It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:34 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:22 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7702
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0RvxC0hfHo

1. A Female doing the equivalent of "Juicing" in a Sport with Male enhancing/creating drugs, should not be competing against women.
She is basically CHEATING.... and that Leftists think this is a good thing to do against other females is astounding.

2. Leftists somehow think perverts, peeping toms, pedophiles, etc. don't exist.
Thus, if all it takes is "saying" you are a Female, to be able to go into the Women's bathroom, locker rooms etc., then that also is utterly astounding that leftists promote this. Men who think they are women have been going into men's bathrooms for eon's, EVEN dressed as women, and men simply don't give a ____. Thus there is absolutely ZERO reason why men "need" to be going into women's restrooms where there are children, let alone women period.

Leftism isn't about "science" or facts, it's about feelings. They don't want anyone's "feelings" to be hurt, give people whatever they want, it doesn't matter how it does and can hurt others, or infringe on others rights. Illegal Immigration, destroying lives with crime, resources, jobs taken, etc., or Gay "Marriage", Cakes/Services for Gay Weddings, Abortion, or Tranny's wanting to be in women's restrooms, all of it is infringing on the rights of others while claiming rights.

Your rights end the moment they infringe on others, but you leftists don't' get that. You leftists are Fascist to the core.

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 4236
Did someone say anti-science?

Here's an example:

Image

Then there's reality:

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:49 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:51 pm
Posts: 6071
Faqless:

Women are in more danger from your hero Drumpf.
SEE http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 57866.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm
Posts: 9070
Location: The Orange House: The loft overlooking the garden
ldsfaqs wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0RvxC0hfHo

1. A Female doing the equivalent of "Juicing" in a Sport with Male enhancing/creating drugs, should not be competing against women.
She is basically CHEATING.... and that Leftists think this is a good thing to do against other females is astounding.


Wrong. He tested well under the permitted limits. Plus, he wanted to compete with the other boys, but was not allowed. Plus, humans have natural variations in hormone levels. There are a lot of top female athletes that have naturally high levels of certain hormones. That's life. Some people have physical advantages. That's kind of the whole point. But, I agree that he should have been allowed to compete with the other boys.

Also, asthma medication is a steroid. Should we disallow asthmatics from competition?

Quote:
2. Leftists somehow think perverts, peeping toms, pedophiles, etc. don't exist.
Thus, if all it takes is "saying" you are a Female, to be able to go into the Women's bathroom, locker rooms etc., then that also is utterly astounding that leftists promote this. Men who think they are women have been going into men's bathrooms for eon's, EVEN dressed as women, and men simply don't give a ____. Thus there is absolutely ZERO reason why men "need" to be going into women's restrooms where there are children, let alone women period.


Um. You realize there are children in the men's room, as well, right? Why are you so faux concerned over the children in the womens room, but not the mens room? If you are so worried about people in the bathroom how come people on the sex offenders list haven't had their public bathroom usage revoked??? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Segregated bathrooms are not necessary. There are lots of ways to solve the perceived issue without causing harm to trans people. Many places have been doing it for years with family bathrooms and single stall/room bathrooms that anyone can use.

BTW, trans people often face violence when they use the bathroom. They are at far more risk than cis people when it comes to using the restroom. Trans people are some of the most "modest" people you will find in a locker room situation. The last thing they want to do is draw attention to themselves.

Read a damn book.

_________________
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:17 am
Posts: 1312
Location: Past Caring, then hang a left
Anti science rant? :lol:


You’re a little hypocrite short and stout,
here is your outrage
here is your shout,
when you see something you don’t like watch you pout,
whine like a child and block it out.

_________________
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people, Jeremy.- Super Hans

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.- H. L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:45 am
Posts: 8353
Location: somewhere else
just me wrote:
Read a damn book.

Been saying this for years.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:06 am 
Area Authority
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:49 pm
Posts: 604
Blixa wrote:
just me wrote:
Read a damn book.
Been saying this for years.

some most of you will not read this; even it is about of them.
from the "tragedy of the moon" by isaac asimov

my highlights. please, read at least of them...
Quote:
THE ANCIENT AND THE ULTIMATE

About three weeks ago (as I write this) I attended a seminar in up-state New York, one that dealt with communications and society. The role assigned was a small one, but I spent four full days there, so I had a chance to hear all the goings on.*

(* Lest you think I was violating my principles by taking a vacation, I might as well tell you that I brought my hand typewriter with me, and used it, too.)

The very first night I was there I heard a particularly good lecture by an extraordinarily intelligent and charming gentleman who was involved in the field of TV cassettes.

He made out an attractive and, to my way of thinking, irrefutable case in favour of the cassettes as representing the communications wave of the future - or, anyway, one of the waves.

He pointed out that for the commercial programmes intended to support the fearfully expensive TV stations and the frightfully avid advertisers, audiences in the tens of millions were an absolute necessity.

As we all know, the only things that have a chance of pleasing twenty-five to fifty million different people are those that carefully avoid giving any occasion for offence. Anything that will add spice or flavour will offend someone and lose.

So it's the unflavoured pap that survives, not because it pleases, but because it gives no occasion for displeasing. (Well, some people, you and I, for instance, are displeased, but when advertising magnates add up the total number of you and me and others like us, the final sum sends them into fits of scornful laughter.)

Cassettes, however, that please specialised tastes are selling content only, and don't have to mask it with a spurious and costly polish or the presence of a high-priced entertainment star. Present a cassette on chess strategy with chessmen symbols moving on a chessboard, and nothing else is needed to sell x number of cassettes to x number of chess enthusiasts. If enough is charged per cassette to cover the expense of making the tape (plus an honest profit) and if the expected number of sales are made, then all is well. There may be unexpected flops, but there may be unexpected best sellers too.

In short, the television-cassette business will rather resemble the book-publishing business.

The speaker made this point perfectly clear, and when he said, "the manuscript of the future will not be a badly typed sheaf of papers but a neatly photographed sequence of images", I could not help but fidget.

Maybe the fidgeting made me conspicuous as I sat there in the front row, for the speaker then added, "And men like Isaac Asimov will find themselves outmoded and replaced".

Naturally I jumped - and everybody laughed cheerfully at the thought of my being outmoded and replaced.

Two days later, the speaker scheduled for that evening made a trans-Atlantic call to say he was unavoidably detained in London, so the charming lady who was running the seminar came to me and asked me sweetly if I would fill in.

Naturally I said I hadn't prepared anything, and naturally she said that it was well known that I needed no preparation to give a terrific talk, and naturally I melted at the first sign of flattery, and naturally I got up that evening, and naturally I gave a terrific talk.*
(* Well, everybody said so.)

It was all very natural.

I can't possibly tell you exactly what I said, because, like all my talks, it was off the cuff, but, as I recall, the essence was something like this:

The speaker of two days before having spoken of TV cassettes and having given a fascinating and quite brilliant picture of a future in which cassettes and satellites dominated the communications picture, I was now going to make use of my science-fiction expertise to look still further ahead and see how cassettes could be further improved and refined, and made still more sophisticated.

In the first place, the cassettes, as demonstrated by the speaker, needed a rather bulky and expensive piece of apparatus to decode the tape, to place images on a television screen, and to put the accompanying sound on a speaker.

Obviously we would expect this auxiliary equipment to be made smaller, lighter, and more mobile. Ultimately we would expect it to disappear altogether and become part of the cassette itself.

Secondly, energy is required to convert the information contained in the cassette into image and sound, and this places a strain on the environment. (All use of energy does that, and while we can't avoid using energy, there is no value in using more than we must.)

Consequently we can expect the amount of energy required to translate the cassette to decrease. Ultimately we would expect it to reach a value of zero and disappear.

Therefore we can imagine a cassette that is completely mobile and self-contained. Though it requires energy in its formation, it requires no energy and no special equipment for its use thereafter. It needn't be plugged into the wall; it needs no battery replacements; it can be carried with you wherever you feel most comfortable about viewing it: in bed, in the bathroom, in a tree, in the attic.

A cassette as ordinarily viewed makes sounds, of course, and casts light. Naturally it should make itself plain to you in both image and sound, but for it to obtrude on the attention of others, who may not be interested, is a flaw. Ideally, the self-contained mobile cassette should be seen and heard only by you.

No matter how sophisticated the cassettes now on the market, or those visualised for the immediate future, they do require controls. There is an on-off knob or switch, and others to regulate colour, volume, brightness, contrast, and all that sort of thing. In my vision, I want to make such controls operated, as far as possible, by the will.

I foresee a cassette in which the tape stops as soon as you remove your eye. It remains stopped till you bring your eye back, at which point it begins to move again immediately. I foresee a cassette that plays its tape quickly or slowly, forward or backward, by skips, or with repetitions, entirely at will.

You'll have to admit that such a cassette would be a perfect futuristic dream: self-contained, mobile, nonenergy-consuming, perfectly private, and largely under the control of the will.

Ah, but dreams are cheap, so let's get practical. Gan such a cassette possibly exist? To this, ray answer is, yes, of course.

The next question is: How many years will we have to wait for such a deliriously perfect cassette?

I have that answer too, and quite a definite one. We will have it in minus five thousand years - because what I have been describing (as perhaps you have guessed) is the book!

Am I cheating? Does it seem to you, O Gentle Reader, that the book is not the ultimately refined cassette, for it presents words only, and no image, that words without images are somehow one-dimensional and divorced from reality, that we cannot expect to get information by words alone concerning a universe that exists in images?

Well, let's consider that. Is the image more important than the word?

Certainly if we consider man's purely physical activities, the sense of sight is by far the most important way in which he gathers information concerning the universe. Given my choice of running across rough country with my eyes blindfolded and my hearing sharp, or with my eyes open and my hearing out of action, I would certainly use my eyes. In fact, with my eyes closed I would move at all only with the greatest caution.

But at some early stage in man's development he invented speech. He learned how to modulate his expired breath and how to use different modulations of sound to serve as agreed- upon symbols of material objects and actions and - far more important - of abstractions.

Eventually he learned to encode modulated sounds into markings that could be seen by the eye and translated into the corresponding sound in the brain. A book, I need not tell you, is a device that contains what we might call "stored speech".

It is speech that represents the most fundamental distinction between man and all other animals (except possibly the dolphin, which may conceivably have speech but has never worked out a system for storing it).

Not only do speech and the potential capacity to store speech differentiate man from all other species of life who have lived now or in the past, but it is something all men have in common. All known groups of human beings, however "primitive" they may be, can and do speak, and can and do have a language. Some "primitive" peoples have very complex and sophisticated languages, I understand.

What's more, all human beings who are even nearly normal in mentality learn to speak at an early age.

With speech the universal attribute of mankind, it becomes true that more information reaches us — as social animals - through speech than through images.

The comparison isn't even close. Speech and its stored forms (the written or printed word) are so overwhelmingly a source of the information we get, that without them we are helpless.

To see what I mean, let's consider a television programme, since that ordinarily involves both speech and image, and let's ask ourselves what happens if we do without the one or the other.

Suppose you darken the picture and allow the sound to remain. Won't you still get a pretty good notion of what's going on? There may be spots rich in action and poor in sound and may leave you frustrated by dark silence, but if it were anticipated that you would not see the image, a few lines could be added and you would miss nothing.

Indeed radio got by on sound alone. It used speech and "sound effects". This meant that there were occasional moments when the dialogue was artificial to make up for the lack of image: 'there comes Harry now. Oh, he doesn't see the banana. Oh, he's stepping on the banana. There he goes". By and large, though, you could get along. I doubt that anyone listening to radio seriously missed the absence of image.

Back to the TV tube, however. Now turn off the sound and allow the vision to remain untouched - in perfect focus and full colour. Wrhat do you get out of it? Very little. Not all the play of emotion on the face, not all the impassioned gestures, not all the tricks of the camera as it focuses here and there are going to give you more than the haziest notion of what is going on.

Corresponding to radio, which is only speech and miscellaneous sound, there were the silent movies, which were only images. In the absence of sound and speech, the actors in the silent films had to "emote". Oh, the flashing eyes; oh, the hands at the throat, in the air, raised to heaven; oh, the fingers pointing trustingly to heaven, firmly to the floor, angrily to the door; oh, the camera moving in to show the banana skin on the floor, the ace in the sleeve, the fly on the nose. And with every extreme of inventiveness of visualisation in its most exaggerated form, what did we have every fifteen seconds? An utter halt to the action, while words flashed on the screen.

This is not to say that one cannot communicate after a fashion by vision alone - by the use of pictorial images. A clever pantomimist like Marcel Marceau or Charlie Chaplin or Red Skelton can do wonders - but the very reason we watch them and applaud is that they communicate so much with so poor a medium as pictorialisation.

As a matter of fact, we amuse ourselves by playing charades and trying to have someone guess some simple phrase we "act out". It wouldn't be a successful game if it didn't require much ingenuity, and, even so, practitioners of the game work up sets of signals and devices that (whether they know it or not) take advantage of the mechanics of speech.

They divide words into syllables, they indicate whether a word is short or long, they use synonyms and "sounds like". In all this, they are using visual images to speak. Without using any trick that involves any of the properties of speech, but simply by gesture and action alone, can you get across as simple a sentence as, "Yesterday the sunset was beautiful in rose and green"?

Of course a movie camera can photograph a beautiful sunset and you can point to that. This involves a great investment of technology, however, and I'm not sure that it will tell you that the sunset was like that yesterday (unless the film plays tricks with calendars - which represent a form of speech).

Or consider this: Shakespeare's plays were written to be acted. The image was of the essence. To get the full flavour, you must see the actors and what they are doing. How much do you miss if you go to Hamlet and close your eyes and merely listen? How much do you miss if you plug your ears and merely look?

Having made clear my belief that a book, which consists of words but no images, loses very little by its lack of images and has therefore every right to be considered an extremely sophisticated example of a television cassette, let me change my ground and use an even better argument.

Far from lacking the image, a book does have images, and what's more, far better images, because personal, than any that can possibly be presented to you on television.

When you are reading an interesting book, are there no images in your mind? Do you not see all that is going on, in your mind's eye?

Those images are yours. They belong to you and to you alone, and they are infinitely better for you than those wished on you by others.

I saw Gene Kelly in The Three Musketeers once (the only version I ever saw that was reasonably faithful to the book). The sword fight between D'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis on one side and the five men of the Cardinal's Guard on the other, which occurs near the beginning of the picture, was absolutely beautiful. It was a dance of course, and I revelled in it.... But Gene Kelly, however talented a dancer he might be, does not happen to fit the picture of D'Artagnan that I have in my mind's eye, and I was unhappy all through the picture because it did violence to "my The Three Musketeers.

This is not to say that sometimes an actor might not just happen to match your own vision. Sherlock Holmes in my mind just happens to be Basil Rathbone. In your mind, however, Sherlock Holmes might not be Basil Rathbone; he might be Dustin Hoffman, for all I know. Why should all our millions of Sherlock Holmes's have to be fitted into a single Basil Rathbone?

You see, then, why a television programme, however excellent, can never give as much pleasure, be as absorbing, fill so important a niche in the life of the imagination, as a book can. To the television programme we need only bring an empty mind and sit torpidly while the display of sound and image fills us, requiring nothing of our imagination. If others are watching, they are filled to the brim in precisely the same way, all of them, and with precisely the same sounding images.

The book, on the other hand, demands co-operation from the reader. It insists he take part in the process.

In doing so, it offers an interrelationship that is made to order by the reader himself for the reader himself - one that most neatly fits his own pecularities and idiosyncracies.

When you read a book, you create your own images, you create the sound of various voices, you create gestures, expressions, emotions. You create everything but the bare words themselves. And if you take the slightest pleasure in creation, the book has given you something the television programme can't.

Furthermore, if ten thousand people read the same book at the same time, each nevertheless creates his own images, his own sound of the voice, his own gestures, expressions, emotions. It will be not one book but ten thousand books. It will not be the product of the author alone, but the product of the interaction of the author and each of the readers separately.

What, then, can replace the book?

I admit that the book may undergo changes in non-essentials. It was once handwritten; it is now printed. The technology of publishing the printed book has advanced in a hundred ways, and in the future a book may be turned out electronically from a television set in your house.

In the end, though, you will be alone with the printed word, and what can replace it?

Is all this wishful thinking? Is it just that I make my living out of books, so I don't want to accept the fact that books may be replaced? Am I just inventing ingenious arguments to console myself?

Not at all. I am certain that books will not be replaced in the future, because they have not been replaced in the past.

To be sure, many more people watch television than read books, but that is not new. Books were always a minority activity. Few people read books before television, and before radio, and before anything you care to name.

As I said, books are demanding, and require creative activity on the part of the reader. Not everyone, in fact darned few, are ready to give what is demanded, so they don't read, and they won't read. They are not lost just because the book fails them somehow; they are lost by nature.

In fact let me make the point that reading itself is difficult, inordinately difficult. It is not like talking, which every even halfway normal child learns without any programme of conscious teaching. Imitation beginning at the age of one will do the trick.

Reading, on the other hand, must be carefully taught and, usually, without much luck.

The trouble is that we mislead ourselves by our own definition of literacy. We can teach almost anyone (if we try hard enough and long enough) to read traffic signs and to make out instructions and warnings on posters, and to puzzle out newspaper headlines. Provided the printed message is short and reasonably simple and the motivation to read it is great, almost everyone can read.

And if this is called literacy, then almost every American is literate. But if you then begin to wonder why so few Americans read books (the average American out of school, I understand, does not even read one complete book a year), you are being misled by your own use of the term literate.

Few people who are literate in the sense of being able to read a sign that says no smoking ever become so familiar with the printed word and so at ease with the process of quickly decoding by eye the small and complicated shapes that stand for modulated sounds that they are willing to tackle any extended reading task - as for instance making their way through one thousand consecutive words.

Nor do I think it's entirely a matter of the failure of our educational system (though heaven knows it's a failure). No one expects that if one teaches every child how to play baseball, they will all be talented baseball players, or that every child taught how to play the piano will be a talented pianist. We accept in almost every field of endeavour the notion of a talent that can be encouraged and developed but cannot be created from nothing.

Well, in my view, reading is a talent too. It is a very difficult activity. Let me tell you how I discovered that.

When I was a teenager, I sometimes read comic magazines, and my favourite character, if you're interested, was Scrooge McDuck. In those days, comic magazines cost ten cents, but of course I read them for nothing off my father's news-stand. I used to wonder, though, how anyone would be so foolish as to pay ten cents, when by simply glancing through the magazine for two minutes at the news-stand, he could read the whole thing.

Then one day on the subway to Columbia University, I found myself hanging from a strap in a crowded car with nothing handy to read. Fortunately the teenage girl seated in front of me was reading a comic magazine. Something is better than nothing, so I arranged myself so I could look down on the pages and read along with her. (Fortunately I can read upside down as easily as right side up.)

Then, after a few seconds, I thought, Why doesn't she turn the page?

She did, eventually. It took minutes for her to finish each double-page spread, and as I watched her eyes going from one panel to the next and her lips carefully mumbling the words, I had a flash of insight.

What she was doing was what I would be doing if I were faced with English words written phonetically in the Hebrew, Greek, or Cyrillic alphabet. Knowing the respective alphabets dimly, I would have to first recognize each letter, then sound it, then put them together, then recognize the word. Then I would have to pass on to the next, word and do the same. Then, when I had done several words this way, I would have to go back and try to get them in combination.

You can bet that under those circumstances, I would do very little reading. The only reason I read is that when I look at a line of print I see it all as words, and at once.

And the difference between the reader and the nonreader grows steadily wider with the years. The more a reader reads, the more information he picks up, the larger his vocabulary grows, the more familiar various literary allusions become. It becomes steadily easier and more fun for him to read, while for the non-reader it becomes steadily harder and less worth while.

The result of this is that there are and always have been (whatever the state of supposed literacy in a particular society) both readers and non-readers, with the former making up a tiny minority, of, I guess, less than I per cent.

I have estimated that four hundred thousand Americans have read some of my books (out of a population of two hundred million), and I am considered, and consider myself, a successful writer. If a particular book should sell two million copies in all its American editions, it would be a remarkable best seller - and all that would mean would be that i per cent of the American population had managed to nerve themselves to buy it. Of that total, moreover, I'm willing to bet that at least half would manage to do no more than stumble through some of it in order to find the dirty parts.

Those people, those non-readers, those passive receptacles for entertainment, are terribly fickle. They will switch from one thing to another in the eternal search for some device that will give them as much as possible and ask of them as little as possible.

From minstrels to theatrical performances, from the theatre to the movies, from the silents to the talkies, from black-and-white to colour, from the record player to the radio and back, from the movies to television to colour television to cassettes.

What does it matter?

But through it all, the faithful less-than-1-per-cent minority stick to the books. Only the printed word can demand as much from them, only the printed word can force creativity out of them, only the printed word can tailor itself to their needs and desires, only the printed word can give them what nothing else can.

The book may be ancient but it is also the ultimate, and readers will never be seduced away from it. They will remain a minority, but they will remain.

So despite what my friend said in his speech on cassettes, writers of books will never be outmoded and replaced. Writing books may be no way to get rich (oh, well, what's money!), but as a profession, it will always be there.

_________________
Choyo Chagas is Chairman of the Big Four, the ruler of the planet from "The Bull's Hour" ( Russian: Час Быка), a social science fiction novel written by Soviet author and paleontologist Ivan Yefremov in 1968.
Six months after its publication Soviet authorities banned the book and attempted to remove it from libraries and bookshops.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:34 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:51 pm
Posts: 6071
Cool. :smile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:21 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7702
canpakes wrote:
Did someone say anti-science?

Here's an example:

Image

Then there's reality:

Image


No matter how much you tell the same lies.... It doesn't make them true.

And again you are a mental/moral reject as I've explained already...

1. Someone else created the image that had the 8 Time covers, which included that one incorrect one.

2. A leftist as part of a smear campaign on no-name leftist websites created that false image to slander conservatives (separately, having nothing to do with the 8 image compilation)

3. It was clearly a perfectly innocent mistake by the compiler of the 8 images, including mine by using it.

4. I immediately corrected the mistake when you informed me of it.

Again, YOU are the liar, and you are nothing like me. I admit my mistakes and correct them, every single time (what 3 or 4 now over the years on this forum?)
Tell me how many of all your LIES (which is almost every time you open your mouth) you've corrected after they've been debunked by the actual facts and truth?
ZERO....!

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:38 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7702
Blixa wrote:
just me wrote:
Read a damn book.

Been saying this for years.


Up until 1998, I read approximately 1,000 books, and "skimmed" researched around another 1,000 more. So that was about 27 years of life.
My own library, that was 100% mine, not family or otherwise (given I had none) had around 500 books in it, and they were all on Religions, Philosophy, Sports, Martial Arts, and other "practical" subjects, that taught important and useful concepts/ideas things of life, including some business, etc.

While other, children and young men did whatever selfish things they do from partying, having fun, etc. I read, and only mostly went out to observe human behavior, some other activities, to experience various things, and for fitness and health. By the age of 7 I had in full read the Bible, been in several religions by the age of 10 and no religion, stopped entirely reading the comics of the Newspaper by age 10 but read the articles instead, and on and on.

But by 1998, it's when I discovered and got into the Internet, and it became my new Library. You can find and learn almost everything on the internet, faster, and especially more complete, because you can get a 1,000 sources on just one thing, so you can know ALL the facts of a subject, contrary to what some "Article" in a paper alone, or News Program, or even a book will tell you, especially when it concerns CURRENT EVENTS and issues.

So, books are good, for I read many in my time, but the Internet is the best book of all, because it's a LIBRARY at your finger tips, not just one library either, it's like having 10,000 in all countries, the entire world of information at your fingers.
You book learners in this age.... are ignorant. As a perfect example, while you people got your info about the Oregan Refuge from Mainstream media and you Papers (no books btw), I watched 100's of videos, from media, from the people actually there, their own words, their actions, everything.
You people are ignorant as ____ when it comes to anything.... Sorry, but get with the new age. You think you're "smarter" in your Ivory Elitist towers, you're the most ignorant of anyone in this day of information. Of course, not to say people can't be ignorant also in this day of information, it's why Leftists even still exist. They watch only their videos, believe and know only what their Leftist Professor's tell them, so in that since, they are even more ignorant than anyone, including those who still read books.

Further, I still read around a book a weak..... Audio books... So screw you. I absorb info like knowone else. Yes, I forget a lot of it, because I study so much, but the "lessons", the important understandings stay behind. None of you have nothing on me, so spare me your elitism.

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:13 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:51 pm
Posts: 6071
faqless:

How does one read any number of books in a "weak"?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:49 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 4236
Quote:
While other, children and young men did whatever selfish things they do from partying, having fun, etc...


Like sitting on your unemployed arse every day for years, overeating donated food, taking welfare dollars, ignoring your family and spending all of your days playing online tank games and lecturing everyone else about how librul they are?

Really, faqs, no one wants to be like you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CNN's Chris Cuomo's Anti-Science Trans Rant...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1383
The CCC wrote:
faqless:

How does one read any number of books in a "weak"?
Yeah, well, you should see him post when he's coherent. Someone should see him post when he's coherent. Just for the record.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group