are more likely to think that the pursuit of self-interest and greed is a moral and positive thing.
And it's as a result of those more favourable attitudes towards greed that they're actually more inclined to behave unethically.
SIMON LONGSTAFF: It's always been more than just money; I mean it's anything that gives you a special status to say that you are beyond the pack. So it can be celebrity, it can be an inherited title. I think it’s something which is conditioned. I think, we're not talking about monsters here. We're talking about you know moderately decent people who just lose touch I think with where they stand in the world.
LMAO I knew it just a matter of time before one of you posted this joke of a story. (And btw thank you for posting this in here as it proves my point. Liberals are stupid)
Did you read this whole article? Do you know how these "top" researchers came up with this society shattering conclusion?
They took the answers from about 450 people who filled out a questionnaire on craigslist about how much money they made a year (and of course everyone answered the question truthfully because nobody ever lies on craiglist especially about how much money they make)and then watched them play a dice game.
After exhausting research like the research done above I'm sure they didn't need anymore data to confirm their theory but being the "top" researches they were (I'm sure they went to Harvard and MIT just like Smash did)they wanted to be sure of their claim (So that the Nobel prize committee would have no doubt of their brilliance) they then watched traffic cam footage and watched how nice of a car you drove and if you had a nice car and broke a traffic law or cut someone off then you must be rich and therefore more likely to cheat and break the law.
And my favorite part of the whole article? This bit of brilliant observation. "Wealthier individuals, who, by definition have more money"
You guys make this too easy.
varusX wrote:
While I think
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
Well, we know that's not true.
Wow that was quick response it's almost as if you never leave here...
What a understanding "girlfriend" you must have lolgaxe. She doesn't mind you being in here at all hours of the day and night, on holidays, weekends or Anniversaries. We should all be so lucky to have a special someone like you have.
I'm jealous.
varusX wrote:
I'm jealous.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
varusX wrote:
That's it?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64ThiefX,
Posted: Mar 03 2012 at 10:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Their embarrassment is still there for you (including mine now) just a little more so now.
varusX wrote:
(including mine now)
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
It's noble of ThiefX to try to take up the torch of his fallen comrade. But can he sustain the level of stupidity required to fill both his and varus' quotas at the same time?
Time will tell.
Time will tell.
Meh, I predict he will burn out and get the ban hammer before he hits 1000 posts if he tries to push it that hard. I can safely say that not a single care will be given either. 
ThiefX wrote:
Barry never missing a chance to pander (His poll numbers have been down with women
Quote:
The poll, conducted Feb. 16-20, found that female voters are more likely than men to credit the president for the economy’s slow but steady turnaround. Obama’s approval rating among women jumped to 53 percent, up ten percent from just a few months ago, the poll found.
Don't believe everything Limbaugh spoonfeeds you, cupcake.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Quote:
The poll, conducted Feb. 16-20, found that female voters are more likely than men to credit the president for the economy’s slow but steady turnaround. Obama’s approval rating among women jumped to 53 percent, up ten percent from just a few months ago, the poll found.
Don't believe everything Limbaugh spoonfeeds you, cupcake.
The poll, conducted Feb. 16-20, found that female voters are more likely than men to credit the president for the economy’s slow but steady turnaround. Obama’s approval rating among women jumped to 53 percent, up ten percent from just a few months ago, the poll found.
Don't believe everything Limbaugh spoonfeeds you, cupcake.
Except my statement about polls numbers came from not Rush but that bastion of Conservative ideas and ideology the Denver Post and the Huffington Post/AP Article. But hey Joph you picking out a small bit of a larger post and playing semantics is what I expected.
Link
My Favorite parts.
Quote:
His support dropped among this critical constituency just before the new year began and the presidential campaign got underway in earnest. But his standing with female voters is strengthening, polls show, as the economy improves and social issues, including birth control, become a bigger part of the nation's political discourse.
Quote:
The recent furor over whether religious-affiliated employers should be forced to pay for their workers' contraception is certainly a factor
Quote:
For Obama, there is no more crucial constituency than women. They make up a majority of voters in presidential elections, and a bit more of them identify with his party
This is why a discussion about religious freedom has now become "THE WAR AGAINST WOMEN!!!!!!!!"
Why are you people feeding the troll?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
So Obama talking about this chick yesterday affected his approval rating among women from Feb 16-20?
Obama's a WIZARD!
You forgot this line while babbling about contraceptives:
Edited, Mar 3rd 2012 2:34pm by Jophiel
Obama's a WIZARD!
You forgot this line while babbling about contraceptives:
Quote:
Among women, his approval ratings on handling the economy and unemployment have jumped by 10 percentage points, from 43 to 53 percent
Edited, Mar 3rd 2012 2:34pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Nilatai wrote:
Why are you people feeding the troll?
Meanwhile, in another thread, Nilatai engages Alma in fruitful discourse.
#74ThiefX,
Posted: Mar 03 2012 at 3:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I responded to your comment that his poll numbers have been down with women and this is what you have? This is your argument? A small part of a larger post you've miss-characterized and a smiley face in some pathetic attempt to hide the fact you made some stupid comment and can't admit you're wrong.
ThiefX wrote:
Where did I claim his approval rating with women went up because he called Sarah Fluke? I said he called Sarah Fluke to pander to a group where his ratings have been down.
Except they weren't down when he called her. Your attempt to play cause & effect has failed.
Keep on yelping and acting increasingly unhinged though. Guess the odds for 2012 are getting to ya
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
El Rushbo must have been losing advertisers as he chose the weekend to make a meek online apology
Of course his previous remarks during the stir where he mocked everyone for being upset makes his apology rather false sounding but the almighty dollar told him to shut up and take his medicine.
Edited, Mar 3rd 2012 4:51pm by Jophiel
Quote:
Rush Limbaugh issued a statement apologizing for calling a Georgetown law student a "****" for her congressional testimony on birth control.
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke [...] My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke [...] My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
Of course his previous remarks during the stir where he mocked everyone for being upset makes his apology rather false sounding but the almighty dollar told him to shut up and take his medicine.
Edited, Mar 3rd 2012 4:51pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 376
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (376)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Liberals are stupid.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC