It's one thing to be a prostitute. It's another thing to be a cheap prostitute. It's yet a third thing to be a cheap prostitute who accepts Monopoly money. But to be a cheap prostitute who gets stiffed on your Monopoly money? That takes skill.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/24/2010 10:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The new synonym stupak=
1.stupid
2.loser
3.whore
4.cheap whore
5.dirty rotten stinkin whore.....
feel free to add as we go along......kinda like they make the rules........as they go along
#3
After all, with a whore you know you're going to get screwed - and you usually want to get screwed. You might even enjoy it. And if you get anything 'extra' a visit to the Doctor can usually clear it up (or so I've heard :).
With Politicians - you never know how or where your get screwed and you usually don't want to be screwed. You definitely won't enjoy it. It'll always cost much, much, more than you ever bargained for, and you usually can't get rid of any 'extra's (like the takeover of student loans) without a lot of screaming and whinning and general pain...
[Asharq al-Aswat] It seems that the State of Law coalition which is led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is not afraid to use threats and subterfuge in order to remain in power. Al-Maliki called on the Independent High Electoral Commission [IHEC] to perform a manual recount of all votes "in order to protect the democratic experience and preserve the credibility of the electoral process." Al-Maliki used language that inspires concern when he said that he was speaking in his position as "the executive official responsible for drawing up and implementing the policy of the country and as the commander in chief of the armed forces." He is calling for a manual recount of votes, saying that this would "safeguard political stability and prevent a return to violence" in Iraq. Of course this is clear threatening language and an attempt by al-Maliki to maintain his grip on power. The measure of a nation's stability isn't so much the holding of elections as the transfer of power.
The issue does not stop here, and the State of Law coalition candidate Adnan al-Saraj issued a statement to the Iranian media saying that suspicions are hanging over the election results and warning that the Iraqi street has reached boiling point.
What is strange about al-Saraj's statement is that he said that there are suspicions surrounding the company that provided Iraq with the [electronic] vote counting devices, saying that this company "is owned by the MKO [People's Mujahedin of Iran] terrorist group and [these devices] could be programmed in a manner that does not allow them to identify [electoral] content, and this is something that strongly calls for a manual recount of votes." This is a ridiculous and pitiful claim!
With reference to these threatening statements, the question here must be: has Mr. Nuri al-Maliki today become the Ahmadinejad of Iraq?
Brandishing one's power by mentioning the armed forces only serves to remind us of one thing and that is when the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and other Iranian security apparatus rushed to control the situation following the last presidential elections in Tehran, suppressing the demonstrations who rejected what they saw to be a clear theft of their votes. This resulted in the division of Iranian society, and this division remains until today, and so is this something desired for Iraq?
If Mr. Nuri al-Maliki is keen to protect the democratic experience and preserve the credibility of the electoral process -- as he claims -- then he must first respect the ballot box and the election results. This is something that is not done through issuing threats or brandishing power, but rather by ensuring the peaceful transfer of power and making certain that Iraq crosses into safety, especially as Baghdad is at a critical stage. What has been accomplished in Iraq remains fragile, and there are sectarian tensions on one hand and external interference on the other, and the only hope that Iraq has seen is from the results of the election. These results -- as noted in previous articles -- show a national awareness, and this is a sign of the rejection of the religious trends, and the Iraqis have voted in a manner that is a cause for optimism for the secular coalition which is headed by Dr. Iyad Allawi.
Prior to the Iraqi elections and in light of the suppression of some with regards to excluding some candidates from the democratic process under the pretext of "Debathification" the fear was that Iraq would become another Lebanon. However today it seems that we are facing a greater threat than this, which is the danger of Iraq as a whole following the Iranian experience; therefore we say beware that Nuri al-Maliki does not become Iraq's Ahmadinejad.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/24/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ION NEWS KERALA > {Bollywood Actors-Activists] IMAGINE WARS FOR WATER!; + "ONCE IN A CENTURY" HEAT WAVE MAY HIT MARCH WHEAT CROP.
* ARTIC > Search for "Anthropegenic Warming" > becom a covert or alternate surlabel for OWG-NWO + "OWG/GLOBAL TAXATION" which no American = Amerikan Congresscritter has formally admitted or proposed, nor any US Voter-Citizen has voted for!
(CNSNews.com) - Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that "cognitive" brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says "climate change" is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants. "You don't agree with me, so you must be dumb. You won't even agree with me when I holler at you, so you must be 'tarded."
George Lakoff, Him again. He's been blabbering like this for a while now.
a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book "The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics," ... and noted expert, expert on climate change ...
says his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one's bodily experience and how one functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says. "Ignore all that nonsense about 'cause' and 'effect.'"
Lakoff told CNSNews.com that "metaphors" shape a person's understanding of the world, along with one's values and political beliefs -- including what they think about global warming. "It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong," Lakoff said. "And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science," Lakoff said. "They absolutely refuse to buy into the idea that if a little of something is good, more of it must be better, and lots is even better."
On the other hand, he added, liberals' cognitive process allows them to be "open-minded." "We free-thinkers are ready to believe five impossible things before breakfast! And we can prove it with our morning papers!"
"Liberals say, 'Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,'" Lakoff said. "Conservatives say 'Look seriously at the data and see if it's valid.' Now, what kind of good will that do?"
In a Feb. 23 report on National Public Radio, reporter Christopher Joyce began his story by stating that recent polls show that fewer Americans believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite "a raft" of contradictory reports. "This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one's beliefs," Joyce said.
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year.
Joyce interviewed social scientist and lawyer Don Braman, a George Washington University faculty member. "People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view," said Braman, who is part of a "Cultural Cognitive Project" at Yale Law School that focuses on these same ideas.
Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.
But Pat Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the argument that opponents of human-caused global warming are physically or psychologically different reveals "desperation" on the part of those who want people to not only embrace the idea of human destruction of the environment but put that idea into laws regulating human activity.
And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen.
"Imminent disaster serves the proponents of regulation on this issue," Michaels told CNSNews.com. That includes efforts by Democrats in Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which would limit carbon emissions and tax corporations who fail to meet government-set pollution standards.
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain
"This line of authority is a policy response where the minority would tell the majority how to live," said Michaels, who said he agrees with polls showing the majority of Americans don't believe in global warming, particularly doomsday global warming. Michaels said environmentalists have been predicting disaster for years in one form or another, including the fear of overpopulation that was popular in the 1960s. "There's always something out there," Michaels said. "People get tired of being beaten by those somethings." Remember when they decided we were all gonna get cancer from eating barbecue?
Moreover, Michaels asserts that science doesn't confirm, and in some cases even rejects, the existence of human-caused global warming. "If the data's crap you've got to expect the results to be crap. You can't do anything with it, any more than you can pick up a piece of crap by the clean end."
Lakoff, however, said that "99.999 percent of the science is final" on global warming and, in fact, the term "climate change" should be changed to "climate crisis" to more accurately describe the phenomenon. Why not? We've gone from the threat of Nuclear Winter to Global Warming to generic Climate Change and now we're headed for a Climate Crisis, all based on the same data. Sure, the data may have a few shortcomings, but they're scientists, man! They picked that data up by the clean end and examined it closely, something beyond the capacity of thee or me, though within the intellectual capability of al-Gore.
"Climate crisis says we had something to do with it and we better act fast because that's the reality," Lakoff said We could see that in the record blizzards we had last month, by Gum! If we don't give them lots of money it'll be more of the same from now on, until the whole earth's been smoked like a sausage!
Lakoff said while he doesn't think of himself as someone who attacks conservatives for having a different world view than liberals, ... He does it so as to remain a member in good standing at the Berkeley Club ...
he does believe that in the case of global warming, the conservative view is "deadly." "I think this is a place where a certain moral world view comes into conflict with scientific fact in a way that is harmful to the Earth," Lakoff said. "We live in a post-modern, post-cause, post-effect world, where data are to be deconstructed. All data is relative to the viewer's world view, except for ours, of course."
In a February article on The Huffington Post, Lakoff praised recent media reports on the physiological and conceptual roots of political beliefs. "I'm not sure conservatives are descended from Neanderthals, mind you, but..."
He credited some of the movement to his 1996 book "Moral Politics," where he claims that these beliefs are rooted in the "two profoundly different models of the ideal family, a strict father family for conservatives and a nurturant family for liberals." "You know, no father has ever been known to 'nurture' anybody."
Lakoff writes, "In the ideal strict father family, the world is seen as a dangerous place and the father functions as protector from 'others' and the parent who teaches children absolute right from wrong by punishing them physically (painful spanking or worse) when they do wrong. The father is the ultimate authority, children are to obey, and immoral practices are seen as disgusting. Children are seen as adults in training, their development to be guided into paths that are best for them and for society. That damned father figure is expected to have some idea what those paths are and to somehow herd the child onto it.
"Ideal liberal families are based on nurturance, which breaks down into empathy, responsibility (for oneself and others) and excellence -- doing well as one can to make oneself and one's family and community better." "Children are born fully cognizant of what's good or bad for them, need no guidance, no discipline, only understanding. Just shot Grandmaw? I understand, Sonny! Tried it once, myself!"
Michaels said that the idea that people who don't buy into global warming should be discounted because they are somehow incapable of seeing the facts doesn't fit with the American ideal of individual liberty. "I don't think that would sit well with the people who wrote the Constitution of this country," Michaels said. Ok...so fine. This is how libs want to play? I have my own opinion, but yield to the field.
Let the ranting begin...
#3
Gorb is onto them. AGW is caused by lack of cognition. Lack of evidence does not refute causation. Rumsfeld would say something to that effect. I think.
#7
"Liberals say, 'Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,'" Lakoff said.
That's not cognition. It's 'thinking' with one's emotions- which are apt to be ill-informed. The 'counsel of your fears' has an IQ which is about 40 points lower than your abstract reasoning. It does not pay attention to conservation-of-energy, it huddles in the corner and screams "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" This Lakoff clown is truly embarrassing.
Main Entry: cog·ni·tive
Pronunciation: ˈkäg-nə-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: 1586
1 : of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)
2 : based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/24/2010 5:56 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Lakoff, however, said that "99.999 percent of the science is final" on global warming...
#11
If the strong father thing is so bad, how come guys raised by single mothers constitute way less than half the general population but nearly all of the prison population?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/24/2010 6:43 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Lakoff, however, said that "99.999 percent of the science is final" on global warming...
This 99.999 figure...does that include the admittedly corrupted data from East Anglia? Pachauri's melting glacier in the Himalayas that was originally sourced to a travel mag? Details, please....
#17
What the prof is saying in a nutshell: "Turn off your brain and you will accept global warming." Ahem professor it seems that you have turned yours off already! :-P
#24
What an amusing little article. As Dr. Steve notes, all those blithering about conservative cognitive lacks in processing information about climate change claims are in lovely "soft science" fields. The one person quoted in this story who agrees with the so-called Conservative position is actually an acknowledged expert in the field under discussion... in other words the only one in the group of interviewees qualified to have an opinion on the subject.
Posted by: trailing wife on the other computer ||
03/24/2010 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#25
This is all cute and fun. NOT!!!! This is extremely dangerous. Now the right is not just another opinion in America, the right is sick, objectified, damaged and defected like a retarded person. This thought now removes the right from the realm of rational thinkers, to that of a drooling man needing to be hospitalized or worse yet REPROGRAMMED! What neededs to happen to this guy is to ask him his plan to help the right get better. Then we can all be horrified at his end game...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/24/2010 18:22 Comments ||
Top||
#26
No worries Pan. The left already has "sensitivity classes" for people who are not PC about certain PC things. Soon there will be indoctrination camps. If that doesn't help, then there will be concentration camps.
#28
I think John Ray spent a career debunking these sorts of ideas. I read enough of his papers not bother to with these pseudo-experts' opinions anymore.
#29
"Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that "cognitive" brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says "climate change" is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants."
Because we know it's only logical that we are controlling the weather with the tail pipes on our cars.
#30
professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book "The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics,"
Which makes him a Chomskian disciple. And Chomsky invented a new 'science' where all evidence in fact supports your theory, after appropriate manipulations and intellectual gymnastics.
Sound familiar.
The Global Warmists followed Chomsky's model of so called science.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
It seems that the State of Law coalition which is led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is not afraid to use threats and subterfuge in order to remain in power. Al-Maliki called on the Independent High Electoral Commission [IHEC] to perform a manual recount of all votes "in order to protect the democratic experience and preserve the credibility of the electoral process." Al-Maliki used language that inspires concern when he said that he was speaking in his position as "the executive official responsible for drawing up and implementing the policy of the country and as the commander in chief of the armed forces." He is calling for a manual recount of votes, saying that this would "safeguard political stability and prevent a return to violence" in Iraq. Of course this is clear threatening language and an attempt by al-Maliki to maintain his grip on power. 
(CNSNews.com) - Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that "cognitive" brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says "climate change" is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.
