Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Tue Oct 1 08:23:12 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:6lhhpuo8occ4ij5akr8l7itiq1ccih2prk at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:t0vdpug9k8gu74330frje1ukj0f5e8vqmr at 4ax.com...
> >> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >> >According to this CBS Poll:
> >>
> >> >Only 18% of Americans believe a war with Iraq will reduce terrorism.
> >> >
> >> >Yet 58% believe we should attack Iraq anyway, and 57% believe we
should
> >do
> >> >it even if it involves "substantial military casualties".
> ...
> >> Indeed, since a very high percentage (77%) think that he already has
> >> weapons of mass destruction, it is already too late to try to prevent
> >> Iraq from developing them, and 61% believe he plans to use the WMDs
> >> against the US, which makes the threat quite personal.
> >
> >The question states "developing weapons of mass destruction", which
doesn't
> >even address the ones he's already developed.
> >
> >Even though you jews and "liberals" can't possibly be expected to
understand
> >the point, most normal people answering this question know what is meant
by
> >it, which is partly why 82% do NOT believe a war with Iraq would be
> >effective.
>
> Whether 82% believe it will be effective against terrorism or not, it
> remains the case that 58% apparently believe we should attack Iran
> anyway, so stopping terrorism is NOT the reason they support doing so.
>
> >If the 18% who are STUPID enough to believe that a war with Iraq will
reduce
> >terrorism are the same people as the 20% who are STUPID enough to believe
> >that the UN can prevent Iraq from developing WMDs (plus another
2%--probably
> >jews or "liberals" like you, who obviously can't even understand the
> >question anyway), then 80% of Americans don't believe that a war with
Iraq
> >will either reduce WMDs nor terrorism.
>
> But those "if"s are not in evidence
>
> >Does it trouble you at all that 68% approve of the US military removing
> >Sadam from power even though only 20% see any benefit from it?
>
> Your "even though" condition is not in evidence.
>

A MINIMUM of 30%, and a MAXIMUM of 48%, want to attack Iraq even though they
KNOW it will not reduce terrorism nor will it reduce WMDs.

NOW you have everything you need to answer the question, so why don't you
answer it?

> >Does it
> >trouble you at all that this is a violation of international treaties, of
> >the US Constitution, of UN resolutions, of the opinion of the vast
majority
> >of people in the world, of the opinions of most of our top MILITARY men
> >(which the current encumbants of the White House are NOT)?
> >
> >Why do you think this 48% who see no benefit in reducing terrorism or
WMDs
> >support this war in Iraq?
>
> Because they feel like it?
>

That's about the extent of the "liberals"' ability to reason, isn't it?
They really don't need no stinkin' reason when they can "feel like it",
right?

> >> >This is called "cognitive dissonance".   No, it's worse than
that--it's
> >> >called "insanity":
> >>
> >> No. It is called pre-emptive action against a threat.
> >
> >It is called "48% of Americans want a war but don't even know why"
(unless
> >of course their reason for wanting a war wasn't included in the poll).
>
> That could be too.  Some people think it is about oil. Others think it
> is about the Prez finishing his daddy's wars.
>

NEITHER Of which are sufficient justification to bring a just Christian
nation into a war on a third world country like Iraq, are they?  This STILL
leaves 30-48% of the American population in a VERY poor moral state, doesn't
it?

But you missed the BIG point, which is that an undetermined number of
Americans have bought the subtle but pervasive BS in the jewsmedia about how
a war with Iraq is just what's needed to get "our economy" back on track.  I
mean, this "inexplicible" 85% plunge in the NASDAQ and the almost 40% plunge
in the DJIA would immediately correct itself if we'd just vote to send the
boys off to war, right?

WRONG!!  NO war has ever been "good for the economy".  Before WWII, we had a
personal savings rate almost as high as the Japanese, but ever since it's
been on the downhill slide, going negative last year
http://christianparty.net/personalsavings.htm , making us the ONLY
industrialized nation in the world with a NEGATIVE personal savings "rate".

THAT is the big problem that 911 was designed to conceal.



> >> >Certainly such people should not be permitted to vote,
> >>
> >> There is no requirement for sanity in order to vote.
> >
> >Precisely the point.
> >
> >There SHOULD be.
>
> Tough.  There isn't.  (And if there were, you would be the first on in
> the chopping block).
>

Things tend to change faster than you "liberals" appreciate.
http://christianparty.net/19th.htm

> >Women as a group don't pay federal taxes.
>
> LIAR.
>

You CANNOT dispute http://christianparty.net/menpy115.htm because they are
from your fovorite source:  the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

> >Niggers as a group get back $800 billion more in social transfer payments
> >than they contribute to GDP.  This is 12% of the population.  Mexicans
get
> >back $200 billion more than they contribute, and they're 8% of the
> >population.
> >
> >52% women + 6% nigger men + 4% Mexican men = 62% who as a group do NOT
pay
> >federal taxes, which means that they're voting to spend money that's not
> >theirs, that they never earned.
>
> Still more lies.

And you CANNOT dispute http://christianparty.net/blackcosts.htm because they
are FEDERAL GOVERNMENT figures.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list