Yes, why doesn't someone else research claims that I make, 'go read old posts' 'go read books that I can't name' or 'go dig census data' maybe employ some machine learning and data mining - all to prove MY claims!
Roy Moore is a perfect example of why the MSM should not engage in 1 sided journalism
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Yes, why doesn't someone else research claims that I make, 'go read old posts' 'go read books that I can't name' or 'go dig census data' maybe employ some machine learning and data mining - all to prove MY claims!
Chicago and New York aren't electing pedophile rapists as their moral leader.
Conservatives in Alabama and rest of the country are.
When your side can't even protect or respect children, it's time to shut up about morality.
exGOPer -- even when I directly post the links to earlier posts you never read them -- so it is a pretty mute point.
The reality is that if the information has already discussed previously in-depth in this forum there is no reason to research it all again for hours just to post the same stuff.
Not to mention all the closed-minded left-wing zealots in blue states.
I read your links, I highlight them and argue every point, that's how I found out that the fake peer reviewed paper that you posted was fake because I researched it.
The reality is that you never back up your claims, you play the 'go read something I can't produce' because you are simply making stuff up. You are saying that there are more zealots and religious nutjobs in blue states when very liberal, gay marriage supporting secular progressives are being elected from these states. Your claims are baseless otherwise how are these people getting elected.
Let's face reality -- you never actually go read links, nor can you debate the claims made in the links in any type of reasonable context. You are so partisan that it has overwhelmed any capability you have to have a reasonable, fact-based discussion on topics such as politics or history. Very sad for you.
If I don't read links, how did I find that the paper you posted as being peer reviewed was a complete fake?
That reminds me, you said it was in the process of being peer reviewed, how did it go?
And I have been accused of many things, but nobody has ever called me ignorant on any topic.
Well -- let me be the first then to call you ignorant on nearly every topic. Your hyper-partisan mind-set makes you unwilling to learn information that goes against your personal projections --- meaning that you spend a majority of your time wallowing in ignorance and unwilling to open your closed mind. Must to be a hard way to go through life. I urge you to read, learn, and get a well-rounded perspective on subjects.
You can call me whatever you want, feel free to bring up absolutely any subject and debate me.
And you skipped my question, if I don't read your links, how come I noticed that the paper you called peer reviewed was not peer reviewed at all?
Once again, I never once stated the paper was peer reviewed. The text of the article stated the paper was peer reviewed. I posted the article because it had a link to the paper.
You need to learn the difference between a poster making an assertion, and the text from a quoted article. Your failure to understand the difference -- then your constant harping on your false assertions is insulting to reasonable people.