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

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Mon Sep 30 17:08:11 EST 2002


"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.

>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?

>> >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.

>> >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).

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

LIAR.

>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.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list