or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 133

post #1981 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

http://www.livescience.com/50502-what-is-flakka.html
Holy fucking lol. You call your site "livescience", implying some attempt at the scientific method yet you post shit like this. You should commit seppuku. You are a fucking embarrassment.

EDIT -
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-moms-invent-new-recreational-drug-to-worry,28130/

STFU you stupid fucking cunts.

Youre angry at The Onion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Get some Jenkum while you're at it, you fucking deranged ignorant foo.gif .

EDIT -

This would be kind of admirable if it were all a prank to get the cops to try to replicate and test the "drug".
post #1982 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Youre angry at The Onion?

Oh hell no, that was used to point out how fucking stupid these bullshit claims about Fakka are.

Quote:
This would be kind of admirable if it were all a prank to get the cops to try to replicate and test the "drug".

I think it was just a mockery to see how stupid cops are. Apparently those in Collier County are fucking retarded.
post #1983 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Most anti-science folks cloak themselves behind a sciency title. How much "I fucking love science" is actual science?

you science hating religious nut
post #1984 of 5120
I fucking love science isn't very scientific (and is frequented by a lot of morons whose science experience ended after that c they got in high school biology), but it is just "cool shit that might involve science on some level.

Nothing anti-science about it at all.
post #1985 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

I fucking love science isn't very scientific (and is frequented by a lot of morons whose science experience ended after that c they got in high school biology), but it is just "cool shit that might involve science on some level.

Nothing anti-science about it at all.

You're right. It isn't anti-science. It is just not really science and lauded by morons who don't know the first thing about science. All the people I know that regularly repost that crap are exactly as you describe, and will jump on you as anti-science anytime you disagree with them on any public policy or their pseudo science postings.
post #1986 of 5120
I didn't realize "I fucking love science" was a thing. I just checked out the website and it's embarrassing how fucking stupid most of the posts are. They are almost universally non-critical or non-skeptical of anything and just accept poorly sourced stories like "Soybeans prevent breast cancer" at face value. That is pretty anti-science, actually.
Edited by Harold falcon - 4/21/15 at 7:08am
post #1987 of 5120
There is a website now?

Used to just be a facebook page that poster pictures of cool galaxies, neat inventions, and degrasse Tyson quotes.
post #1988 of 5120
http://www.iflscience.com

I see a lot of stupid political shit, and a lot of other stupid shit on it. The current story quotes a bullshit study that being a sex offender is genetic. Fucking pathetic.
post #1989 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

http://www.iflscience.com

I see a lot of stupid political shit, and a lot of other stupid shit on it. The current story quotes a bullshit study that being a sex offender is genetic. Fucking pathetic.

That would be good news for you, no?
Just hand your clients cards to hand down their young ones.
post #1990 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by donjuan17 View Post

That would be good news for you, no?
Just hand your clients cards to hand down their young ones.

I've said this many times, while I make a good living defending alleged criminal scumbags I could certainly transition my business to defending alleged philandering scumbags in divorce actions.
post #1991 of 5120
So with the news that the Kochs are supporting Walker my FB feed is going apeshit crazy about how money is ruining politics. I remember reading an article after the 2014 elections that Koch supported candidates didn't fare as well as non-Koch supported candidates. I can't find that article now because any search with "Koch" in it returns nothing but liberal/progressive websites posting about this horrible news.

Does anyone else remember something similar?
post #1992 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

So with the news that the Kochs are supporting Walker my FB feed is going apeshit crazy about how money is ruining politics. I remember reading an article after the 2014 elections that Koch supported candidates didn't fare as well as non-Koch supported candidates. I can't find that article now because any search with "Koch" in it returns nothing but liberal/progressive websites posting about this horrible news.

Does anyone else remember something similar?

That sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm afraid I can't tell you where I might have read it.

It seems like you can draw whatever conclusion serves your pre-determined outlook from that, no? Either it disproves the notion that money in general and Koch money in particular hijacks democracy, or it proves that the candidates the Kochs support are so retarded that even all the money in the world isn't enough to save them.
post #1993 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

So with the news that the Kochs are supporting Walker my FB feed is going apeshit crazy about how money is ruining politics. I remember reading an article after the 2014 elections that Koch supported candidates didn't fare as well as non-Koch supported candidates. I can't find that article now because any search with "Koch" in it returns nothing but liberal/progressive websites posting about this horrible news.

Does anyone else remember something similar?

As I recall, every candidate that was supported with Koch money failed to be elected.
post #1994 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

As I recall, every candidate that was supported with Koch money failed to be elected.

I found this that claims they had zero effect, not that everyone they supported lost:
http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2014/06/memo-to-democrats-get-over-koch-brothers.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

That sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm afraid I can't tell you where I might have read it.

It seems like you can draw whatever conclusion serves your pre-determined outlook from that, no? Either it disproves the notion that money in general and Koch money in particular hijacks democracy, or it proves that the candidates the Kochs support are so retarded that even all the money in the world isn't enough to save them.

You're probably right.
post #1995 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

That sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm afraid I can't tell you where I might have read it.

It seems like you can draw whatever conclusion serves your pre-determined outlook from that, no? Either it disproves the notion that money in general and Koch money in particular hijacks democracy, or it proves that the candidates the Kochs support are so retarded that even all the money in the world isn't enough to save them.

Also, is the Koch money going towards the tough races? Or did they manage it horribly (sounds like they fired everyone in charge of spending it after they lost all of the elections).

These return on investment calculations are kind of silly. If they closed the gap in an election and caused the other side to spend a ton of cash or make compromises towards the center...did they really get nothing for their money? Or did the abundance of funds from the Koch brothers mean that GOP money could be spent elsewhere?

Even if they lost, they threw a ton more money into politics and forced the other side to do the same (and probably encouraged the other side's donors to throw more money on the fire). This covers a lot of ad buys, but it also pays the salaries of a bunch of party and campaign workers whose sole focus is winning. Money spent on a sitting politician's staff is arguably for the benefit of the country...campaign money is about winning (even if it becomes apparent that your guy is bad for the country, it is your job to try and win), and when one guy loses, it means his half of the spending all goes into the garbage.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob