Kelly the Dog Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 I think you missed the part where I said it was for everyone who doesn't automatically believe that people who disagree with you are, by default, morons. I disagree with almost every single conservative on most every issue AND I SAID NOW FOR THE FIFTH TIME IN THIS THREAD ALONE I DON'T THINK THEY ARE MORONS, I THINK THEY ARE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. So over and over and over and over and over and over and over, every single day, I see things others say, even the enemy, that I disagree with, and do not in any way, shape or form think they are, by default, a moron. You're a moron, however, for missing that point over and over and over. But saying you're a moron for that one point does not mean you're always a moron. Just on that one issue. And you're a moron for the Sarah Palin issue, too. Sarah Palin on the other hand, is a moron. Period. Every day she is a moron. She has flashes of saying a mildly intelligent thing here and there, every month or so, but she cannot escape her stupidity. You can, but you're scaring me more and more.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 It IS laughable, but so is the complete opposite. The polls generally said that Biden won, but Palin nonetheless did a very creditable job (which mostly represent, I think, the very low expectations people had of her after Gibson's piece). The point that pissed me off about that was people's reaction that she did well, or good, even "creditable" as you say, by failing, but not completely failing. It was like a kid taking a test where everyone thinks he's going to get a 10 out of 100 and he gets a 30 out of 100 and that's a huge win. It is if you're a retard. But it's still a friggin' 30 on a test for a Vice Presidential candidate. It ain't a win or even close to a passing grade. Not to mention that this "creditable" was not at all based on rules of a debate, it was based on something completely different, which was her not looking foolish trying to answer the questions. By avoiding them, which she did well, people considered this a win. But she didn't even deflect the questions, she just flat refused to answer them. That's not winning a debate. That's not even credibly losing one. It's playing baseball on a football field during a football game.
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 The point that pissed me off about that was people's reaction that she did well, or good, even "creditable" as you say, by failing, but not completely failing. It was like a kid taking a test where everyone thinks he's going to get a 10 out of 100 and he gets a 30 out of 100 and that's a huge win. It is if you're a retard. But it's still a friggin' 30 on a test for a Vice Presidential candidate. It ain't a win or even close to a passing grade. Not to mention that this "creditable" was not at all based on rules of a debate, it was based on something completely different, which was her not looking foolish trying to answer the questions. By avoiding them, which she did well, people considered this a win. But she didn't even deflect the questions, she just flat refused to answer them. That's not winning a debate. That's not even credibly losing one. It's playing baseball on a football field during a football game. But just a few posts ago you said that the polls showed Biden crushed her. Now the polls are wrong, because they show otherwise? Uhhh...okay, moron...by which, of course, I don't mean to say that you're ALWAYS a moron, moron.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 But just a few posts ago you said that the polls showed Biden crushed her. Now the polls are wrong, because they show otherwise? Uhhh...okay, moron...by which, of course, I don't mean to say that you're ALWAYS a moron, moron. No, moron, every poll I saw said Biden won decisively. I was talking about people I saw on TV as well as read in the papers or argued with here or around town that thought Palin did "creditable", and therefore tied or even won the debate.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 I said it at the time, and will repeat it now - I did not know there was a "Bush Doctrine" at the time this brouhaha hit, so it's not a big deal to me that she didn't know about it. Of course she then provided other examples of things she didn't know. Well, you're just a Wall Street guy trying to steal everyone's money and cash your huge bonus check. I expect you to know The Milkin Doctrine or The Madoff Doctrine or The Rubenstein Doctrine. She's a VP candidate. I expected her to have heard of it.
blzrul Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 The point that pissed me off about that was people's reaction that she did well, or good, even "creditable" as you say, by failing, but not completely failing. It was like a kid taking a test where everyone thinks he's going to get a 10 out of 100 and he gets a 30 out of 100 and that's a huge win. It is if you're a retard. But it's still a friggin' 30 on a test for a Vice Presidential candidate. It ain't a win or even close to a passing grade. Not to mention that this "creditable" was not at all based on rules of a debate, it was based on something completely different, which was her not looking foolish trying to answer the questions. By avoiding them, which she did well, people considered this a win. But she didn't even deflect the questions, she just flat refused to answer them. That's not winning a debate. That's not even credibly losing one. It's playing baseball on a football field during a football game. Hello? That's how GWB survived - lower the bar enough and you look like a rocket scientist when you can step over it.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Hello? That's how GWB survived - lower the bar enough and you look like a rocket scientist when you can step over it. George Bush is Stephen Hawking compared to Sarah Palin. And I don't think George Bush is all that more intelligent than George Jetson or George Jefferson.
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 The point that pissed me off about that was people's reaction that she did well, or good, even "creditable" as you say, by failing, but not completely failing. It was like a kid taking a test where everyone thinks he's going to get a 10 out of 100 and he gets a 30 out of 100 and that's a huge win. It is if you're a retard. But it's still a friggin' 30 on a test for a Vice Presidential candidate. It ain't a win or even close to a passing grade. Not to mention that this "creditable" was not at all based on rules of a debate, it was based on something completely different, which was her not looking foolish trying to answer the questions. By avoiding them, which she did well, people considered this a win. But she didn't even deflect the questions, she just flat refused to answer them. That's not winning a debate. That's not even credibly losing one. It's playing baseball on a football field during a football game. This is what's happened to the GOP base, the base really likes her. As soon as I first heard her speak I told myself there is no way in hell I'll ever consider voting for McCain. And I know I'm not alone. But holy hell they (the base) love her. I've never in this thread said she was ready for the job you and I have been arguing semantics but it scared this shiit out of me that if McCain won she'd be an old heartbeat away from running the most powerful nation on the planet. The party has been hijacked and deep down I think it's a good thing. Thank god your party has been hijacked by a marxist bastard. Death to the two party system!
GG Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Well, you're just a Wall Street guy trying to steal everyone's money and cash your huge bonus check. I expect you to know The Milkin Doctrine or The Madoff Doctrine or The Rubenstein Doctrine. She's a VP candidate. I expected her to have heard of it. Yeah, but as a neocon, you would expect me to know the doctrine (if there really was one before it got invented) ps - two of the above are/were huge Dem supporters
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 No, moron, every poll I saw said Biden won decisively. I was talking about people I saw on TV as well as read in the papers or argued with here or around town that thought Palin did "creditable", and therefore tied or even won the debate. Really, moron? Because before I posted that, I looked up the larger, better-known polls about the debate, and that's not what they said.
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Really, moron? Because before I posted that, I looked up the larger, better-known polls about the debate, and that's not what they said. So your saying your poll is bigger than his poll?
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 So your saying your poll is bigger than his poll? That's misleading, since they're probably the same poll.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Really, moron? Because before I posted that, I looked up the larger, better-known polls about the debate, and that's not what they said. Really, moron? I just did, too, and there seemed to be only three major polls after the debate. CNN: Biden 51-36 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/deb...poll/index.html CBS: Biden 46-21 http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/po...ry4497035.shtml Rasmussen (A highly conservative poll) Biden 45-37 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...te_37_say_palin Frank Luntz's Fox Focus Group predictably had Palin winning, and I guess we could count that as a Palin win although it's not a poll. We wouldn't, obviously, count the CNN callers or MSNBC callers or FOX callers or AOL users as a poll. Smaller national polls were even bigger in favor of Biden. Survey USA Biden 51-32 http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299 HCD Research just asked independents who favored Biden 61-39 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/palin-and...and-the-economy MediaCurves asked independents Biden 67-33 http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299
IDBillzFan Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Well, you're just a Wall Street guy trying to steal everyone's money and cash your huge bonus check. I expect you to know The Milkin Doctrine or The Madoff Doctrine or The Rubenstein Doctrine. She's a VP candidate. I expected her to have heard of it. Much like you'd expect Joe Biden to know the difference between Article 1 and Article 2 of The Constitution? That Joe. Just a regular Peyton Manning throwing a duck off the back foot.
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Really, moron? I just did, too, and there seemed to be only three major polls after the debate.CNN: Biden 51-36 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/deb...poll/index.html CBS: Biden 46-21 http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/po...ry4497035.shtml Rasmussen (A highly conservative poll) Biden 45-37 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...te_37_say_palin Same one's I saw, moron. Show me the "clock cleaning".
GG Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Same one's I saw, moron. Show me the "clock cleaning". I'd say a double digit win among an equally divided electorate is a clock-cleaning. No?
Kelly the Dog Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Same one's I saw, moron. Show me the "clock cleaning". I think "wins" by 15 points, 25 points, 8 points, 19, 21 and 34 points with no loss is just the opposite of "loss by clock cleaning", don't you?
Wacka Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Kelly is panicing because he now has no outlet for his BDS/PMS and it is eating him up inside. What republican can he hate now?
Kelly the Dog Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Kelly is panicing because he now has no outlet for his BDS/PMS and it is eating him up inside. What republican can he hate now? With apologies to Rick Blaine, if I considered you at all, I'd probably hate you. But that's about all I can think of.
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 That's misleading, since they're probably the same poll. Does you wife know you're using Kelly's poll?
Recommended Posts