Ann Coulter sez ....

#27
#27
VOLinthaATL said:
You're incredibly annoying. gsvol like...
Click to expand...

Nah, just bored. I'm actually a decent guy. Glad to make your acquaintence.

I'm the 'i hate all politicians and their minions' guy. Have a good one.

Edit: gsvols? I haven't linked a single cartoon...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
VOLatile said:
Then you've never actually seen JayVols when he isn't bored. They share NOTHING in common. I now have reason to believe you have a man crush on Anne Coulter or adamantly defending her.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment.

ATL- I am the type of person that is tired of petty partisan politics. I take a pragmatic approach to issues. I don't care if they are conservative or liberal. I care if they work or not. I was just having a lulz at Coulter's expense. Sorry if I offended in any way. I was just fooling around. I have been off work for 2 weeks due to a serious illness. I'm getting a bit punchy from being cooped up so long.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#34
#34
So if no one else has an explanation for why Coulter is even entering this line of discussion, I would like to present my hypothesis:

She's doing it out of routine and habit, in two different ways. The first way is that she feels the need to constantly undermine the credibility of all media that isn't overtly politically conservative. It's reflexive at this point. If there were a nationally interesting story about the educational benefits of yellow walls, she would feel the need to comment in a contradictory manner, knowing that she would be disagreeing before knowing what line of reasoning she would take to go about it.

The second way that she is doing this reflexively is that, like many who have let politics decide their opinions and thoughts rather than their thoughts decide their politics, she is indirectly attempting to soften the backlash towards nuclear energy and industry. She is minimizing and hedging the associated disaster as a preemptive strike against the anti-industrial backlash that is sure to be felt here to some extent, in regards to nuclear power specifically and hazardous material in general.

She's a robot.
 
#35
#35
VOLinthaATL said:
I've never been bored enough to just randomly post things on a message board. My apologies.
Click to expand...

I apologize that I offended you in some way. Not being a smart alec (honestly) but this isn't brain surgery. Just trying to break the monotony. Why so serious?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
IPorange said:
So if no one else has an explanation for why Coulter is even entering this line of discussion, I would like to present my hypothesis:

She's doing it out of routine and habit, in two different ways. The first way is that she feels the need to constantly undermine the credibility of all media that isn't overtly politically conservative. It's reflexive at this point. If there were a nationally interesting story about the educational benefits of yellow walls, she would feel the need to comment in a contradictory manner, knowing that she would be disagreeing before knowing what line of reasoning she would take to go about it.

The second way that she is doing this reflexively is that, like many who have let politics decide their opinions and thoughts rather than their thoughts decide their politics, she is indirectly attempting to soften the backlash towards nuclear energy and industry. She is minimizing and hedging the associated disaster as a preemptive strike against the anti-industrial backlash that is sure to be felt here to some extent, in regards to nuclear power specifically and hazardous material in general.

She's a robot.
Click to expand...
+1 much better than my hypothesis. Well done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
IPorange said:
So if no one else has an explanation for why Coulter is even entering this line of discussion, I would like to present my hypothesis:

She's doing it out of routine and habit, in two different ways. The first way is that she feels the need to constantly undermine the credibility of all media that isn't overtly politically conservative. It's reflexive at this point. If there were a nationally interesting story about the educational benefits of yellow walls, she would feel the need to comment in a contradictory manner, knowing that she would be disagreeing before knowing what line of reasoning she would take to go about it.

The second way that she is doing this reflexively is that, like many who have let politics decide their opinions and thoughts rather than their thoughts decide their politics, she is indirectly attempting to soften the backlash towards nuclear energy and industry. She is minimizing and hedging the associated disaster as a preemptive strike against the anti-industrial backlash that is sure to be felt here to some extent, in regards to nuclear power specifically and hazardous material in general.

She's a robot.
Click to expand...

Well said. I've never paid enough attention to Anne Coulter to know she does this on a regular basis, just enough to know she's insane in the membrane. I figured it was a robotic instinct of hers.
 
#38
#38
IPorange said:
When it's setting off radiation detectors from aircraft flying 30,000 feet in the air near it, when arriving in Chicago, it's worth worrying about.

Question: Why is she even making this argument? What's her point?
Click to expand...

She is a spokeswoman for BAT SHAT CARAZY Capital. She is there to sway the uninformed that people are over-reacting to what is happening in Japan.

Edit: I see you answered your own question. And well. :hi:
 
#39
#39
IPorange said:
So if no one else has an explanation for why Coulter is even entering this line of discussion, I would like to present my hypothesis:

She's doing it out of routine and habit, in two different ways. The first way is that she feels the need to constantly undermine the credibility of all media that isn't overtly politically conservative. It's reflexive at this point. If there were a nationally interesting story about the educational benefits of yellow walls, she would feel the need to comment in a contradictory manner, knowing that she would be disagreeing before knowing what line of reasoning she would take to go about it.

The second way that she is doing this reflexively is that, like many who have let politics decide their opinions and thoughts rather than their thoughts decide their politics, she is indirectly attempting to soften the backlash towards nuclear energy and industry. She is minimizing and hedging the associated disaster as a preemptive strike against the anti-industrial backlash that is sure to be felt here to some extent, in regards to nuclear power specifically and hazardous material in general.

She's a robot.
Click to expand...

This is 100 percent correct, and exactly the point of my having posted it to begin with.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
.... radiation can be good for you.

Watching her right now talking about people who lived in some Taiwanese apartment complex. O'Reilly trying to keep her in check.
Click to expand...

Studies have shown that residents within a certain radius of Chernobyl have extended lifespans and low rates of cancer.

Airline pilots are have one of the longest life expentancies of any profession. They have the highest avg exposure to radiation.
 
#41
#41
sjt18 said:
Studies have shown that residents within a certain radius of Chernobyl have extended lifespans and low rates of cancer.

Airline pilots are have one of the longest life expentancies of any profession. They have the highest avg exposure to radiation.
Click to expand...

Ok.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
Ok.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Facts really have no place in your life, do they? You just paint everything with your liberal bias and believe it.

Pilots:

“A group of 3707 male pilots was followed over 70,832 person-years.
There were 342 deaths vs. 362.8 expected, with a standardized
mortality ratio (SMR) of 0.94… Aircraft accidents… had a major
influence on total mortality and the SMR for all other causes was 0.68
(95% CI 0.59-0.77). The SMR for cancer was 0.89 (95% CI 0.71-1.11) and
for circulatory diseases 0.53 (95% CI 0.42-0.67). The highest SMR for
total mortality in pilots < 30 yr old was 3.52 (95% CI 2.54-4.76). For
this age group 38 of a total of 42 deaths were caused by aircraft
accidents. It was indicated that almost half the deaths of aircraft
accidents took place in private aircraft. CONCLUSIONS: Due to aircraft
accidents young pilots have a higher mortality rate than the general
population; other harmful effects on the mortality of pilots in their
workplace were not found. At all ages pilots have a better life
expectancy than the general population.”
Aviat Space Environ Med, 2002, Volume 73, pages 587-592
Aircraft accidents and other causes of death among Norwegian
commercial pilots.
Haldorsen T, Reitan JB, Tveten U.
Abstract at: Aircraft accidents and other causes of death among... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002] - PubMed result
Click to expand...

I can't find the raw stats for Chernobyl but even the official WHO reports say that other than those acutely effected there is NO solid evidence of increased levels of cancer or leukemia. In fact, their avg exposure will be less than people in places like India and China where the background radiation is known to be high.

Almost all of the articles discussing shortened lifespans talk in terms of "expectations" rather than real data. At worst, the real data for those who aren't highly exposed is inconclusive.
 
#45
#45
RockyTopVol said:
Of all people, what are you doing watching Fox News?
Click to expand...


It's like watching a car crash. You can't take your eyes off it. Besides, as a fan of logic and someone who keeps his mind alert by spotting and correcting both blatant and sublte efforts to mislead by engaging in logical fallacies, I find them to be a gold mine of examples.
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
Besides, as a fan of logic and someone who keeps his mind alert by spotting and correcting both blatant and sublte efforts to mislead by engaging in logical fallacies, I find them to be a gold mine of examples.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I read your posts :whistling:
 
#50
#50
sjt18 said:
Facts really have no place in your life, do they? You just paint everything with your liberal bias and believe it.



I can't find the raw stats for Chernobyl but even the official WHO reports say that other than those acutely effected there is NO solid evidence of increased levels of cancer or leukemia. In fact, their avg exposure will be less than people in places like India and China where the background radiation is known to be high.

Almost all of the articles discussing shortened lifespans talk in terms of "expectations" rather than real data. At worst, the real data for those who aren't highly exposed is inconclusive.
Click to expand...

Tell this to the deformed children.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top