And that... would come as no surprise.
And that... would come as no surprise.
acket.
True. It is fairly typical of a social sciences paper in that regard.
No, I meant it's typical of your snobby-ass web persona to ignore basic, easily available facts in order to elaborate your fallacious, pseudo scientific charades.
acket.
Err... I asked a simple pertinent question. I don't have time to read the whole document on my weekend thanks and I definitely won't be reading it during the week. Perhaps next time when someone asks a question, you could be so kind as to respond with an answer as opposed to some snide elitist bullshit.
My point was as follows:
If 1700 of those issues were non-divisive, taken for granted, no-brainer issues like, a good education system, a low crime rate, effective policing, job creation, equality, stability, security, a strong economy etc., then you could have a high degree of correlation even if both sides were polar opposites on the remnant, highly divisive issues. Does it call on us to re-think our conception of a polarised political divide in a 2-party system, or just tell us that rich and poor people are generally sane?This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
We can have a civil conversation, all you have to do is try.
So for a bunch of mobs who own guns thinking that they can violently go against the Federal government and win... they're just kidding themselves.
They probably have a better chance thru legal means, but I kinda doubt that too.
Anyway, I find it amazing why it's necessary to debate about this so passionately. Hats off to LH and Taimar!
Well, I'm bloody glad I went away for the weekend!
Alex has said everything I would have wanted to, only much more eloquently and with far more patience than I could have mustered.
I feel that the following is pettiness on my part, for which I apologise in advance, but I'm not having anyone think I "nut-swing" from Beck and O'Reilly.
My point wasn't that I agree with them, but rather when two of the biggest right wing nutjobs from Fox, or exFox in Beck's case, who still have jobs talking to people on television after saying some downright abhorrent shit. When even they aren't prepared to get behind your sovereign citizen standing against government tyranny movement you might be a little far past crazy.
That is all.
And yet you questioned its relevance? Let me quote you on that:
or even worse, went so far as to imply the invalidity of the entire Social Sciences corpus with your usual broadstroke characterizations:it's difficult to know if this means anything
and then, once again, with total indifference of our collective memory, play the victim card:True. It is fairly typical of a social sciences paper in that regard.
Sorry man, I can't give you "an answer" to your satisfaction. I reffuse to get in your sandbox under those terms. You are going to keep dealing with my snide elitist bullshit.when someone asks a question, you could be so kind as to respond with an answer as opposed to some snide elitist bullshit.
Last edited by FaultyMario; April 21st, 2014 at 07:20 AM.
acket.
As anyone is entitled to. I was hoping for an answer providing clarity, that's all.
As a response to your snide remark:
After this:And that... would come as no surprise.
Which is fine, perhaps just say that from the start.No, I meant it's typical of your snobby-ass web persona to ignore basic, easily available facts in order to elaborate your fallacious, pseudo scientific charades.
I'm glad you've provided a surplus 'f' to make up for the fact that I don't give one.