study shows felons are smarter than liberals

I shouldn't have told you "screw you," I apologize... that was very MSNBC of me.

I shouldn't have told you "screw you," I apologize... that was very FOX News of me.

No one is claiming cause-effect. It is simply a fact that felons favor the liberal perspective, since they seem to show more comfort to the thugs than the conservatives who prefer them incarcerated.

I think it's illegal to posess drugs not to do them?

HOw exactly are you going to do a drug unless you take possesion of it? "Hey, throw some coke up my nose so I don't have possesion!!"

Well, how far do we take this? I have lots of serotonin and opiates already coursing through my bloodstream. In certain forms, both are illegal drugs. If the cocaine has been absorbed by the body, the no, you don't really have possession of cocaine, but rather, of it's constituent parts.

That's claiming a cause-effect relationship. :p

No, it's like choosing your mother over your father.

I wonder how income/poverty ties into it. It's no secret that more poor people are in jail, and more poor people vote democratic. Just because there's a trend doesn't mean there's a cause-effect relationship.

That doesn't even make sense.
?


Saying "more felons are democrats because xxxxxxx" is establishing a cause-effect relationship. I'm saying, if it's even true (Ann Coulter lies more often than Bush -- a feat in itself), that it could be for some other reason. e.g. Poor people are mostly democratic. Poor people make up most of the prison population, thus, poverty is to blame, not political bent.

No, poverty is not to blame. If that were true all poor people would be criminals.

When you were little, did your mother coddle you when you were sad..? And did you father not tell you to get off your ass and accomplish something..? Well, the libs mother the weak while the repubs want them to accomplish something useful.

No, poverty is not to blame. If that were true all poor people would be criminals.

your right ian,not all poor people are criminals,but if you are from a poor background,you probably stay in a deprived area,where schools are not as good,and gangs and drugs are rife,living in a better area and going to better schools,certainly does help,as for the libs are weak and repubs wanting to accomplish something useful,thats another sweeping generalisation,clinton,obama and edwards are all wealthy,and would be better of under the republicans,tax wise,but are willing to pay more for others benefit.

thats another sweeping generalisation,clinton,obama and edwards are all wealthy,and would be better of under the republicans,tax wise,but are willing to pay more for others benefit.

The absolute absurdity and wrongness of that statement just baffles me.

Just because there's a cause-effect relationship between two things doesn't mean one thing will ALWAYS follow another thing. It can just make it much more likely. Let's try the "logic" elsewhere:

No, <something> is not to blame. If that were true all <something> people would be <something_else>.

No, unprotected sex is not to blame. If that were true, all people who have unprotected sex would have HIV.

No, coffee is not to blame. If that were true, all coffee drinkers would be unable to fall asleep.

...

Poverty IS to blame for most violent crimes. Seriously. There have been studies proving this. Many, many studies.

Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies -- Hsieh and Pugh 18 (2): 182 -- Criminal Justice Review

Critical Thinking 101 is in order, I think.

Talk about another sweeping generalization?

Criminals are responsible for crime.

Do you think guns are to blame for shooting deaths, too?

By your logic above, death would be to blame for shooting deaths.