Yeah.
Cause he's done such a great job in California.

I'm sure they're lined up right now to nominate another no talent actor to lead their state.

Yeah.
Cause he's done such a great job in California.

I'm sure they're lined up right now to nominate another no talent actor to lead their state.

Hey dude,

I know fairies exist.

 

I made lots of money off my teeth as a kid.

But why the F not ammend the Constitution to let someone like Arnold run ?  Hasn't the time come ?  I believe the Governor of Michigan was born in Canada.  Maybe some new blood will fix up this ailing country.

Sheesh, sounds like a Jesse Jackson speech!

Indeed, sweetie...  you know I love you...

A perplexing yet persistent empirical finding is that individuals assess probabilities in words and in numbers nearly equivalently, and theorists have called for future research to search for factors that cause differences. This study uses an accounting context in which individuals are commonly motivated to reach preferred (rather than accurate) conclusions. Within this context, I predict new differences between verbal and numerical probability assessments, as follows: first, individuals will justify an optimistic verbal assessment (e.g., somewhat possible) by retaining the option of re-defining it, in case of negative outcomes, as though the phrase really means something different, and, for that matter, means more things. This re-definition will maintain some connection to the original meaning of the phrase, but de-emphasized relative to the new meaning. Second, based on this behavior, I also predict individuals' verbal probability assessments to be (1) more biased and yet (2) perceived as more justifiable than their numerical assessments. I find supportive evidence in an experiment designed to test the hypotheses. This study contributes to motivated reasoning and probability assessment theories (1) with new evidence of how individuals can word-smith in multiple attributes of a phrase to justify reaching a preferred conclusion, and (2) with new, reliable differences between verbal and numerical probability assessments. This study has important theoretical and practical implications relevant to organizational contexts in which people assess the likelihoods of uncertainties in words or numbers, and with motivations to reach a preferred conclusion.

It's hard to find new blood with the same old ideas.

 kurtster wrote:Hell, lets just hire some Hessians to go fight our wars of aggression for us while we are at it!

Oh, wait, we already have. We call 'em Blackwater.

As to new blood... that is precisely what Obama is. You guys, never satisfied, always got to look over the fence. Sheesh.

Uh, Kurt, we already have some new blood fixing up this ailing country...  Obama was born on Mars...  you can tell by his ears...  don't try to tell me otherwise—  I know it I know it I know it!!!!

 kurtster wrote:Hell, lets just hire some Hessians to go fight our wars of aggression for us while we are at it!

Oh, wait, we already have. We call 'em Blackwater.

As to new blood... that is precisely what Obama is. You guys, never satisfied, always got to look over the fence. Sheesh.

But why the F not ammend the Constitution to let someone like Arnold run ?  Hasn't the time come ?  I believe the Governor of Michigan was born in Canada.  Maybe some new blood will fix up this ailing country.

Sometimes one doesn't need an emoticon to point to the tongue planted firmly in the cheek...

Karl Rove is the master.

 kurtster wrote:So lets begin by dismantling this whole outmoded construct of sovereign national boundaries and take relevant steps towards the unification of all peoples as citizens of Earth.

Indeed, sweetie...  you know I love you...

A perplexing yet persistent empirical finding is that individuals assess probabilities in words and in numbers nearly equivalently, and theorists have called for future research to search for factors that cause differences. This study uses an accounting context in which individuals are commonly motivated to reach preferred (rather than accurate) conclusions. Within this context, I predict new differences between verbal and numerical probability assessments, as follows: first, individuals will justify an optimistic verbal assessment (e.g., somewhat possible) by retaining the option of re-defining it, in case of negative outcomes, as though the phrase really means something different, and, for that matter, means more things. This re-definition will maintain some connection to the original meaning of the phrase, but de-emphasized relative to the new meaning. Second, based on this behavior, I also predict individuals' verbal probability assessments to be (1) more biased and yet (2) perceived as more justifiable than their numerical assessments. I find supportive evidence in an experiment designed to test the hypotheses. This study contributes to motivated reasoning and probability assessment theories (1) with new evidence of how individuals can word-smith in multiple attributes of a phrase to justify reaching a preferred conclusion, and (2) with new, reliable differences between verbal and numerical probability assessments. This study has important theoretical and practical implications relevant to organizational contexts in which people assess the likelihoods of uncertainties in words or numbers, and with motivations to reach a preferred conclusion.

 it's just lazy, and warrants little attention...

then again, many people also believe in fairies and other supernatural forces, even though their prayers are never answered...  talk about motivated reasoning...

 kurtster wrote:So lets begin by dismantling this whole outmoded construct of sovereign national boundaries and take relevant steps towards the unification of all peoples as citizens of Earth.

Wasn't Washington born in Virginia?  I mean, not technically the USA yet, but still...

But we live in a global community now ...

...Time has come today...