Paris attack thread

[Swish]

Originally Posted by sOurDieSel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

rofl

A handful of muslims (most likely immigrants at one point) blows shit up in Europe and it has nothing to do with 'immigration.'

Keep being PC and go fight your terrorism with cat memes like Belgium tried. Let me know how it works out for you.

More than a handful in every sense.

[guirssane]

Originally Posted by sOurDieSel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

rofl

A handful of muslims (most likely immigrants at one point) blows shit up in Europe and it has nothing to do with 'immigration.'

Keep being PC and go fight your terrorism with cat memes like Belgium tried. Let me know how it works out for you.

Keep talking with Donald trump in your mind. Vote for him you'll see how it goes. You have no idea what your talking about, buy ye I guess bombing randomly a country and killing 100 citizen for one tero is worth, great way of thinking. America in a nutshell as usual. (not every American fortunately)

[Swish]

I could whip up a graph proving the opposite in 5 minutes and post it...I bet someone would believe it too.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I could whip up a graph proving the opposite in 5 minutes and post it...I bet someone would believe it too.

Ah, the old "your data must be wrong" claim. Except rather than actually attempt to prove that the data is wrong, you make a threat to fake some data because that's easier. You're a fucking tool on par with IRYD. Congrats on that I guess.

[Orruar]

And btw, in less time than it took you to type out that post, I found the raw data from the EPA. But I'm sure the EPA is totally faking these numbers, right? You could go out and make your own chart and it would be ever bit as legitimate as the data collected by the EPA! Moron.

http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html

[Swish]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And btw, in less time than it took you to type out that post, I found the raw data from the EPA. But I'm sure the EPA is totally faking these numbers, right? You could go out and make your own chart and it would be ever bit as legitimate as the data collected by the EPA! Moron.

http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html

The government here insists the frequent use of mobile phones isn't hazardous to health, and they have research to prove it despite people who have tumors and shit.

Nothing worse than forged research to help keep the economy ticking.

How often is the media reporting stupid shit like "eating lots of red meat could actually be beneficial to your health, according to the latest research published by some guys trying to make a name for themselves" ?

Keep tuning in and flatly accepting what's being reported without a shred of critical thought if that makes you happy. In many ways its the easier choice.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The government here insists the frequent use of mobile phones isn't hazardous to health, and they have research to prove it despite people who have tumors and shit.

Nothing worse than forged research to help keep the economy ticking.

How often is the media reporting stupid shit like "eating lots of red meat could actually be beneficial to your health, according to the latest research published by some guys trying to make a name for themselves" ?

Keep tuning in and flatly accepting what's being reported without a shred of critical thought if that makes you happy. In many ways its the easier choice.

do you have any backing for the cell phones cause tumors thing?

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The government here insists the frequent use of mobile phones isn't hazardous to health, and they have research to prove it despite people who have tumors and shit.

Nothing worse than forged research to help keep the economy ticking.

How often is the media reporting stupid shit like "eating lots of red meat could actually be beneficial to your health, according to the latest research published by some guys trying to make a name for themselves" ?

Keep tuning in and flatly accepting what's being reported without a shred of critical thought if that makes you happy. In many ways its the easier choice.

All of your examples are around interpretations of data. What we're discussing here is raw data, which is not really open to being misinterpreted. Are you claiming that the EPA is faking raw data? If true, you may have stumbled upon a Pulitzer-prize-level story. And luckily, it's the kind of thing that is easily verifiable simply by testing the air. I eagerly await the evidence that this claim is more than just the ramblings of a moonbat.

[James_Joyce]

I have a little bit of tinfoil inside my phone case around the antenna to reduce the strength of the signal. i just take it out of the case when I need more signal. That way the rest of the time my brain isn't getting microwaved. Dr. Oz suggested this and it's one of his few good ideas.

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by James_Joyce [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have a little bit of tinfoil inside my phone case around the antenna to reduce the strength of the signal. i just take it out of the case when I need more signal. That way the rest of the time my brain isn't getting microwaved. Dr. Oz suggested this and it's one of his few good ideas.

lol A+