Tuesday, October 21, 2008

DUmmies Nervous About Pennsylvania

The DUmmies are biting their fingers over Pennsylvania as you can see in this THREAD titled, "Pennsylvania's voting machines are almost ENTIRELY electronic, without any paper trail." Yeah, they should be worried. Not only are their Diebold machines preset to the "R" position but the EVIL Republicans have certain factors now at work for them in Pennsylvania that they didn't have in 2004 when they lost that state. I won't say exactly what those changed factors are until AFTER the election except to say: Thanx Hillary! Thanx Fast Eddie! Oh, and Jack Murtha calling western PA voters a bunch of racists sure won't help them there. Of course, he did amend that to merely calling them a bunch of rednecks. So let us watch the DUmmies bite their fingernails in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, getting ready to cast his own Florida ballot later today on a preset electronic machine, is in the [brackets]:


Pennsylvania's voting machines are almost ENTIRELY electronic, without any paper trail.

[That way we can cover our trail. Hee! Hee!]

Given the spotlight and speculation about PA, it is important to remember that the state almost entirely votes on electronic voting machines that have no paper record whatsoever (including in Democratic strongholds such as Philadelphia).

[Which part of PA doesn't use electronic voting machines so we can rush some preset Diebolds in there?]

As Brad on Bradblog.com states, elections in PA therefore become entirely faith-based. There is no evidence whatsoever that any votes were cast at all for most of PA. There is plenty of evidence that it is relatively easy for machines to be hacked to silently flip approximately every 25th or every 50th vote only during election hours, which would be hard (if not impossible) to detect.

[Lining up your excuses already?]

So what happens if pre-election polling puts Obama ahead by 8%, exit polls have him ahead by 6%, and yet McCain wins by 1%?

[And we all know just how scientific exit polls are. Just ask President Kerry.]

The exit polls were off over 6% in the primary (and they were also off in the 2004 presidential election by a similar amount). Exit pollsters will simply chalk it up to older voters not wanting to be interviewed by younger pollsters, non-response bias due to a Bradley affect, and various other excuses

[Excuses, excuses. Get them all lined up in advance.]

But let's say that excuse doesn't fly (or that Obama wins by double digits in all polls yet still loses). Let's say Obama's massive legal team takes the election to court. Let's even say the court can be persuaded that fraud occured (possibly enough to swing the election). It would be very unlikely that a court could be convinced of this, but let's say for the sake of argument that they are convinced.

[They might be convinced but only those judges wearing Guy Fawkes costumes.]

What could possibly be done? Even if the court found evidence of fraud, what could possibly be done to correct the outcome? There wouldn't be any way to recount or audit any of the votes. The only possible way the election could be resolved would be to have another election.

[Known in golfing circles as a Mulligan.]

This would be unprecedented. But even if the court would agree to such a massive remedy (which again is very unlikely), how would that work? Would the election be on the same voting equipment? Or would they switch to paper ballots (a process which has taken many other states months or years to implement)? How would people know to come out and vote again? Would turnout even approximate the turnout on election day?

[Would the moon rise in Uranus? Would that make you happy?]

The one thing that bodes well for Democrats is that there is a Democratic secretary of state (which might prevent some fraud). But my whole point is that even if we don't have a Blackwell or a Harris in charge of elections, what could possibly be done if the results on election day diverge so much from all reasonable polling?

[How about marking your ballots on the back of pizza cartons?]

Finally, some would say that we don't actually need PA, and that we have many other paths to victory. This is a very dubious proposition. Even if we win Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, and New Mexico (plus all the Kerry states), losing PA would cost us the election. We would need to win those 4, as well as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Nevada. This is possible, but it certainly isn't guaranteed (especially given that the national polls are expected to tighten somewhat, which will slightly lower Obama's margins in most swing states).

[Are your fingernails bitten down to the nub yet?]

We need to win PA by a margin that is impossible to steal (if such a margin exists). That is why it is a good thing for Obama's campaign to spend large amounts of money and time. A 5 or 6 point victory may not cut it (and even that would be double Kerry's margin of victory).

[Don't worry. Hillary and Fast Eddie have taken care of everything. Hee! Hee! And now on to the other nervous DUmmies...]

THAT IS WHY McAINT BELIEVES HE CAN FLIP PA!! Looks like all the pieces are falling into place for the Repiggies to steal it again. CRAP!

[Would it help if I apply a wet rag of chloroform to your face so you can wake up on the other side of the election? It will be much less painful that way.]

Everyone should recommend this thread!

[I'll be sure to forward it to Hillary and Fast Eddie. Hee! Hee!]

You really think Rendell is going to allow that to happen?

[Hee! Hee!]

So, should PAans photograph their ballot screens?

[And don't forget to dust them down for suspicious fingerprints.]

We should have the f*cking UN or Canada run our elections...

[How about Hugo Chavez or, better yet, Jimmy Carter.]

Just f*cking crazy. I don't know why intelligent people can't figure out how to vote and have evidence of their f*cking vote. Just f*cking nuts!

[SaveOn has a big sale on Guy Fawkes costumes.]

They should really have a print option. Or like "send to email address" for records. It's so ridiculous. When you book a flight or buy shit online, they always send you a confirmation email.

["This is confirmation that you voted for McCain/Palin. Thank you and enjoy your pizza."]

If we win by a huge margin, it becomes harder to steal.

[Not really. The vote flips are all automatic.]

At least PA's governor is a Democrat

[And a secret PUMA. Hee! Hee!]

Which is why I'm REALLY glad that Fast Eddie is our governor and Pedro Cortes is our SoS

[I'm REALLY glad that Fast Eddie is your governor too. Hee! Hee!]

If the election is stolen in PA, our party leaders will share at least a small part of the blame - they have had SIX YEARS to fix this problem, and have apparently sat on their hands. We can only hope that more has been done behind the scenes than they have let on!

[Oh, I assure you things have been done behind the scenes. Now would you like a nice hit from the chloroform rag?]

People tried and tried and tried to get Democrats in Congress interested in election reform, but hardly anyone gave a shit. So here we are, all these years later, with faith-based voting in far too many places.

["Faith-based voting." I like that term. May I borrow it? I promise to repay you with a nice hit from the chloroform rag.]

let's not forget one thing... Rendell is still the governor

[Close your eyes, lean back, and take a nice big whiff from the chloroform rag.]

55 Comments:

Anonymous AshburnAlley said...

Yeah, DUmmies, pay no attention to the busloads of fraudulent voters in North and West Philly. I'm sure they'll all be voting for Mac.

Rendell will be too busy stuffing his face to worry about the election.

12:20 PM  
Blogger iamnot said...

Murtha is the best bet for McCain in PA.
Please John...keep talking!

12:28 PM  
Anonymous Thomas F said...

Speaking of the "Murthaf..ker"

Has anyone see any polling on his race vs Bill Russell?

He ran away from his only debate like a 5 yo girl from a pitbull.

12:32 PM  
Blogger Son Of The Godfather said...

These sad, little people lead sad, little lives.

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More fake conversations (an attempt at wit? or perhaps literacy?)

Won't anyone play with you kids...you gotta invent your own invisible friends? Come on find someone with a pulse and measurable IQ to author this stuff.
Fall over drunk and you'll hit 5 real issues....shouldn't be hard for this group.

Obama's up by 11 in Penn as of this morning.
We are soooo concerned. Yawn.

2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama's up by 11 in Penn as of this morning."-anon 2:22pm

I guess all those "Rednecks" and "Racists" Jack Murtha was talking about are really liberals. But then we all knew liberals have been the real racists all along.

Thanks for proving that point!

That is what you intended to do with your impotent little jab... wasn't it?

2:39 PM  
Anonymous DumbAss Tanker said...

"Obama's up by 11 in Penn as of this morning.
We are soooo concerned. Yawn."

Well, gosh, sounds like you have absolutely nothing to worry about then, it's really in the bag for Obama! Wow, we Conservatives sure are doomed!

4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would think moonbats would want to avoid any talk of election fraud in light of the 8,000 investigations into ACORN right now. If ACORN is active in PA, the moonbats need not worry. In fact, I'm sure every democrat in PA is registered at least 3 times each.

4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anon 1:50 said...

Of real concern is the presupposition that it is truly possible for a massive 'gaming' of the vote system.

I do not discount the ACORN efforts and the traditional Democrat registration of the "previously living" and "animal-Americans", but the simple requirement of a genuine photograph I.D., registered with ones vote should be suffish to put all this crap to rest...

The fact is, the race is VERY close. Statistically closer than Kerry-Bush.

I, for one, have declined (rudely, on occasion) any politicking by phone, pollster, or union, and believe that the Piss-Stream Media has conflated the polls and done all they can do with their waning influence to swing this election their way.

It's their last gasp. If they lose this time, they're done.

I don't know about you, but I'm here on the internet looking for facts, truth and good, logical discourse on the issues. All of the masturbatory messianic hype is a load of Jesse Jackson-era wank-juice, and I don't but it.

None of it.

BTW. My absentee ballot goes in tomorrow.

4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anon 1:50 said...

Sorry, that should read "I don't BUY it".

4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I lied through my teeth to a Zogby pollster.

7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I guess all those "Rednecks" and "Racists" Jack Murtha was talking about are really liberals. But then we all knew liberals have been the real racists all along. "

So true, we value intelligence, rational thinking, accomplishments over political payments ("Heck of a job Browny") No danger of finding any of that here. You guys prove that point with nearly every post.

"It's in the bag for Obama"
Not so much, but McFlame and Palin (who hopes to run the Senate!!?) reliably shoot themselves in the head twice a day ...consistency...there you are run with that.

Anon 150 looking for "....good, logical discourse on the issues".

Someone give this guy a compass and a pair of glassess....you came here for that??? These knuckle draggers are to logical discourse what the World Wrestling Federation is to ballet. How many of you have lost arguments to turnips this week?

The humor keeps me coming back.

7:59 PM  
Anonymous Corona said...

PJ, you cut the thread short! They were just about to show close-ups of the chloroform rag! Dang!

I love that rag.

9:28 PM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

Anon 7:59, am gonna lump you in with Troglaman, hope you don't mind

Can either of you tell us how Obama at the top of the Dem ticket is better qualified/has more relevant experience to RUN the country than does Palin to "be a heartbeat away" from running it?

I'm most interested in getting an answer to this. Every liberal seems to enjoy going on about how dumb and inexperienced Sarah supposedly is and how her being a "heartbeat away from the Presidency" is such a scary thought..

Surely you've thought that through and have an explanation as to how the same doesn't apply to the top of your own ticket tenfold, I mean, right?

I must have asked t-man this same question 5 times on this blog, still hasn't answered though. Maybe you could help him out?

4:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Claw,
Let me clarify, because you seemed to have missed it. Palin is not running against Obama. Repeat after me the VP candidates are Biden and Palin.

But here's a question back at ya. Obama has been running for nearly two years....your right wing truth squads have combed over every piece of his existence and hung on every word in the hopes of destroying him.

Palin on the other hand is being kept away from the press...no press conferences, no free questioning, no actual discourse with the American people - just rote inappropriate parroting of her talking points, aw shucks cuteness and apparently an RNC financed $150,000 wardrobe (thanks for that contribution Joe)

So with all this great experience. Why must she be hidden away, kept silent and entirely scripted?

You know the answer to that doncha kiddies.

But who are we to judge. Latest polls judge Palin pick McCains greatest failure to date...and something that is echoed by an ever growing number of stalwart conservatives....need I list them?

Beyond this is the extraordinary political wisdom of picking someone who completely robbed the McCain camp of the three top selling points: Experience, steady hand, and America before politics. Your own family writes on this...we Dems don't need to.

8:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So true, we value intelligence, rational thinking, accomplishments over political payments "-anon 7:59pm

Good for you! Accepting that you are the true racist is a good step turning yourself around. That is presuming that you want to quit being a racist.

""It's in the bag for Obama"
Not so much, but McFlame and Palin reliably shoot themselves in the head twice a day" -anon 7:59pm

You are SO right! They're such losers. Remember the time when McCain said he had already visited 57 states with two to go? Or when he said that 10,000 people died in a tornado when it was actually 12? Or when he called the Prime Minister of Canada "President"? Or how about when he went to Afganistan and mentioned the leaders he'd be dealing with for the next 8 to 10 years?

Or what about Palin? That dunce! Remember when she was shouting at reporters thatr she had "the highest IQ in the room"? Or the time she called McCain "Osama" in Palm Beach? And do you remember when she asked Sen. Chuck Graham to "stand up Chuck" when Graham is in a wheelchair?

Those two are a gaffe a minute... Oh wait.

That wasn't McCain and Palin.

10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama has been running for nearly two years"-anon 8:44am

And he has been a leader (of anything) for nearly zero years. If he wins he won't have time to be a leader even then because the 2012 campaign is right around the corner.

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Palin on the other hand is being kept away from the press...no press conferences, no free questioning,"-8:44am

This is untrue on multiple levels but speaking of "no free questioning". The price of adulation of his Holiness has gone up. Check out what the Obamassiah is charging his acolytes in the press merely to be in his glowing presence on election night.

Theyre fit to be tithed.

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, the Dummies are worried about the "fixed" electronic voting machines in PA? Yeah, I would be worried if I were them. After all, all of those corpses, felons, and illegal aliens that they spent so much time an effort getting registered as Democrats will have their votes stolen, thereby ruining the sanctity of the election process.

11:18 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"I won't say exactly what those changed factors are until AFTER the election except to say: Thanx Hillary! Thanx Fast Eddie!" PJ

'Gonna hold you to that, PJ. I'm surprised ol' Pills won't be included in the circle of gratitude. Surely Operation Chaos must've played a key role in the upcoming McCain win.

11:35 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"I must have asked t-man this same question 5 times on this blog, still hasn't answered though. Maybe you could help him out?" mandible

Because Obama has demonstrated to everyone but you and your friends he's ready. Has Sarah? Nope. Perception's everything, mandible. Obama is perceived as being capable. Sarah is perceived as somewhat of a joke. They've both had to work hard at gaining the public trust. Obama has succeeded to a larger degree than Sarah has. He is more convincing. That's just reality.

Listen. I'm feel your pain, mandible. They're both new. They're both inexperienced. And I've been living in hell for the last 8 years and hope you're about to burn for the next 8. It would satisfy my appetite for highly deserved Karma.

I know people that have hung out with Sarah and The First Dude and they really liked them. They're voting for Obama and yet still, they really liked them as people and wouldn't hesitate to have a beer with them. But that's how it is in Alaska. Live and let live is a reality up there. How many of you jackrabbits have been there? It's not like down here. It really isn't.

I digress. Here's the bottom line, mandible. Obama, despite his lack of experience, has demonstrated he can pull it off.

Sarah, despite her lack of experience, has demonstrated an uncanny knack for comedy. But she's made her mark. I'll give her that.

I think the notion of 'shoring your bets' applies in this election. McCain's age and health problems lurk darkly in people's minds. It's not hard to conceive of a scenario whereby Sarah becomes president.

For the sake of discussion, if we take McCain out of the picture, which of the 3 left, Obama, Sarah, or Joe, would you want running the country?

It's this unhappy scenario that's being weighed. It's why, among other reasons, RepubliDums say they are defecting. They believe her to be unqualified.

Perception's everything, mandible.

12:31 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

I bit.

Damn you to hell, mandible.

12:50 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

Anonymous said...
Claw,
Let me clarify, because you seemed to have missed it. Palin is not running against Obama. Repeat after me the VP candidates are Biden and Palin.


Um.. Yeah, zigactly. Hence my - and others' - confusion over the left's fixation with Palin's supposed lack of experience and suitability to be a "heartbeat away."

But here's a question back at ya. Obama has been running for nearly two years....your right wing truth squads have combed over every piece of his existence and hung on every word in the hopes of destroying him.

And your left-wing lie squads - ie. the liberal/Democrat main stream media - have studiously run interference over every disturbing association, economic policy gaffe, and general indication of his complete lack of qualifications, knowledge, or experience that The One has revealed, while simultaneously manufacturing a storm in a teacup over the slightest non-issue they can find with Palin. Someone-or-other from CNN even justified this by pointing out that the channel had run something like 25 stories into Obama's background vs 22 or so on Palin's. Yeah, in 2 years of campaigning vs how many months?

Palin on the other hand is being kept away from the press...no press conferences, no free questioning, no actual discourse with the American people -

That's funny. Could have sworn I saw her talking to Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. As for being "kept away from the press," er, for one she doesn't need the press, they need her, and for two when douchey in-the-tank talking heads like Gibson utilize their time with her to launch silly 'gotcha' attacks (never mind that Gibson himself got the definition of the Bush doctrine wrong), perhaps it's simply not worth her time?

...just rote inappropriate parroting of her talking points,

Oh, I must have missed where the American people were given a chance to hear Obama clarify how raising the capital gains tax would benefit the middle class? Oh wait, the one random American citizen who he deined to speak to is now being ripped apart by the in-the-tank media, who are still studiously ignoring any real investigation into the One's political ties to Ayers, Rezko et al.

aw shucks cuteness and apparently an RNC financed $150,000 wardrobe (thanks for that contribution Joe)

Wow, what a SHOCKING SCANDAL that the RNC spent some of the untold millions in campaign donations (that Sarah has brought in) to dress her up a bit! Surely middle America will be stunned by these revelations that, despite being a state governor, she previously dressed pretty much like they did, so much so that to fit in in Washington needed an entire new wardrobe!!! This is surely a far more significant issue than whether or not small business owners will end up paying higher taxes under the One!!!111!!!

So with all this great experience. Why must she be hidden away, kept silent and entirely scripted?

Hm, that's a really difficult one to answer. It couldn't be because the media are completely in the tank for her opposition and have made their intention to destroy her abundantly clear from the outset; or that she is drawing such insanely large crowds to her rallies, and such strong support from crossover Hillary voters, that she doesn't need the media one tenth as much as they need her?

You know the answer to that doncha kiddies.

Yeah, we do. Very much so. We would, however, like to hear what your ACTUAL ANSWER to the question is, rather than meaningless implications that there must be something really wrong with Palin because she's not talking to CNN as much as CNN would like. Once again a leftard has completely failed to provide anything in the way of a substantial answer to this very simple question: WHAT IS IT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SARAH PALIN THAT MAKES HER UNQUALIFIED TO BE THE VICE PRESIDENT?

But who are we to judge.

Dunno. No-one particularly qualified, it seems, since you still can't come up with a single substantive fact to back up your opinions.

Latest polls judge Palin pick McCains greatest failure to date...

Oh, which "latest polls" would these be? Did they poll PUMAs, parents of special-needs children, conservatives, libertarians, or anyone else who might constitute a part of Palin's support?

...and something that is echoed by an ever growing number of stalwart conservatives....need I list them?

You need. Go ahead, embarrass yourself.

Beyond this is the extraordinary political wisdom of picking someone who completely robbed the McCain camp of the three top selling points: Experience, steady hand, and America before politics.

Again, in which area does Palin lack experience, particularly? And in which ways, specifically, is she less experienced than the man at the TOP of the Democrat ticket?

How does her selection indicate that America is not being put ahead of politics? Be specific. A non-sequitur talking-point may be sufficient to sell your fellow brainless liberal groupies, but sadly for you conservatives prefer to deal with fact.

Your own family writes on this...we Dems don't need to.

Oh, then you can no doubt provide something - anything - to back up your talking points. Oh, what's that, you can't? Because they're completely unsubstantiated by anything factual, and you really just repeated them out of an NYT or Slate editorial?

I often wonder why I even bother asking lefty/liberal/Democrat/whatever types anything substantial. It is such a waste of fricking time.

1:46 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

troglaman said...
"I must have asked t-man this same question 5 times on this blog, still hasn't answered though. Maybe you could help him out?" mandible

Because Obama has demonstrated to everyone but you and your friends he's ready.


Hm, it's unfortunate that my friends (I'm not American, btw) form around half of America's voting population then. Perhaps he should try harder? Perhaps he should address issues like his advocation of higher capital gains taxes, despite the fact that lower capital gains taxes have resulted in higher tax revenue collection over each of the last eight presidential terms? Perhaps he could explain why his own running mate has stated that he (Obama) is not experienced enough to be President? Just a couple niggling issues like that to clear up, ya know. After that I'm sure conservatives will join the Obama flock in droves.

Has Sarah? Nope.

Oh, so governing a state, negotiating billion-dollar oil deals, and achieving near-90% approval ratings in the process, is a demonstration of a lack of experience and/or readiness? Again, one wonders, what specific comparable experience does Obama have that so outweighs Sarah's that he is demonstrably ready to be President while she is demonstrably not ready to be Vice President?

Perception's everything, mandible.

It certainly is. You lot's odd perceptions would be what convince you that writing two autobiographies, teaching identity politics and voting present in the senate for three months constitute sufficient experience for a President, while governing a state and neogiating billion-dollar energy deals do not constitute sufficient evidence to be a Vice President. I'm still not sure why that is. I was hoping you or your anonymous fellow traveler could explain, but it appears you are only able to repeat - again - the standard talking points, without presenting anything in the way of facts to support them. My fault for asking, I guess.

Obama is perceived as being capable.

By whom? By liberal/Democrats, including those in the media? And this is supposed to be a surprise - from the people who firmly believed that John Edwards was a man of honesty and integrity; that Al Gore was going to save the environment; that Obama IS going to cause sea levels to fall, and so forth.

Sarah is perceived as somewhat of a joke.

Right. But Biden isn't. I'm not much inclined to play the gender card, but do you think that referring to Sarah as a "joke", in spite of her extremely impressive political resume, might have something to do with something other than politics?

They've both had to work hard at gaining the public trust. Obama has succeeded to a larger degree than Sarah has.

Er.. Obama has been placed on a pedestal by an adoring media. If by "the public trust" you meant to include conservatives your statement would be 100% erroneous.

He is more convincing. That's just reality.

Hm, that's a solid reason to vote for him, then! Never mind minor things like experience, qualifications, previous and existing political or personal affiliations, he's just so CONVINCING that we should all vote for him! His CONVINCINGness is all the qualification he needs!

Listen. I'm feel your pain, mandible. They're both new. They're both inexperienced.

One of them has been a governor of a state. She's also been a mayor. How, specifically, does this constitute a lack of experience? I would really like to know. Honestly, are you able to outline precisely HOW Palin is inexperienced? And are you able to reconcile that with the paragraph you just typed justifying Obama's own lack of experience by claiming that he comes across more convincingly?

And I've been living in hell for the last 8 years and hope you're about to burn for the next 8.

More fool you for picking the losing horse, I guess. As for living in hell - well I'm outside Australia at the moment, but K-Rudd's magic plan to flush the entire economy down the toilet certainly has me worried, let me tell you that much.

It would satisfy my appetite for highly deserved Karma.

Hm, so your case for Obama so far is that 1. You personally didn't like the Bush government, and you want to see your opponents suffer to make up for that, and 2. Obama has convinced you that he agrees with your world-view. While that is certainly compelling, I still think you might want to refine your argument a little vis a vis proving Palin is inexperienced, dangerous, and/or unfit to be Vice President. (That was my original question, in case you'd forgotten.)

I know people that have hung out with Sarah and The First Dude and they really liked them. They're voting for Obama and yet still, they really liked them as people and wouldn't hesitate to have a beer with them.

And?

But that's how it is in Alaska. Live and let live is a reality up there.

So.. Once again, successfully governing such a place would not constitute a solid recommendation for becoming Vice President, how, exactly?

How many of you jackrabbits have been there? It's not like down here. It really isn't.

Hm. Alaska is different to the more southern states. Again, a compelling argument as to why a person who successfully governed it should definitely not be the Vice President.

I digress. Here's the bottom line, mandible. Obama, despite his lack of experience, has demonstrated he can pull it off.

How? How has he done this? Be SPECIFIC. Has he demonstrated that he has a good working knowledge of economics? Has his approach to foreign policy shown signs of furthering U.S. objectives overseas? Are you able to provide one single sold fact to back that up - or are you just saying it?

Sarah, despite her lack of experience, has demonstrated an uncanny knack for comedy.

Again, and again, and again: How does being an extremely successful governor demonstrate a lack of experience? And on the most superficial level of your entire argument: Are you aware that an ability to laugh at oneself is generally thought of as a sign of emotional health - and something that Obama conspicuously lacks?

But she's made her mark. I'll give her that.

She sure has. She made her mark when she was governing Alaska. Obama made his mark when he was reading speeches off a teleprompter in front of fawning, in-the-tank press corps.

I think the notion of 'shoring your bets' applies in this election. McCain's age and health problems lurk darkly in people's minds. It's not hard to conceive of a scenario whereby Sarah becomes president.

Exactly right. In fact most conservatives are pulling for her to run for top spot in 2012. It's something to do with, you know, her being the only politician in the current race who actually has executive experience. Who knew.

For the sake of discussion, if we take McCain out of the picture, which of the 3 left, Obama, Sarah, or Joe, would you want running the country?

I think it's quite fair to say that even with McCain IN the picture most conservatives would want Sarah running the country.

Again; One solid reason why her running the country would be a BAD idea? Has she proven herself INcapable of running something? Anything? Nothing? Is this thing on?

It's this unhappy scenario that's being weighed. It's why, among other reasons, RepubliDums say they are defecting. They believe her to be unqualified.

Hahahahahahaha.. Keep on dreaming. Check out some PUMA sites to get a clue as to which way the defections are ACTUALLY going. Unless you meant Peggy Noonan and whats-his-name Buckley, of course. And yeah you can keep them/

Perception's everything, mandible.

Yeah, apparently. At least to you lot. Facts, evidence, history, not so much. The unfounded belief that the One is the magical progressive messiah who will fulfill your magical progressive dreams and everything will be well with the world, more so.

Oh well. I think I've satisfactorily answered my own question here: You actually DON'T have a single fact to support your contentions. It all boils down to what you feeeeeeel about the candidates, not their relative records in terms of executive experience, political and personal associations or affiliations, voting records, or anything else meaningful in any way.

Thanks for playing. I guess.

2:14 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

troglaman said...
I bit.

Damn you to hell, mandible.

12:50 AM


Yeah. Should have realised there was a sharp steel hook sticking through the bait, and that you'd be hauled up outta the water, bashed on the deck and have your guts sliced out. Figuratively speaking, ya know.

Oh well. You did manage to provide me with the beginnings of a good metaphor for a debate with a liberal on why they believe what they do believe. In fact the more I think about it the more accurate it is. The scaly, cold-blooded creature being dragged from its briney immersion and flapping as its gills choke on the cold hard air of reality. The sharp sting of the fact-knife tearing its guts apart. Flapping to death in an environment it's not equipped to handle. Ie. reality.

I just brought a tear to my eye. It's so beautiful.

2:26 AM  
Anonymous susieq2cute said...

Wow, Mandible, all I can say is Wow. You have definitely put tman in his much deserved place. I can just picture tman....floundering about on the ground, gutted. You are so right, it is beautiful.

8:17 AM  
Anonymous John Galt said...

"... You lot's odd perceptions would be what convince you that writing two autobiographies, teaching identity politics and voting present in the senate for three months ..."

Claw, you forgot the part about Obama's experience in community organizing and ginning up political favors.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/pvextprofile.html

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6968

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/bobamasunlikelypoliticaledu.html

9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mandible (as in Jaw)

Not worth a point by point response to someone whose entire political knowledge quota comes from FAUX News ...never the less one response:

Conservatives for Obama

Colin Powell - oh but he's black...doesn't count

Larry Hunter - supply-side economist who helped write Republicans' 1994 Contract With America

Ken Adelman - a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control.

Jeffrey Hart, longtime National Review editor and former speechwriter for both Nixon and Reagan

Wayne Gilchrest - The Republican congressman from Maryland

Douglas Kmiec - former chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations

David Friedman - son of late conservative icon and Nobel economist Milton Friedman

Alan Greenspan - remember him?

Smerconish - Philadelphia conservative writer and radio host

Wick Allison, Editor In Chief D Mag
George F Will
Christopher Buckley
David Brooks

the Houston Chronicle and Austin American Statesman - OUCH Bush supporters

Jeffrey Hart - The longtime National Review editor, founder of the Dartmouth Review, and former speechwriter for both Nixon and Reagan

David Freddoso - staff reporter for conservative National Review Online, and the author of The Case Against Barack Obama.

And then there is....Palin's Mother in law

Jam man....hows about next we cover the Conservatives who have written about the dismal selection of Fluffy Bunny as VP?

9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 9:20 -- all those you mentioned except Greenspan are "neo-con" conservatives. i.e., those who felt the Dumbocrats left them behind in their radical shift left in the 70s and 80s.

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 1pm.

Huh? Powell, Buckley, Brooks, Will....?

Someone may need to 'splain neo-con to you.

McCain votes 90% with Bush....simple fact....and yet those very people supporting Bush are dropping like flies on shit

9:49 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"I was hoping you or your anonymous fellow traveler could explain, but it appears you are only able to repeat - again - the standard talking points, without presenting anything in the way of facts to support them. My fault for asking, I guess." mandible

Everything I said can be born out. It's you (where'd you say you were from mandible?) that adhere to stupid meme echos like "Obama made his mark when he was reading speeches off a teleprompter in front of fawning, in-the-tank press corps." Assumption, assumption. Make an ass out of you and me.

And then you said, "In fact the more I think about it the more accurate it is. The scaly, cold-blooded creature being dragged from its briney immersion and flapping as its gills choke on the cold hard air of reality. The sharp sting of the fact-knife tearing its guts apart. Flapping to death in an environment it's not equipped to handle. Ie. reality. I just brought a tear to my eye. It's so beautiful."...and revealed yourself.

Your words speak for themselves. What are you going to do when you lose, you sick fuck? Gut a Dem? Control yourself.

12:05 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

Anonymous said...
Mandible (as in Jaw)

Not worth a point by point response to someone whose entire political knowledge quota comes from FAUX News ...never the less one response:


In other words you still have nothing concrete, as at the beginning you had nothing, which demonstrates why Palin's executive experience as Alaska governor does not qualify her to be Vice President, while Obama's three months in the senate qualify him to be President - besides the opinions of a couple of crusty old RINO faux-conservatives like Powell and What's-His-Name Buckley - and like I already said when I named those two before you came forward with the STUNNING REVELATION that was your well-known list of a couple of douchey CINOs (conservatives in name only - yeah I just made that up) which you cobbled off of Slate or DU, or wherever.

Not that I expected anything less, but thank you anyway for proving my point so nicely.

Now, would you like me to point you towards some PUMA sites so you could get a clue about which way most of the party defections are actually going - as in, by the thousands? Did you know that a very prominent chapter of PUMAs (run by mostly gay white dudes) are working together with grassroots conservatives to put on a massive counter-party opposite The One's coronation ceremony? Do you need some more examples of why those CINOs - who, as I said, your side is welcome to keep - mean nothing in comparison to the TENS OF THOUSANDS of people showing up to Sarah rallies and the THOUSANDS MORE normal, feminist, liberal Democrat voters jumping the aisle? Who see in Sarah pretty much everything they wanted from Hillary, and are doing their utmost to make sure they get her?

Or would that be an unwelcome intrusion into your sheltered liberal headspace?

Oh, and as for Faux News, yeah, not so much. I actually started watching Fox because libtard douches like yourself seem to be so afraid of it - was very impressed by their reporting and the fairness with which they present opposing views (I'm in media myself, before you tear off on some douchey rant about what you think you know about journalism). Despite being impressed with a lot of what I saw there, I still don't watch any TV news besides the BBC. I get my info from actually doing research and reading myself, fropm blogs, and from the business press. Maybe you should try that instead of repeating what you hear on [[insert in-the-tank liberal Democrat talking head's show here]].

So, yeah, thanks for asking.

Anyhoo, any luck with proving (you know, with, like evidence and that kind of funky, crazy stuff the kids are using these days) why precisely it is that Palin is not qualified to be the Vice President, and why Obama is?

Oh, I almost forgot, in answer to your query on why Palin is being "sheltered from the media," you might enjoy this.

In the meantime, while you are thinking of your next compelling smackdown of my arguments (that "Faux news" one was teh AWESOMEZ!!!111!!!, btw, well done with that!!!) perhaps you could toodle over here and check out Bill Ayer's writings, then head on over here to here from Bill Ayers himself just how public he made his views back in 2002.

12:13 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"In other words you still have nothing concrete, as at the beginning you had nothing, which demonstrates why Palin's executive experience as Alaska governor does not qualify her to be Vice President, while Obama's three months in the senate qualify him to be President." mandible

She doesn't know the constitutional definition of the role of the Vice President. She has no, none, foreign policy experience. She doesn't understand the 'Bush Doctrine'. Her daughter is knocked-up and out of wedlock. She's endorsed the AIP (Alaskan Independence Party), given a keynote address at their convention, and prayed with a African Christian witch-hunter for her nomination as governor of Alaska.

This is obviously fine with you, mandible, you stupid shit.

Go ahead. Keep talking resumes. You're an unashamed idiot.

12:27 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

Where are you from, mandible?

12:33 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

troglaman said...
"In other words you still have nothing concrete, as at the beginning you had nothing, which demonstrates why Palin's executive experience as Alaska governor does not qualify her to be Vice President, while Obama's three months in the senate qualify him to be President." mandible

She doesn't know the constitutional definition of the role of the Vice President.


Um, dude, you really are reaching at straws. For one, the Vice President can and does "run the senate" (just ask Al Gore), two, you may have noted Sarah was speaking to a small child when she gave that definition. No doubt Obama would have given another pretentious pseudo-intellectual answer (eg. "this country is, um, ah, not all it could be right now, and that's not what I want for my children" - or whatever the douche told the seven-year-old that asked him a question a while back); but what kinda douche does that?

Seriously - that's the best you've got? Really? She simplified constitutional law for a discussion with a primary school kid?

She has no, none, foreign policy experience.

WHAT'S OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE? WHERE IS IT? WHAT IS IT? He's at the top of the Dem ticket, remember? Didn't Palin tell Couric she's at least met with Russian delegates coming through Alaska? Again, WHAT'S OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE? THE GUY YOU WANT TO BE PRESIDENT, NOT VICE PRESIDENT?

She doesn't understand the 'Bush Doctrine'.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha...... Um if you'd read my reply a couple posts ago you could have saved yourself this embarrassment. Or maybe you did, and like most libtards your Palin derangement syndrome was simply too strong to allow you to avoid bringing this one up..

Troglaman, who was it that coined the phrase "Bush doctrine" ? Do you even know the answer to this question?

Next question. Are you aware that - after Charles "Douche" Gibson tried to get his gotcha on with Sarah, to have her ask him for clarification, the inventor of the phrase "Bush doctrine" noted that the definition Gibson gave was incorrect - and that there have been so many iterations and varying definitions of the phrase that, in fact, when asked about the Bush doctrine the correct response would be "please be specific.." ? Whoops.

Her daughter is knocked-up and out of wedlock.

And? Al Gore's son drives under the influence. Which is a greater crime against humanity? Do either of them matter - or are you just being a sexist asshole? And, again, is that really the best you've got?

She's endorsed the AIP (Alaskan Independence Party), given a keynote address at their convention, and prayed with a African Christian witch-hunter for her nomination as governor of Alaska.

Hm, let's see, Obama was A MEMBER of the socialist New Party, and gave a glowing recommendation of Bill Ayer's book; he also worked with Bill Ayers extensively. Oh yeah, Bill Ayers was directly involved in murdering around a dozen Americans in a bombing campaign aimed at starting a Communist revolution. And the members of his organization planned for, upon success of said revolution, the contingency of having to liquidate around 25 million Americans. Don't believe me? Yeah, I bet you don't. I will provide you with the proof once you have made an idiot of yourself by laughing at what I just told you.

So, yeah, um.. Anything else you want to bring up about associations past and/or present? And even if Palin was associated with the Alaskan Independence party.. um .. wouldn't that mean she just wanted to get away from Bushitler's fascist police state?
This is obviously fine with you, mandible, you stupid shit.

Go ahead. Keep talking resumes. You're an unashamed idiot.

Um..okay that speaks for itself.

1:01 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

troglaman said...
Where are you from, mandible?

12:33 AM


Um.. I'm from .. Yo mama.

Why do you ask? I quite clearly indicated in a couple of posts that I'm Australian. Again, why?

1:03 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"I quite clearly indicated in a couple of posts that I'm Australian." mandible

"Yo mama" sounds just like Australia. Excuse me for misunderstanding.

Your Australian passion for American politics seems a little over the top. Especially, your Australian affinity for our Alaskan governor who has an interest and investment in a group that would like Alaska to succeed. She remind you of a kangaroo or something? Why do you care?

I'm sorry, but this is our problem. Your down-under perspectives are interesting but, in the final analysis, don't mean shit.

'mandible' makes more sense now, you friggin aussie lobster. We get it frozen over here. But it's pretty damn good. I'll give you that.

2:29 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

troglaman said...
"I quite clearly indicated in a couple of posts that I'm Australian." mandible

"Yo mama" sounds just like Australia. Excuse me for misunderstanding.


You're excused for misunderstanding. You're not excused for thinking people in Australia don't say things like "yo mama," but pretending that you know the first thing about the country.

Your Australian passion for American politics seems a little over the top.

Meh. I gave up on Aussie politics, for now at least. Although, if for some reason they become an issue on a blog about American politics I'd be more than happy to talk about them. Plus, in the overall scheme of things, I don't pretend that the state of conservatism in American politics is less important than in Australian politics. Australians tend to figger it out pretty quickly on the periodic occasions on which we put a douchey leftist tool into office. Now would be one of those times, K-Rudd's ratings are following global temperatures (and the DJIA) down the crapper, I'm all set on the home front. So may as well spend my time bashing in the shells of lefist crustaceans in America as not. Got a problem with that?

Especially, your Australian affinity for our Alaskan governor who has an interest and investment in a group that would like Alaska to succeed.

I think you meant secede. She'd hardly want to see Alaska fail, now would she. As for the "interest and investment," um yeah another leftard canard in lieu of having something real to pin on her. Hey, it's not the right's fault that she's the cleanest and best politician in AmeriKKKa in a long time, why don't you knobs deal with your own hangups instead of laying them on everyone else? And you know it was Mr. First Dude who was (briefly) in the Independent Party, not Mrs. First Dude, right? Oh, and while we're on past associations, um, yep I see your Independent party and raise you a New Party, Frank Marshal Davis and Billy Ayers. Wanna take the trade?

She remind you of a kangaroo or something? Why do you care?

Why do you care that I care? Why can't you explain why you, personally, care, when you've actually got direct stake in your own country's affairs? Why can't you cite a single good reason to be against Palin and for Obama, when I, mandible claw, who has never even been to the US, can give you dozens of concrete examples pointing the opposite way? Do you think Australians are on the whole not interested or invested in US politics, or the politics of our fellow British empire split-offs, or Britain, or our neighbours, or our allies, or enemies of our allies? Are you really comfortable with insinuating that the only reason an Australian conservative would be interested in American conservatism is because of a political figure's similarity to a marsupial?

I'm sorry, but this is our problem.

Sure is. I'm trying to save you from your own idiocy, and its fallout onto us and your other closest allies. And on the flipside, if you think the entirety of Australian liberalism isn't pulling for Obama with all its might you are fooling yourself. If you're thinking that Palin is not already a powerful symbol for conservatism and conservative feminism across the entire world you are out of your mind.

In short, I recommend you immediately remove your finger from your rectum and cease and desist from placing it there again.

Your down-under perspectives are interesting but, in the final analysis, don't mean shit.

Really? Did it not mean shit when we went into Iraq with you, when hundreds of us got blown up in Bali by the same people you were fighting (well, those of you who were fighting them), when we were picking up the limbs your enemies blew off of our people, when we went into the first and second world wars with you, stood up for your leaders on the world stage when no-one else would, and so on? Did it mean shit when we were Fuck seceding from Alaska, you're trying to secede from the rest of the damn world starting with the allies who were by your side when you achieved most of your greatest moments and were there to help you at your weakest. And all so that no-one will question your silly liberal messiah or your Palin derangement.

'mandible' makes more sense now, you friggin aussie lobster.

Mm, sure. It's the name of a wrestling move popularized by Mick Foley, who is both American and a Democrat, you stupid tool.

And since it appears that an Aussie lobster knows about 10 to the power of your ass more about your own politics than you do, perhaps you should stay away from name calling or other shenanigans in the interim. At least til, you know, you figure out what your own political candidates are up to, and such. Maybe then we'll talk.

We get it frozen over here. But it's pretty damn good. I'll give you that.

Sucks to be you, I guess. Try the real stuff some time.

2:57 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"For one, the Vice President can and does "run the senate" (just ask Al Gore)" exoskelaton

Nope. Dumbassed remark.

"Didn't Palin tell Couric she's at least met with Russian delegates coming through Alaska?" big claw

Nope. Dumbassed remark.

"you may have noted Sarah was speaking to a small child when she gave that definition." scary calcium deposit

Nope. She was speaking to a reporter, dumbass.

Go home. Drink a Fosters or a glass of wine from the Marlbourough region of that dangerous, socialist country off your southeast coast (love the Kim Crawford stuff...goes well with shellfish). They did "Lord of the Rings" there, didn't they?

You're a friggin wanker, mandible. Amazing that American douchbaggery could turn you into the tool you are. Amazing.

3:22 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

"Didn't Palin tell Couric she's at least met with Russian delegates coming through Alaska?" big claw

Nope. Dumbassed remark.


Whoops.

"Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin:

We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

"For one, the Vice President can and does "run the senate" (just ask Al Gore)" exoskelaton

Nope. Dumbassed remark.


Whoops.

"The Senate was to vote Thursday on the nominations of Richard A. Paez and Marsha Berzon to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Paez, a U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles, was first nominated by President Clinton more than four years ago, and has been in limbo longer than any judge-nominee in modern history. Berzon, a San Francisco lawyer, was nominated more than two years ago.

Both are expected to win confirmation. But just in case he's needed, Vice President Al Gore cut short a Midwest campaign swing Wednesday to be present for Thursday's Senate votes. In his role as president of the Senate, the vice president breaks tie votes."

/Guess what happened in the subsequent debate.

"you may have noted Sarah was speaking to a small child when she gave that definition." scary calcium deposit

Nope. She was speaking to a reporter, dumbass.


Whoops.

"Sarah Palin is taking heat Wednesday for appearing to overstate the role of vice president, saying in a recent interview that she would be "in charge of the Senate" should John McCain win the White House.

The comments came in an interview with Colorado TV station KUSA in response to a third-grader's question, "What does the Vice President do?”

"[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom," she said.

Go home. Drink a Fosters or a glass of wine from the Marlbourough region of that dangerous, socialist country off your southeast coast (love the Kim Crawford stuff...goes well with shellfish). They did "Lord of the Rings" there, didn't they?

Yeah. They did ass-buggery, poor beer and poorer performance at sports too. Good for them.

You're a friggin wanker, mandible. Amazing that American douchbaggery could turn you into the tool you are. Amazing.

Incredible. And that you know this without even meeting me - but simply on the basis that I challenge your Palin derangement and mindless messiah worship - shows your deep insight into the human condition.

4:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow dead thread or not I could not resist.
Man-bile
First....brevity shit face. You don't really need 2000 words for a .5 second thought.

Second. "Runs the Senate". Back to the outback (or is it outhouse) with you. The VP may "break a tie" period, end of story. They have no other vote, no role in organizing what comes before the Senate, does not run any comittees .....nada.....

Talks about douchy

10:15 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"We have trade missions back and forth, we do." Palin

And this means she's had negotiations with the Russians, mandible? Fucking tool.

"The comments came in an interview with Colorado TV station KUSA in response to a third-grader's question, "What does the Vice President do?”

"[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom," she said.

This is just fucking wrong. Got that? It's not true. VP breaks ties. You say it yourself, dimwad.

"In fact the more I think about it the more accurate it is. The scaly, cold-blooded creature being dragged from its briney immersion and flapping as its gills choke on the cold hard air of reality. The sharp sting of the fact-knife tearing its guts apart. Flapping to death in an environment it's not equipped to handle. Ie. reality. I just brought a tear to my eye. It's so beautiful." mandible

Just another reminder of how this fucker thinks.

1:42 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

Anonymous said...
Wow dead thread or not I could not resist.
Man-bile
First....brevity shit face. You don't really need 2000 words for a .5 second thought.

Second. "Runs the Senate". Back to the outback (or is it outhouse) with you. The VP may "break a tie" period, end of story. They have no other vote, no role in organizing what comes before the Senate, does not run any comittees .....nada.....

Talks about douchy


mm hmm. And like I said, answering a third-grader's question in terms a third-grader can understand disqualifies one to be vice president despite having been a successful governor, whereas wanting to double capital gains taxes in the name of fairness does not disqualify a career lawyer and "community activist" from being President.. um .. how? Oh, right, I forgot. You have no answer. Hence that fact that you have yet to address that question, despite it being very simple and clear in nature and despite my having presented it to you numerous times. Oh well.

12:36 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

troglaman said...
"We have trade missions back and forth, we do." Palin


Troglaman: And this means she's had negotiations with the Russians, mandible? Fucking tool.

Um no. It means exactly what I said it meant: "Didn't Palin tell Couric she's at least met with Russian delegates coming through Alaska?" big claw

To which your response was:

Nope. Dumbassed remark.

Where did this "she's had negotiations with the Russians" come from? Straight out of your ass, to cover the fact that you - once again - have precisely nothing to present in the way of solid backing for your opinion that Palin lacks credibility while Obama doesn't. Oh well. Par for the course.

"The comments came in an interview with Colorado TV station KUSA in response to a third-grader's question, "What does the Vice President do?”

"[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom," she said.

This is just fucking wrong. Got that? It's not true. VP breaks ties. You say it yourself, dimwad.


Erm, no. VP can, and does, perform other functions, including calling an end to voting on various issues and granting the floor during debates. You might want to try checking up on your facts before going off half-cocked. You know, like, before ranting and raving about how Palin doesn't know what the Vice President does, you might want to check that you, personally, actually do know. It would spare a lot of embarrassment. Oh, and, I'm sure the third grader she was addressing with her answer understood just fine; it's somewhat telling that you and the rest of the global leftard conglomerate aren't quite so intelligent.

"In fact the more I think about it the more accurate it is. The scaly, cold-blooded creature being dragged from its briney immersion and flapping as its gills choke on the cold hard air of reality. The sharp sting of the fact-knife tearing its guts apart. Flapping to death in an environment it's not equipped to handle. Ie. reality. I just brought a tear to my eye. It's so beautiful." mandible

Just another reminder of how this fucker thinks.


Mm hmm. Just another reminder that that was an analogy I made comparing the dissection - by facts and evidence - of your silly arguments to the painful process that befalls a fish after it's caught. Not sure what you're trying to prove by re-pasting that, in the same thread where I originally wrote it. But, gun to my head, it'd be something to do with distracting from the fact that you, personally, can't back up any of the claims you've made re. Palin's supposed lack of credibility, nor can you back up your claims on the credibility Obama supposedly has; and nor can you explain - despite being asked for the dozenth time in the clearest, most simple language possible - WHY EXACTLY YOU CONSIDER PALIN TO LACK EXPERIENCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE GOVERNED ALASKA - and why it is that you consider Obama to have demonstrated himself credible and experienced enough for the top spot WHEN OBAMA HAS NEVER, EVER, IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE, DONE ANYTHING REMOTELY COMPARABLE. Come on, for such a strongly-held opinion you must have a dozen simple, clear factual justifications. I mean, right?

12:46 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

"Come on, for such a strongly-held opinion you must have a dozen simple, clear factual justifications."

Ooops! Forgot that asking a libtard why exactly it is that they support their candidate over and above others is RACIISSSTTTTT!!!111!! My bad.

12:50 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Didn't Palin tell Couric she's at least met with Russian delegates coming through Alaska?" you're really wordy for a claw

No, she didn't. But maybe you should ask Joe the Plumber. Joe Six-Pack, or, if you've got the balls, Karl Marx.

Obama's a Marxist Muslim Arab Jesus Black White Terrorist Technocrat Racist Do-Gooder Liberal FDR Stalin Hilter Chamberlain Commie Fascist Gay Womanizing Naive Cynical Insider Boring Radical Unaccomplished Elite Slick Gaffe-Prone Pedophile Pedophile-Seducing Liberation Theology Atheist with a bunch of scary friends from - wait for it - the Nineteen Hundred And Sixties.

And it's the Dems who think Obama's got superpowers?

You all need to learn to stick to a friggin narrative. You used to be good at it before things went to shit.

1:21 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

troglaman said...
"Didn't Palin tell Couric she's at least met with Russian delegates coming through Alaska?" you're really wordy for a claw

No, she didn't.


Um I'm not sure why you're not getting this. Do you think that if you pretend the words are not on the page then no-one else will see them?

Mandible: "Didn't Palin tell Couric she's at least met with Russian delegates coming through Alaska?"

Trog: "No."

Mandible (from transcript of interview with Couric): "We have trade missions back and forth, we do." (Palin)

You see, when I provide the exact words, from the public record, that prove what I said to be true, this is known as me winning the argument, and you proving that your opposition to Palin is not based on fact, just as I have said from the beginning.

But maybe you should ask Joe the Plumber. Joe Six-Pack, or, if you've got the balls, Karl Marx.

Um I thought it was supposed to be me who couldn't stick to a narrative? What does Joe the plumber have to do with whether or not Palin outlined that at least she has met with Russian delegations, whereas Obama has precisely zero foreign policy experience prior to traveling overseas on his campaign.

As for your silly mischaracterization of my arguments against Obama, you're completely off base. As I said to you, it is a matter of public record and as such is readily verifiable, that Obama told Gibson he plans to raise the capital gains tax in order to make it "fair," despite Gibson pointing out to him that a higher capital gains tax has always resulted in lower tax revenue.

If you'd like to get around to comparing partisan attacks, well, just from this site alone in the brief time Palin has been campaigning we've had Vetting-gate, Fake-pregnancy-gate, Poor-prenatal-care-gate, Affair-gate, White-Supremacist-gate, Senate-gate, Inexperience-gate, Iraq-A-Mission-From-God-gate, and countless others. None of which, of course, are supported by clear factual evidence as are the two examples I have given you above.

Oh, and, are you going to get around to answering my original question; you know, the question that I asked you right at the beginning of this entire debate and which about a dozen posts in you have yet to answer: Why do you claim that Palin lacks experience when she is the ONLY candidate with executive experience on either ticket, and governed an extremely important US state, negotiated energy deals and state politics, and did so with approval ratings around four times what your entire Democratic congress has been able to achieve?

You keep on keeping on making the claim that the woman is inexperienced, a joke, a comedian; surely you have something, ANYTHING factual on which you are basing that? I mean, right? People don't just say shit because it fits into a greater narrative which they can't examine too closely without revealing to themselves its inherent contradictions and incongruence and thus being forced to rethink their position .. I mean .. Right??

6:02 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

Hey, trog! Check out the last paragraph in this lovely little blurb. Yeah, you can find out for yourself where I got it. Do your own damn homework for once.

"The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.

We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”

We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.

We did this the whole primary and it worked.

Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.

This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.

Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support."

(..)

Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.

This is why nothing sticks.

The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.

There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.

Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.

There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.

The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.

(..)

Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.

6:43 AM  
Anonymous John Galt said...

"... Obama's a Marxist Muslim Arab Jesus Black White Terrorist Technocrat Racist Do-Gooder Liberal FDR Stalin Hilter Chamberlain Commie Fascist Gay Womanizing Naive Cynical Insider Boring Radical Unaccomplished Elite Slick Gaffe-Prone Pedophile Pedophile-Seducing Liberation Theology Atheist with a bunch of scary friends from - wait for it - the Nineteen Hundred And Sixties. ..." - t-man

That about sums him up!

ROFLMAO!!

10:19 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

Trog: Obama is not a Muslim. If you think that conservatives think he is, you are an idiot. The ONLY people I still hear repeating this are people who actually support him. Oh, guess what, the right also doesn't hate or even dislike Muslims. Muslims who also happen to be extreme in their ideology, sure. How many conservatives do you think support abortion clinic bombings? Are you able to extrapolate from that - providing that you can give an honest answer to this sort of question - then how many conservatives do you think dislike Muslims for being Muslim?

As for being an Arab, um, yeah Obama's ancestry is said to be more Arabic than black African. Again, so tf what? He's more white than he is either black or Arab. Guess what, conservatives don't care a fig about race. Oh, and, that cuts both ways; we neither dislike people based on their skin colour, nor are we prepared to support or defend them simply based on their skin colour. This is the opposite of the phoney liberalism people like you espouse, where someone like Barack is automatically a victim because of his skin colour and thus criticism of him is racist. Remember all the hue and cry over racism from the right when your people crucify black people like Sowell, Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice ... ? Oh, yeah, that's right, it didn't happen. That's because we don't care about race; the vitriol poured on black conservatives in particular for betraying the liberal-Democrat-identity politics complex is awful, and it is very, very much a demonstration of how racist you lot really are, and how much your claims that the other side are racist are simply empty projection to cover your own failings. But the right defend black conservatives based on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. You people, on the other hand, support people like Obama based on the colour of his skin and in spite of the content of his character. Therein lies the difference; therein lies too the inherent stupidity in your implication that conservatives oppose Obama based on anything to do with his ancestry or the level of melamine his skin contains. As for being a terrorist; um, no, not so much. For one, why on earth do you think conservatives would dream in a million years that a United States senator and Presidential candidate would somehow manage to engage in terrorist activities without anybody noticing; or that the concept of being an actual terrorist and the concept of being a law school graduate and politician are somehow not mutually exclusive? On the other hand, however, the former terrorist William Ayers saw something in Barack's ideology, or character, or who-knows-what, that encouraged Ayers to support him in his push to become a politician. Bear in mind that Ayers has not conducted terrorist activities since the 1970s and no conservative is suggesting that he and Barack are somehow holed up somewhere on weekends building pipe bombs. You see, Ayers realised that the advancement of socialism is far better served via exerting pressure over the development of the education system than it is by blowing a bunch of shit up. If Obama had been of age in the 1970s no-one is suggesting Ayers would have wanted him in the Weatherman, or that he would have wanted in himself. It's literally 100% certain that had he been an adult and in contact with Ayers during Ayers' period of actual terrorism, Obama would not have been interested in participating; nor, most likely, would Ayers have been interested in having him on board. He is, however, extremely well suited to the method of advancement of socialism that people like Ayers have been engaged in for decades, far longer and expending far more effort and resources - and having far greater success - than they ever did with a couple pipe bombs in the 70s. Presenting socialism as a struggle for unity and equality and justice for minorities and victims, and its arbiters as humanitarian advocates for justice, peace and fairness, opposed by the greed and lack of concern for the less fortunate that are supposedly embodied by capitalists and the right, is a far, far better strategy than is hocking back a bunch of acid and stuffing gunpowder into bits of pipe to blow up the pigs. No? Hey, for all we know, Obama himself may believe sincerely and completely that the positions he supports now - and that he has supported through his time as a student, professor, lawyer, and community organizer - are, in fact, the best and most pure embodiment of fairness, justice and equality. Unfortunately those of us who oppose his ideologies hold the view that welfare programs, affirmative action (at least in its current incarnation, you're probably unaware that the republican right were the original architects of affirmative action), and all the other socialistic principles Obama and the Democrats embody and tout as the means for equality and justice, do nothing to achieve any of those supposed ideals - equality, fairness, social justice - and are nothing more than symbolic punitive measures that will enact a measure of retribution for perceived wrongs against minorities and the less fortunate of society without achieving anything meaningful. Hence, we oppose them. Why? Because for one, we don't believe that fairness and justice have ever been, or will ever be, traits that a government and/or bureaucracy can attain. In other words, do you like politicians? We don't. And we sure don't think they should be in charge of what is fair and what is not. And we wonder why you think they should be, when they are by and large people who are where they are due to ambition for power over others. And any genuine humanitarian principles they may hold will not be put before the need to maintain existing power and gain more, simply because that's not how politics works. Even if Obama had the character of Jesus himself, installing him as President would simply mean that Jesus would be running a massive political system and bureaucracy. It wouldn't make everyone within that political system become similar in nature to Jesus. The only functions government can do half-well, and the only functions they should be attempting to perform according to conservatives, are defending citizens of their nation, balancing monetary and fiscal policies, and ensuring that their citizens are as free as possible from intereference by anyone, especially the government themselves. Do you really think that these are bad ideas; or that they are based on greed, racism, or a lack of humanitarian concern? Or is the reality simply that the best chance for prosperity, equality, and harmony, is to remove from people's lives to the greatest extent possible interference from governments, bureaucracies, financial and economic restraints, and to leave them to go about their business and relate to their fellow man as they personally see fit? So, yeah, you may see conservative opposition to leftists and leftism as conservatives thinking people like Obama are somehow "terrorists." Or you could try using your brain a little beyond the level of knee-jerk aspersions on others' motivations or capacity for judgement or rational thought as a means of defence. Not holding high hopes, but hey, surprise me.

As for racism, well, when someone says in public things like "white men's greed runs a world in need," and sits in a church for two. decades. while the pastor rants on about how racist white people and Jews are, well, yeah, you get the idea. Try, for an instant, putting a white person in that situation; states in public that black people and Koreans run the world with their greed. Yeah, do you see the point now? Oh, and, most conservatives don't think Obama is some sort of NOI type who is going to try and oppress white people. What we do think is that the idea of you doucheholes crying and screaming about racism when someone points out that your candidate is a socialist, is a little ironic - and more than a little indicative of less than optimal levels of mental stability - given what your side actually says and does. Conservatives also do not believe that race relations would be served in any way at all by punitive economic measures against "the rich" in order to - supposedly - help minorities. But then we already went through that. As for Hitler and Stalin, well, I would point out that the people using those terms to describe a President for the last eight years were you, not us, but then that would entail trying to talk sense to a liberal and might be something of a waste of effort. "Commie," no. No-one thinks Obama is a communist. What we do think is that we don't want a leader who gains the approval of communists. Gay? Um, no, have never heard anyone suggest or insinuate this. And even if he was who-tf cares? Oh noez taking it in the @ss would totally mean someone couldn't possibly understand economics or run a national security policy. Cos no gay people have ever achieved anything of note, I mean, right? And since, naturally, conservatives hate gays and want to kill them all, just like we hate black people, poor people, latino people, and every other downtrodden minority that liberals are only trying to protect (Vietnamese, Korean and Eastern European people don't count as minorities on the liberal minority colour chart, doncher know). And since we hate black people, and Obama's black, and we hate gay people, I guess it's logical that a liberal would deduce that we think Obama's gay. Hm. I think I just confused myself with that one. Quick, lost my train of thought, better find a flimsy pretext to call someone a racist homophobe before anyone realises that my liberal ideology is based on idiotic misconceptions and general stupidity.

Womanizing? Again, who cares. You lot were digging up stuff on Palin's supposed affair as part of your effort to destroy her at all costs long before anyone suspected anything about Obama possibly having an affair. Most conservatives don't believe it and have discarded the entire idea. If it turns out to be true you can be sure that we will care about as much as we'd care if he actually was gay; ie. really, really little - in fact that only way it would matter to anyone conservative would be as a counterpoint to you idiots' constant aspersions about Palin's morals. Oh; while we're on the topic, are you lot still on about how Palin's daughter being pregnant proves they're all a bunch of sluts with no morals masquerading as good church-going types? Cos, um, yeah if that's the case - as it was really, really recently - then I would totally keep pulling on the "womanizer" thread. It's sure to totally not end in tears and you looking like the worst sort of hypocrite. Moving on; naive, well, um, yeah. Ahmadinejad has already bitch-slapped your messiah over bilateral relations and he's not even in office yet. Proof's in the pudding, buddy. Cynical; describing someone who, in public, states that the constitution your country's system of government is based on has fundamental flaws that keep the black man down, as cynical, would be reasonably accurate. But hey at least his daughter isn't knocked up, I mean, right? Insider; oh, sorry, he's not? Really? An outsider; a true maverick, who just happens to have come from Chicago politics? Boring; yeah, pretty much. But then so's McCain. So is/was John Howard. So's Kevin Rudd; although there's always that little edge of excitement you get when he's talking so eagerly about lopping a couple percent of Australia's GDP to set an example to China so they'll magically shut down all the coal furnaces and stop global warming destroying Australia. In fact one of the few non-boring politicians is W; not least because it's always fun to hear lefties comparing the most mundane things he says to Hitler (or was, before all y'all started spending all your time comparing Palin to Eva Braun and Lucretia Borga crossed with Paris Hilton and Jenna Jamieson), plus he makes up cool new words all the time. All politicians are boring. Even Palin when she speaks bores me, at least, though her ideas and character and what she represents for conservatism are exciting. Radical - check Senate records. *The* most liberal senator. Check past associations; Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, etc. Hey if all yoo-all can tell us Sarah Palin's a radical Christian fundamentalist white supremacist because she personally doesn't like the idea of abortion, I think we can get away with that one on your guy. Or is this another one of those things that only goes the way you lefties say it does? Unaccomplished: You've been invited cordially to point out exactly what it is that your guy has accomplished; and to compare and contrast it with Palin's experience which - supposedly - precludes her from being Vice President while there's no doubt about your guy's readiness for top spot. In fact we're still waiting. Can you do it? Can you disprove the label that you are criticizing others for applying to Obama? Or are you just complaining about it even though it fits? Elite - yeah go figure why people would feel they can't relate 100% to a law professor and Chicago politician who tells them how they're bitter and clinging to guns, religion and animosity to people who look different. Hey I know I personally chug beers a couple times a month with Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Steven Hawking but that's just me. Slick; really? You're going to complain about that one? Gaffe-prone - nah. Gaffes are above his paygrade. As is not lecturing seven-year olds about how Amerikkka isn't how he wants it for his children, or not letting everyone know how if it was one of his daughters that was knocked up it would be a punishment and would have to be aborted before it could crawl out and ruin her life, or not letting on that he's going to soak "the rich" by raising the capital gains tax on the 50% of Americans who have stock exposure, whether or not it actually gets the government more revenue. Nah, he's not gaffe-prone. That label is totally unwarranted. As for pedophile and pedophile-seducing, um, okay whatever. Hey did you know we also suspect Obama of secretly being a cannibal and enjoying horse pr0n? Liberation theology, well, he did attend one of their churches for 20 years. So I guess that would be about as unfair as labeling Tom Cruise a scientologist. Atheist? Says who? Wow, look guys, it's the only atheist who goes to church every week. He's magical!

So um yeah that concludes today's session, then. If I can help with anything else give me a shout.

Toodle-oh.

2:23 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"We have trade missions back and forth, we do." (Palin) mandible

This is mandible's explanation for Sarah's extensive dialogue with the Russians.

Sure, you friggin dumbass. Did she (Palin) say she even met with the Russians? That'd be a big NO.

Once again, your ability to buy into a big fucking obvious lie is simply bewildering.

Keep it up. You're convincing the world, word by word, of just what a complete and utter dumbass lemming you are.

3:48 AM  
Anonymous mandible claw said...

troglaman said...
"We have trade missions back and forth, we do." (Palin) mandible

This is mandible's explanation for Sarah's extensive dialogue with the Russians.


Wow you really are fucking stupid, aren't you. I quite clearly said to you that Palin had told Couric she has at least met with delegations from Russia. Quite clearly and in simple language even an idiot like you could understand. Not only were you so fucking stupid and ignorant that you didn't know she'd ever said it, and had to be informed about what's happening in your own country's politics by someone who's never even been to your fucking country; you're now after having it proven that you're fucking ignorant STILL trying to claim that you were right; and by using words that I never said and which in fact mean the exact opposite of what I said. Either you're really, really fucking dense, or you're just outright lying. I want to know which it is, be so kind as to inform me.

Sure, you friggin dumbass. Did she (Palin) say she even met with the Russians? That'd be a big NO.

Oh, right. I guess she was just randomly pointing out that Russian delegates do come through Alaska. Like for no reason. She was just saying it for the sake of saying it. in fact, it totally makes sense that when Russians did come to Alaska they would totally not meet with the governor of that state.

Once again, your ability to buy into a big fucking obvious lie is simply bewildering.

Don't lay your fucking hang ups on me. The only reason you're bewildered is because you think you're well-informed and intelligent, like all liberals think they are, and yet you just lost miserably in a discussion about politics with someone who's never even been to your fucking country. Your bewilderment is based on your inability to reconcile how fucking stupid and ignorant you've been demonstrated to be with how knowledgeable and intelligent you think you are.

Keep it up. You're convincing the world, word by word, of just what a complete and utter dumbass lemming you are.

Yeah, sure I am. It's totally me who's the dumbass lemming. You, on the other hand, have proven how intelligent and free-thinking you are. By repeating a douchey liberal talking point about how Palin is inexperienced, not even fucking knowing that she'd told Couric Russian delegates come through Alaska and having to be informed that she did in fact say that (yeah you can thank me for increasing your knowledge and hopefully preventing you making such a fool out of yourself in future debates on the topic aaaaaaany time you're ready); and despite all this you're STILL trying to accuse me of lying/being a dumbass/being a lemming; and STILL trying to maintain that I'm mistaken in what I said when I've proven quite conclusively that you're an ignorant fuck and you're just repeating stupid liberal talking points. Fuck you. I'm sick of being civil to people like you; sort out your fucking mental issues and maybe then we'll talk.

6:38 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"I quite clearly said to you that Palin had told Couric she has at least met with delegations from Russia." mandible

When? When did she meet with them? That's a pretty simple question, mandible. Then we can talk about mental issues like who's delusional and who isn't, "you ignorant fuck".

I'm sure you struggle with issues like "being civil" because you're, well, fucking nuts. That's your problem.

When did she meet with the fucking Russians? Tell me.

2:25 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

Waiting mandible. When did she meet with the Russians?

She didn't. Here's the more important question: Why does mandible believe she did?

Lemming soup, anyone?

Dumbass.

2:14 AM  
Anonymous trog's momma said...

The schedules include about 20 meetings, events, or phone calls in which Palin interacted with foreign officials. And in many instances, these interactions were cursory or ceremonial and did not involve policy details

^^ That's from an anti-Palin article, which claims she never met with Russians in "an official capacity."

Russian gas execs meet Palin team

Elana Schor
guardian.co.uk
Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:40 UTC

They can see Russia from their conference room, if not their houses

Sarah Palin may be talking tough against Vladimir Putin on the campaign trail, but her administration in Alaska is certainly heating up relations with Moscow. Both sides have their eye on the prize: the billion-dollar natural gas pipeline from Alaska through Canada that Palin has (somewhat prematurely) proclaimed to be a done deal.

Officials from Gazprom, the oil-and-gas company considered a de facto affiliate of the Putin government, met with Palin's senior energy advisers on Monday to discuss the possibility of joining the pipeline venture.


^^ That's from the Guardian. Her administration met with Russians. She may or may not have been there personally.

Whatever. I may have mischaracterized what she said to Couric, which I only saw in my brief read through the transcript. Sue me. I now offer my mea culpa; Palin may not have personally met with Russian delegates in an official capacity. She was still in charge of the administration that negotiated the pipeline deal with them. Split the hairs how you will, she has executive experience, including negotiating energy deals with Russians; whether or not she met face to face with them in an official capacity is of no more significance than to demonstrate that I might have mischaracterized what she said to Couric.

Again, the original question, which you STILL haven't answered, and which you are STILL avoiding: WHAT IS IT THAT BARACK OBAMA HAS DONE THAT MAKES HIM QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT WHEN PALIN IS CLEARLY NOT QUALIFIED TO BE VICE PRESIDENT DESPITE HAVING GOVERNED ALASKA? WHAT IS IT THAT BARACK OBAMA HAS DONE THAT GIVES HIM MORE/BETTER FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE THAN PALIN, WHETHER OR NOT SHE MET FACE TO FACE WITH RUSSIAN DELEGATES IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR WHETHER SHE WAS ONLY INVOLVED IN THEM BY DINT OF RUNNING HER ADMINISTRATION OR THE ENERGY BOARD SHE ALSO RAN?

Why can't you answer either of those two, very simple, very clear questions?

Then we can talk about mental issues like who's delusional and who isn't, "you ignorant fuck".

Wow, looka you, you dodged a bullet because I happened to mischaracterize what she said to Couric when you actually had no fucking idea she said it in the first place. As for delusional; again, prove that you're not delusional by answering the question on what precisely is the nature of Obama's experience that outweighs governing Alaska, and what precisely is the nature of his foreign policy experience? You know, so that we can see that you're not deluding yourself by making the claim that he actually has either.

I'm sure you struggle with issues like "being civil" because you're, well, fucking nuts. That's your problem.

Hey, I was civil as you please until your slimy debate tactics and ad homs pissed me off. Go back and check the rest of the thread.

Oh, and hey, you STILL HAVEN'T EVEN MADE A FUCKING ATTEMPT TO ANSWER EITHER OF MY ORIGINAL QUESTIONS.

All you can do is try to divert the discussion away from the glaring hole in your own position and try to make it about me believing or otherwise that Palin personally met with Russians. It's all a fucking red herring and it's not gonna work, mate.

Again, here are the two questions that I want answered in a substantive manner before I will concede that you have a leg to stand on in this discussion and that you oppose Palin and support Obama for the reasons that you claim to:

1. What is the nature of Obama's experience that qualifies him to be President, when despite Palin's executive experience as Alaska governor she is supposedly not qualified to be Vice President?

2. What is Obama's foreign policy experience or achievements that outweigh Palin's involvement - whatever its nature - in energy negotiations with Russians?

Should be pretty simple to answer, given how sure you are that your opinions on both are based in fact.

And yet you still can't give a straight answer to either of those two simple questions.

Oh well. How many hours now till your douchebag messiah loses and y'all begin weeping and gnashing your teeth and trying to move to Canada?

2:15 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home