Search results

Yep, like the 'Nam vets. . . "You don't know, man. You weren't there!" The thesis is that unless you personally participate in an issue, usually a long or especially arduous participation, you cannot have a valid opinion on it. This place uses every single logical fallacy in the book, like a...

Yes, we covered that. Ah, hell, take a victory lap anyhow. You don't get many chances.

Yawn.

Not to mention Chicken Little pussies like Brian Lilley.

That would violate the First Law of Journalistic Ethics. . . "Go Where The Money Is!"

Dumb, whimpering twat. "The proles will never revolt." --George Orwell, 1984

You're rather charmingly stupid, sometimes. Kinda like Goober. Mostly you're just annoying. Like mosquitoes.

Damn those Muzzie immigrants!

AAAaaand. . . nobody cares.

Colt Firearms. The worldwide quality standard. Those aren't M4s, by the way. Dipshit.

And still PM. . .

Are you replying to yourself or the voices?

Gotta be True Dope's nefarious plan to hurt your feelings.

Thank you for that excellent example of non-scientific weaponized semantics. In answer to your specific question, no. No larger "sample group" should have been used, because this trash is "science" like Scientology. I neither fall for it nor get OUTRAGED by it. Then again, I don't live in...

Gee, maybe we're still richer, stronger, more influential, and cooler than you could ever dream of being. Sucks to be you.

Yep. Not science, just semantics. Weaponized.

ish.

Not really. Usually the majority either can't state a law at all, or pick something utterly irrelevant or inapplicable.