Obamatross

[Diogenes]

I pretty much ignore and/or discount anything ....

..that doesn't fit your neatly madeup world view?

Thanks for the newsflash. BTW, it was Obama being quoted, not Coulter. But feel free to ignore the substance of his remarks, her (incorrect) spin and my brilliant analysis. And for the record, I pretty much ignore and/or discount everything that Obama, the Clintons, and anyone else I know I'll disagree with has to say.

Okay, I actually don't. I pay attention because you have to know what the fuck is being said in order to refute it. Or even comment on it intelligently.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I pretty much ignore and/or discount anything ....

..that doesn't fit your neatly madeup world view?

Nope.

I discount or ignore the shrieking of a harpy who has a well-deserved reputation for needless personal attacks and incredibly poor backing for her arguments. Hell, even the National Review shitcanned her because they found both her style and her substance appalling.

But feel free to ignore the substance of his remarks, her (incorrect) spin and my brilliant analysis.

Golly gee whiz, now that I have your "imprimatur," I feel much better. And personally validated.

And for the record, I pretty much ignore and/or discount everything that Obama, the Clintons, and anyone else I know I'll disagree with has to say.

I tend to not take the speeches of Obama, Clinton, McCain as "Gospel truth," what with them being politicians and all that. However, I don't assume that just because I distrust them at the outset, that I must then buy into the droolings of self-appointed hacks like Coulter who criticize them.

Okay, I actually don't. I pay attention because you have to know what the fuck is being said in order to refute it. Or even comment on it intelligently.

I may not trust the politicians, but I do pay attention to what THEY have to say, since they each in their current positions have the ability to impact policy and may be granted greater ability to do so come January 2009. They and their statements matter.

OTOH, Coulter is not worth reading or discussing because she has no political authority, adds nothing substantial to any political, cultural, historical, etc. debate. She appeals to the lowest common denominator and sells well only because she validates the biases of a portion of the angry, misinformed boobs who also worship Limbaugh ("well, she says what I feel and she has college degrees and stuff, so my views MUST be RAHGHT!!"). I dismiss her because she is not worth considering.

[War Wagon]

OTOH, Coulter is not worth reading or discussing because she has no political authority, adds nothing substantial to any political, cultural, historical, etc. debate. She appeals to the lowest common denominator and sells well only because she validates the biases of a portion of the angry, misinformed boobs who also worship Limbaugh ("well, she says what I feel and she has college degrees and stuff, so my views MUST be RAHGHT!!"). I dismiss her because she is not worth considering.

Mike, have you ever actually read any of her books? I have, and she backs her statements up with voluminous research and footnotes thru-out. She's also funny as hell, in a sarcastic way. She's a damn good read whether you agree with her point of view or not.

Limbaugh, OTOH, is virtually intolerable.

[BSmack]

Mike, have you ever actually read any of her books? I have, and she backs her statements up with voluminous research and footnotes thru-out. She's also funny as hell, in a sarcastic way. She's a damn good read whether you agree with her point of view or not.

Limbaugh, OTOH, is virtually intolerable.

Ann Coulter is to scholarship as American Idol is to singing. Deal with it.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Mike, have you ever actually read any of her books? I have, and she backs her statements up with voluminous research and footnotes thru-out. She's also funny as hell, in a sarcastic way. She's a damn good read whether you agree with her point of view or not.

I became better acquainted with her writing when she foolishly decided to throw her two cents in on the intelligent design debate in Dover. She managed to prove herself a complete fool with regards to scientific literacy and managed to bray her profound ignorance with a level of volume and venom that was unintentionally hysterical. She made statements that were indisputably inaccurate or completely untrue. Her "voluminous research" consisted of piles of quotes from hacks (like Behe and Dembski). Volumes of shit, regardless of how carefully annotated they are, are still shit.

When Coulter addressed that specific topic (ID and evolution) and the unfounded authority and arrogance she presumed when putting forth her howlers, I pretty much figured that this wasn't the first time that she'd screwed up the facts and had cited discredited researchers and biased sources. I figure that if she fucked up this badly on a topic I happen to know a great deal about, then odds are, she is probably just as far off the mark on other topics.

Just because Coulter SEEMS smarter than a lot of folks doesn't mean that she actually knows a damned thing about...well...ANYTHING she happens to spew. I don't begrudge her a dime of her earnings - the fact that she has conned clueless boobs to buy her crap and believe her swill is a tribute to her marketing skills. Props to her for that. Intelligence? Integrity? Authenticity? She gets zero for that.

[Wolfman]

yo TLR---Easter---errr---spring vacation up your way ?
(sorry to bust in)

[Diogenes]

Mike, have you ever actually read any of her books? I have, and she backs her statements up with voluminous research and footnotes thru-out. She's also funny as hell, in a sarcastic way. She's a damn good read whether you agree with her point of view or not.

I became better acquainted with her writing when she foolishly decided to throw her two cents in on the intelligent design debate in Dover.

I pretty much ignore and/or discount anything ....

..that doesn't fit your neatly madeup world view?

Shocking. :twisted:

Keep up with the ignore/discount schtick, 'science' boy.

It suits you.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Keep up with the ignore/discount schtick, 'science' boy.

It suits you.

I realize that you're still smarting after a conservative, Christian, Republic federal judge correctly ruled ID as rewarmed creationism, but gee whiz, Dio, at least TRY a bit of honesty...

I admitted that I HAD read Coulter's stuff - what she had written regarding the issue of evolution and cryptocreationism, aka "intelligent design." I didn't discount her views until after I saw her parroting the same oft-discredited and debunked talking points from creationists. Her hyperboles were ridiculous and without factual basis, her references were hacks like Behe. It's hard for me to take anything she writes on any topic seriously after witnessing how poorly she understands science. I'm not sure if she's genuinely THAT stupid or if she was just too lazy to actually read any book other than Behe's.

The only folks that could possibly buy her shtick on the topic are inbred morons with extra chromosomes, Kool-Aid drinking fundamentalists, and/or ignorant fucktards.

Analysis of her idiotic ramblings by people who [gasp] actually grasp science:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said before - based upon how badly she screwed up her facts on this topic, I have a hard time taking her seriously on any other.

[Diogenes]

pretty much ignore and/or discount anything ....

If we were talking about politcs, I would probably use the phrase Ad Hominem.

But since this is the 21st century and it's all about your dogma, I guess this is part of the 'sceintific' method.

My previous comments still apply. Although I doubt you read them before commenting either.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

pretty much ignore and/or discount anything ....

If we were talking about politcs, I would probably use the phrase Ad Hominem.

But since this is the 21st century and it's all about your dogma, I guess this is part of the 'sceintific' method.

My previous comments still apply. Although I doubt you read them before commenting either.

Lab Scat thinks he's smarter than you, Dio.

DEATHMATCH!

[Mike the Lab Rat]

If we were talking about politcs, I would probably use the phrase Ad Hominem.

But since this is the 21st century and it's all about your dogma, I guess this is part of the 'sceintific' method.

If by "scientific method," you mean actually taking the time to verify the accuracy of a claim - that's pretty accurate.

Coulter came up short with regard to facts and evidence in the one topic in which I had bothered to read her work. Other individuals with credible credentials and better background in the topic have also ruled her to be completely wrong.

My previous comments still apply.

In what sense? That they're still inaccurate? OK.

Face it - Coulter is a media hack with a rabid following of politically like-minded dimwits. National Review got rid of her for damned good reasons.

[Diogenes]

If we were talking about politcs, I would probably use the phrase Ad Hominem.

But since this is the 21st century and it's all about your dogma, I guess this is part of the 'sceintific' method.

If by "scientific method," you mean actually taking the time to verify the accuracy of a claim - that's pretty accurate.

I actually meant not even bothering to examine somone's position before you...

pretty much ignore and/or discount anything ....

And then making ignorant and discountable comments on the subject.

You're welcome.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I actually meant not even bothering to examine somone's position before you...

pretty much ignore and/or discount anything ....

And then making ignorant and discountable comments on the subject.

You're welcome.

You're a strange little fellow, presuming that I would feel gratitude for either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said.

I explained quite clearly why I ignore and/or discount anything by Ms. Coulter - when she happened to pontificate on a topic in which I was more than slightly familiar, she proved herself either ignorant, lazy, or fraudulent. She's not even funny - she confuses shrill ad hominems for actual wit.

I don't have any bias against conservative views on the whole (hell, I subscribe to NR, listen to Cato podcasts on my iPod, and have a small library of PJ O'Rourke books...) and would have taken her more seriously if she had bothered to display any of her alleged intelligence and education when discussing evolution.

Instead, she recycled arguments that have been disproven time and again (and in court). She failed to do even rudimentary research that would have made her appear less incompetent. I discount her because she proved unwilling or unable to do simple background research and interviews that would have made her more fully informed. She was just interested in preaching ignorance to the choir, who lapped it up. If she was that sloppy and lazy on one topic, why the hell should I (or anyone, for that matter) take her at all seriously on any other?

She's an ill-informed partisan hack and should get all the attention and respect that position deserves.

[Cuda]

Analysis of her idiotic ramblings by people who [gasp] actually grasp science:

By people who "actually grasp science" is it safe to assume you mean "believe the global warming fairy tale"?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Analysis of her idiotic ramblings by people who [gasp] actually grasp science:

By people who "actually grasp science" is it safe to assume you mean "believe the global warming fairy tale"?

Don't force it, Cuda. Just sit back and let it happen, all "organic" like.
Hey, if your going to the fridge, grab me a beer, bro.

[War Wagon]

Just the title of this book cracks me up.

[Cuda]

Analysis of her idiotic ramblings by people who [gasp] actually grasp science:

By people who "actually grasp science" is it safe to assume you mean "believe the global warming fairy tale"?

Don't force it, Cuda. Just sit back and let it happen, all "organic" like.
Hey, if your going to the fridge, grab me a beer, bro.

Molson , Labatts, or Moosehead?

[Goober McTuber]

Don't force it, Cuda. Just sit back and let it happen, all "organic" like.
Hey, if your going to the fridge, grab me a beer, bro.

Molson , Labatts, or Moosehead?

He asked for a beer. Not a Canadian Budweiser.

[Cuda]

I know Dinsdale. Dinsdale is a internet, make-believe friends of mine- and Goober, you're no Dinsdale.

[Goober McTuber]

I know Dinsdale. Dinsdale is a internet, make-believe friends of mine- and Goober, you're no Dinsdale.

That’s awfully kind of you.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Analysis of her idiotic ramblings by people who [gasp] actually grasp science:

By people who "actually grasp science" is it safe to assume you mean "believe the global warming fairy tale"?

No, I mean people who actually grasp the fundamental underpinnings of how science is done, what terms like "hypothesis," "theory," and "law" actually mean, why scientists must publish their data and have it peer reviewed, why science only accepts natural (and not supernatural) explanations for events.

The issue of global warming has nothing to do with the universal acceptance of natural selection by reputable scientists.

Although, it would be funny to further hijack a thread ostensibly about Obama and turn it into a debate on global warming...

[Cuda]

[I mean people who actually grasp the fundamental underpinnings of how science is done, what terms like "hypothesis," "theory," and "law" actually mean, why scientists must publish their data and have it peer reviewed, why science only accepts natural (and not supernatural) explanations for events...

Yet there are plenty of self-proclaimed "scientists" who claim to believe in man-made global warming.

Peer-review doesn't mean much when the "peers" doing the reviewing are as full of shit as the ones being reviewed.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Yet there are plenty of self-proclaimed "scientists" who claim to believe in man-made global warming.

So? The fact remains that there is a mound of data and that equally-qualified scientists disagree on the matter. Anthropogenic global warming IS an issue that is in dispute, with the jury still out. I personally haven't made up my mind on the issue for just that reason.

Just because you personally, what with all your academic credentials in the relevant fields and all, happen to have carefully evaluated all the data and completed exhaustive analyses and made up your mind doesn't mean that everyone else has to march in lockstep with you.

Peer-review doesn't mean much when the "peers" doing the reviewing are as full of shit as the ones being reviewed.

Your ignorance of what the term means and how the process occurs beautifully illustrates your jaw-dropping ignorance of science and how science is done. Thank you for not daring to surprise me with any credible insights.

[Cuda]

Yet there are plenty of self-proclaimed "scientists" who claim to believe in man-made global warming.

So? The fact remains that there is a mound of data and that equally-qualified scientists disagree on the matter. Anthropogenic global warming IS an issue that is in dispute, with the jury still out. I personally haven't made up my mind on the issue for just that reason.

Just because you personally, what with all your academic credentials in the relevant fields and all, happen to have carefully evaluated all the data and completed exhaustive analyses and made up your mind doesn't mean that everyone else has to march in lockstep with you.

All four major global temperature tracking outlets: Hadleys, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS, and even the fucking UN had to admit that not only had global warming STOPPED a decade ago (despite rising CO2 levels) but from January 2007 to January 2008, average global temperature (you know, the number the hoaxers keep using to "prove" their load of horseshit is true) dropped nearly a full degree celsius- enough to wipe out the claimed warming for the last 100 years.

Peer-review doesn't mean much when the "peers" doing the reviewing are as full of shit as the ones being reviewed.

Your ignorance of what the term means and how the process occurs beautifully illustrates your jaw-dropping ignorance of science and how science is done. Thank you for not daring to surprise me with any credible insights.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

Assclown.

[War Wagon]

Rack Coods!

But wait, some Antarctic ice shelf that's existed for 1500 years just collapsed, so how do you explain that?

ugh... nevermind. Midwesterners still freezing their ass off on March 26th don't give a fuck what happens in Antarctica. Or Greenland.

I love it how the media outlets now refer to "Global Warming" like it's an established fact. Actually, I'd like to punch them in the face.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...Moosehead?

No thanks. Their antlers always end up poking me in the ribs.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I love how a scientific asshat like Cude's can casually dismiss ALL scientists and scientific methodology because SOME scientists buy into global warming.

That WAS his tack when he posted this bit of utter "brilliance"

By people who "actually grasp science" is it safe to assume you mean "believe the global warming fairy tale"?

I was discussing how scientists have mocked Ann Coulter's scientific illiteracy with regard to evolution, and cuda tries to contribute to the discussion by...bringing up his personal pet peeve, global warming.

Never mind that one topic has precious little to do with the other. Cuda just wanted to chime in and feel like he was part of the process.

Outstanding.

Thanks for participating. Your unique contributions to the discussion certainly help to cement the reputation of Americans as increasingly idiotic in regard to science.

[golf claps]

[Cuda]

I was discussing how scientists have mocked Ann Coulter's scientific illiteracy with regard to evolution,

Oh, yes... your personal obsession with proving The Flintstones was fiction.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Oh, yes... your personal obsession with proving The Flintstones was fiction.

Hey, at least MY topic was remotely related to the issue.

I was explaining why I choose to ignore one specific columnist overall, based upon what she had written on a topic in which I have a more than casual knowledge.

You, OTOH, decided to share a delightful slice of your vestigial neural net by disparaging scientists in general because they don't agree with your "expert" opinion on a subject wholly unrelated to any of the prior topics.

By the way, Ann Coulter would count as one of the "Flinstones as fact" folks (or at least she panders to them so that they buy her books...). Based on that, I consider her opinions worthless. See how this whole "staying on topic" thing works?

By the way, since you've seen fit to attack "personal obsessions," you might want to consider your own - you've posted on global warming in three different threads within the last month. For someone who is neither a biologist nor bio teacher, I'd say that your "personal obsession" is weirder than mine.

[Mister Bushice]

...Moosehead?

No thanks. Their antlers always end up poking me in the ribs.

You did mean "whizzing by several feet over your head"

right shorty?

[Cuda]

By the way, since you've seen fit to attack "personal obsessions," you might want to consider your own - you've posted on global warming in three different threads within the last month. For someone who is neither a biologist nor bio teacher, I'd say that your "personal obsession" is weirder than mine.

Wow... THREE in the last month? Amazing. Pardon me while I break out a :hugefuckingrolleyes:

Meanwhile EVERY thread in which you post, you end up throwing one of your patented Flintstones Are Fake tantrums.

And on the subject of obsessions, there's only ONE reason a grown man makes a career out of hanging around teenagers all day: sexual attraction. Normal men who go into education tend to get the hell OUT of it after a couple of years. You've been at it how long?

[MuchoBulls]

Wonder how much of Obama's money went toward this?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27 ... ment-home/

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Meanwhile EVERY thread in which you post, you end up throwing one of your patented Flintstones Are Fake tantrums.

Really?

Care to back that up with actual facts? Like I did with my assertion?

Keep in mind, in order to prove your point, you'd actually have to show that in EVERY thread in which I've posted, I've discussed evolution/ID.

Go ahead, numbnut. Go chase your tail for a while.

Also keep in mind that I have to do to disprove your point is find a thread from, say, the NFL Forum, Cul de Smack, or the Bitter_Pittsburgher music forum in which I've posted and yet I haven't mentioned evolution/ID... and I've proven you a liar.

FYI: a quick search shows that you're completely full of shit. Again.

And on the subject of obsessions, there's only ONE reason a grown man makes a career out of hanging around teenagers all day: sexual attraction.

Sounds like someone hurt you once. Really badly. I'd really rather not hear the story. Seek help.

Normal men who go into education tend to get the hell OUT of it after a couple of years.

Link? Proof?

Oh, wait, look who I'm talking to here!

Proof? Cuda don't need no stinkin' proof!

In one way, you have proven me wrong. Each time you jump into a thread, I think to myself "No one could possibly be this stupid." But, surprise, surprise, you somehow keep managing to lower that bar. Props to you.

[Mister Bushice]

Cuda,

You're not the fucking scarecrow. You don't get a melon full of brains and become a Dr. of Thinkology just because you bought a fake diploma on line or because they made you a smack off judge. You taking on Mike the Lab Rat on ANY subject is a cripple fight at worst, and a hilarious beatdown at best.

Do not arouse the wrath of the Great and Powerful Rat.


Then again,


Please do

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

By the way, since you've seen fit to attack "personal obsessions," you might want to consider your own - you've posted on global warming in three different threads within the last month. For someone who is neither a biologist nor bio teacher, I'd say that your "personal obsession" is weirder than mine.

Wow... THREE in the last month? Amazing. Pardon me while I break out a :hugefuckingrolleyes:

Meanwhile EVERY thread in which you post, you end up throwing one of your patented Flintstones Are Fake tantrums.

And on the subject of obsessions, there's only ONE reason a grown man makes a career out of hanging around teenagers all day: sexual attraction. Normal men who go into education tend to get the hell OUT of it after a couple of years. You've been at it how long?

I don't hand these out lightly, but...

[Cuda]

Don't tell Bushice... he'll get the vapors again

[Cuda]

I'm on the case, mvscal

-sin

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

mv, are you down with the use of waterboarding and stress positions on Americans, in America, charged with crimes under American law?

Somebody go ahead and tell me why, exactly, we should not waterboard these church officials to obtain the locations of the pedo priests they are concealing?

An ironic twist on the Inquisition.

Inquisition Redux

[Diogenes]

Do not arouse the wrath of the Great and Powerful Rat.

Good advise.

Sin,