Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The idea that she is unintelligent is merely a superficial analysis of her character, much like the dismissal of George W. Bush's intellect. Sarah Palin is immensely cunning. She is manipulative and sly, and she is dangerous. To handwave her presence as a non-factor would be foolish.

When she originally was announced as John McCain's running mate, I believed she would fade into the background once they suffered their inevitable defeat. Instead, she has risen through the ranks with unparalleled rapidity, becoming a celebrity politician. But she has not turned out the way that the Republican party had, I suspect, initially hoped. Instead of being a Republican standard-bearer, Palin was rejected after the election by a fair portion of Republicans due to her inexperience and potential for liability. This is partially her own fault, of course, given her ignorance and tendency toward cut-and-paste political talking points, but she has not let that stop her. Assimilating herself into the Tea Party, she has gradually usurped its small government origins into a Republican sect. An offshoot of traditional right-wing politics though it may be, it is only a matter of time before the Tea Party is wholly brought into the fold of Republican party, quelled and assured that the establishment Republicans will look out for their interests.

And when the Tea Party is fully a part of the Republican party, Sarah Palin will be right there with them. A political figurine grudgingly accepted, but a part of something larger. She has already proven herself adept at generating revenue, tapping into the fears and worries of the American people, and using Christianity to draw voters to her cause. She has slowly crafted the image she wishes to present of herself, eagerly accepting interviews and appearing at media events to put herself in the spotlight.

Like I said, Sarah Palin is cunning. She has gone from unknown Alaskan governor to media centerpiece over the course of two years. The idea that she is in any way "stupid" is preposterous. Is she a conniver only interested in promoting herself and increasing her fame? Absolutely. But is she dumb? Not at all.

She's a moron. A moron who is ridiculously adept at public relations, sure, but a moron none the less.

I disagree, she is stupid in the way that people mean the term, she's somewhat good at self-promotion, how much of that is her ability rather than that of her advisors and the unquestioned backup from Fox News I couldn't judge but I lean towards the latter. She definitely isn't knowledgeable and she definitely is unqualified for any office anyone can run for. I guess we could say she's some sort of idiot savant at making herself likable to certain, also stupid, groups in society.


I do agree with you though that she is dangerous and shouldn't be dismissed.

I've doubted her knowledge, if not her intelligence, ever since she claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam.

Or her comment on supporting our allies, the North Koreans?

I'm willing to contribute that to fluffed-up verbiage. Same with "refudiate". But she out-and-out claimed we were in Vietnam. The interviewer even corrected her, and she disagreed with him. That level of ignorance on something so important in American history from the mouth of a wannabe VP/President?

F*ck. That.

Canada was an established country during the Vietnam War??

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Canada was an established country during the Vietnam War??

Canada is an established country?

What's a Canada?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The idea that she is unintelligent is merely a superficial analysis of her character


So you know her in a totally unsuperficial way?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, she is stupid in the way that people mean the term, she's somewhat good at self-promotion, how much of that is her ability rather than that of her advisors and the unquestioned backup from Fox News I couldn't judge but I lean towards the latter. She definitely isn't knowledgeable and she definitely is unqualified for any office anyone can run for. I guess we could say she's some sort of idiot savant at making herself likable to certain, also stupid, groups in society. This country seems to abound in those types of 'savants'. Perhaps reality shows are the petri dishes for these sorts of organisms.

I do agree with you though that she is dangerous and shouldn't be dismissed... ...yet.

She's the stupidest public figure I know

You know her? Like... had lunch with her?

Originally posted by Bardock42
She definitely isn't knowledgeable and she definitely is unqualified for any office anyone can run for. so looking back at past elections , what you're saying is if Americans stay true to form in they way they elect the leader of the world... she's a lock.

Stupid or not, she's yummy.

Get this troll thread outta here.

Palin is a complete fool, even the Republican party regret ever involving her in their campaigning. She just flourishes on some backwards neo-conservative outdated rhetoric thats just a complete and total joke in the realm of politics.

Sarah Palin is good at self promotion. I don't think she has a firm grasp on many of the major issues, but then again, neither does Obama. Obama is a great motivational speaker but his actions are showing his ineptness. Both are colorful charismatic figures but neither deserves to be President.
To say Palin has no shot of being elected in 2012 ignores the fact that Obama was elected in 2008. Never underestimate the stupitidy of the American voter. Likewise I believe the American people would be foolish to elect Newt Gingrich or Mike Huckabee. I also believe Hillary Clinton will challenge Obama for the Democratic Nomination. Too bad she isn't as moderate as her husband was. She would be a bad choice also.

The only name I hear thrown around for 2012 that I like so far is Mitt Romney. Obama certainly needs to go.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm willing to contribute that to fluffed-up verbiage. Same with "refudiate". But she out-and-out claimed we were in Vietnam. The interviewer even corrected her, and she disagreed with him. That level of ignorance on something so important in American history from the mouth of a wannabe VP/President?

F*ck. That.
Wasn't that Anne Coulter?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Sarah Palin is good at self promotion. I don't think she has a firm grasp on many of the major issues, but then again, neither does Obama. Obama is a great motivational speaker but his actions are showing his ineptness. Both are colorful charismatic figures but neither deserves to be President.
To say Palin has no shot of being elected in 2012 ignores the fact that Obama was elected in 2008. Never underestimate the stupitidy of the American voter. Likewise I believe the American people would be foolish to elect Newt Gingrich or Mike Huckabee. I also believe Hillary Clinton will challenge Obama for the Democratic Nomination. Too bad she isn't as moderate as her husband was. She would be a bad choice also.

The only name I hear thrown around for 2012 that I like so far is Mitt Romney. Obama certainly needs to go.

Obama has a grasp on the issues, he's just completely inept at politics.

I agree with you, Obama's bad, but the "maverick" (yeah right, more like "republican/corporate line yes-sayer" McCain would have been worse.

I don't think Sarah Palin has a chance to get elected, though, but she's pushing the Republicans further to the right and further to extremism, which is likely not good, though it may lead to the collapse in the long run.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I've doubted her knowledge, if not her intelligence, ever since she claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam.
That was Ann Coulter, you retard. She also happens to be incredibly sharp. Whatever wingnuttery you see from her is very clearly a profitable ploy.

She is smart and never stupid.I have no idea why people would even think that about her.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
She is smart and never stupid.I have no idea why people would even think that about her.

Because she says incredibly stupid, misinformed things. She doesn't understand the most basic concepts. Even other Republicans tend to shake their heads at her stupidity. The problem is she's really popular, probably because she's the only woman in the Republican party.

I disargee that the only reason she is popular is because she is the only woman in the Republican party she has sence and I think that she would be a great President if she rans.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That was Ann Coulter, you retard. She also happens to be incredibly sharp. Whatever wingnuttery you see from her is very clearly a profitable ploy. Damn, got my right-wing dingbats mixed up again. You sure they're not the same person?

EDIT

How can you get both mixed up?They are both good people and not at all stupid.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
How can you get both mixed up?They are both good people and not at all stupid. No, I know. Zeal's right. They're purported dumbassery is all just a ploy. Really they're very clever people. We're the fools for doubting them.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I disargee that the only reason she is popular is because she is the only woman in the Republican party she has sence and I think that she would be a great President if she rans.

But she factually, scientifically provably, does not have sense or any knowledge about anything. I mean she's even more stupid than Christine O'Donnell...if you can believe that. And on top of that she's a pathetic, opportunistic quitter, abandoning the people she fooled into voting for her for money and fame (though, admittedly they are better off for it).

She's like Hitler, with worse ideas.

She may not know the issues well, but she is far from stupid in getting her name out there, even on her daughters back. She's quickly becoming a celebrity.

I think the Dems are hitlers for there ideas of keeping control of the USA and taking alot of rights away from us every chance we get.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I think the Dems are hitlers for there ideas of keeping control of the USA and taking alot of rights away from us every chance we get. That's not true. The Dems have always been for the little guy. The latest point is the unemployment extention issue. The Republicans have shot it down 3 times now leaving over 18 million unemployed with no hope. 18 MILLION!

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I think the Dems are hitlers for there ideas of keeping control of the USA and taking alot of rights away from us every chance we get.

I don't see the Hitler connections, as the Democrats are a bunch of useless, ineffective idiots, but I agree with you that they suck a lot.

Honestly I think the Democrats and Republicans want to equally **** the American public over, the Democrats just play the good cop and the Republicans the bad cop.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
She may not know the issues well, but she is far from stupid in getting her name out there, even on her daughters back. She's quickly becoming a celebrity.

Yeah...so is Snookie.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That was Ann Coulter, you retard. She also happens to be incredibly sharp. Whatever wingnuttery you see from her is very clearly a profitable ploy.

They don't get it. They are being played, and they don't see it. The more they say that she is stupid, the more angry the right gets (the only people she is talking too, and cares about).

How did the Republicans get control of the House? Hmmmmm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They don't get it. They are being played, and they don't see it. The more they say that she is stupid, the more angry the right gets (the only people she is talking too, and cares about).

How did the Republicans get control of the House? Hmmmmm




By Obama being bipartisan, and the Republicans playing an amazingly agressive, smear campaign for the whole 2 years, with little to no reaction from the democrats at all.

Not sure why you laugh though, it's you who's getting bend over and taken to brown town after all.

Of course they don't. Do you think that anyone would honestly vote if they knew the internal motivations of politicians? There are maybe a few out there working for the good of the general public, but the majority are scumbags who are interested in themselves only.

The only consolation I have is that the idiotic 18-25 crowd who voted for hope 'n' change have been shat on. It is a hollow victory, though, as I would rather have had Obama succeed and return America to its former strength. Unfortunately, the rest of the Republican party has decided the opposite. (Not that anything that Obama has done has been particularly revolutionary or different from his predecessor, mind you.)

And speaking of Ann Trollter:

Originally posted by Bardock42
I Honestly I think the Democrats and Republicans want to equally **** the American public over, the Democrats just play the good cop and the Republicans the bad cop.




How ironic that a German seems to understand American politics better than most Americans

Originally posted by Bardock42


Honestly I think the Democrats and Republicans want to equally **** the American public over, the Democrats just play the good cop and the Republicans the bad cop.


Correct, both of their goals is to screw the the taxpayer right in the ass, while smiling at his/her face.

I don't do see the 'good cop / bad cop' angle, they both try to play the savior role while condemning the other as the villain.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democratic policies and laws usually appear, on the surface, to be more about helping the public, whereas Republicans are pretty blatant about their pro-corporate agenda. (This was not helped by Reagan, who made corporatism the party line.) The FDA, for instance, is a government agency that exists to ensure that Americans are kept safe from potentially hazardous products. In theory. In reality, the oversight it provides concentrates power in the hands of corporations by preventing meaningful competition. It is illegal, for instance, to import prescription drugs from Canada. This artificially limits the supply and gives a form of monopoly power to drug companies in the United States, allowing them to increase their profit margins at the expense of everyone else.

Likewise, other Democratic institutions are often well-meaning but terrible in execution. Medicaid/Medicare are a prime example. When Republicans oppose these two forms of the welfare state, the Democrats can paint them as evil, money-hungry bastards who care nothing for the poor. (Which is, in part, true, but that's beside the point.) What Democrats fail to understand is that these bloated government agencies suck up tax dollars, subsidize the health care industry's ridiculous prices, and are going to lead to financial ruin.

On the contrasting side, Republicans do the exact to Democrats. When Democrats want to do something like reduce military spending (which is something that desperately needs to be done in addition to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security reform), the Republican response is simple: "Why do you want the terrorists to win?" A strong military ensures American security, after all. And, again, that's partially true. But it's also gigantic handouts to companies who make military weapons.

TL;DR: Corruption should be tried as treason.

Hmmm.... what looks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck....

Is very most likely a duck.

is palin good at answering question or showing a nuanced understanding of world events or even in possession of a bredth of knowledge concerning international affairs: no

is palin an opportunist who knows what to say to get a small (but over reported) section of the Republican party to go apeshit: yes

whichever of those you want to take as a measure of intelligence, the answer is fairly clear

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Hmmm.... what looks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck....

Is very most likely a duck. And as everyone knows, ducks are made of wood. Just like Christine O'Donnell.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And as everyone knows, ducks are made of wood. Just like Christine O'Donnell.

Haha

Originally posted by Deja~vu
She may not know the issues well, but she is far from stupid in getting her name out there, even on her daughters back. She's quickly becoming a celebrity. So is Snookie.

Originally posted by Mindship
So is Snookie.

You know, I think someone made that point. Almost verbatim.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You know, I think someone made that point. Almost verbatim. bag

This is what I get for not reading just 2 friggin' pages.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Likewise, other Democratic institutions are often well-meaning but terrible in execution. Medicaid/Medicare are a prime example. When Republicans oppose these two forms of the welfare state, the Democrats can paint them as evil, money-hungry bastards who care nothing for the poor. (Which is, in part, true, but that's beside the point.) What Democrats fail to understand is that these bloated government agencies suck up tax dollars, subsidize the health care industry's ridiculous prices, and are going to lead to financial ruin.
I'm sorry but, in what alternate world have the Republicans been opposing Medicare? Actually Republican congresses have increased its budget many times in the past.

Some of the more extreme conservatives have been calling for medicare to be heavily altered, they're the minority though.

To the point, though, Sarah Palin is blatantly stupid. She says stupid things constantly and shows striking ignorance on a large number of important topics, just because she's good at bullshitting and lying doesn't make her intelligent, it makes her devious.

Palin is Dan Quayle with ****.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The idea that she is unintelligent is merely a superficial analysis of her character, much like the dismissal of George W. Bush's intellect. Sarah Palin is immensely cunning. She is manipulative and sly, and she is dangerous. To handwave her presence as a non-factor would be foolish.

When she originally was announced as John McCain's running mate, I believed she would fade into the background once they suffered their inevitable defeat. Instead, she has risen through the ranks with unparalleled rapidity, becoming a celebrity politician. But she has not turned out the way that the Republican party had, I suspect, initially hoped. Instead of being a Republican standard-bearer, Palin was rejected after the election by a fair portion of Republicans due to her inexperience and potential for liability. This is partially her own fault, of course, given her ignorance and tendency toward cut-and-paste political talking points, but she has not let that stop her. Assimilating herself into the Tea Party, she has gradually usurped its small government origins into a Republican sect. An offshoot of traditional right-wing politics though it may be, it is only a matter of time before the Tea Party is wholly brought into the fold of Republican party, quelled and assured that the establishment Republicans will look out for their interests.

And when the Tea Party is fully a part of the Republican party, Sarah Palin will be right there with them. A political figurine grudgingly accepted, but a part of something larger. She has already proven herself adept at generating revenue, tapping into the fears and worries of the American people, and using Christianity to draw voters to her cause. She has slowly crafted the image she wishes to present of herself, eagerly accepting interviews and appearing at media events to put herself in the spotlight.

Like I said, Sarah Palin is cunning. She has gone from unknown Alaskan governor to media centerpiece over the course of two years. The idea that she is in any way "stupid" is preposterous. Is she a conniver only interested in promoting herself and increasing her fame? Absolutely. But is she dumb? Not at all. good analysis. the thing is that people can be both cunning and stupid at the same time. She is extremely intellectually limited in many areas, but not in all and she does excell at the cultivation of her image and manipulation of her electoral basis' fears, prejudices and expectations

Originally posted by Bardock42
But she factually, scientifically provably, does not have sense or any knowledge about anything. I mean she's even more stupid than Christine O'Donnell...if you can believe that. And on top of that she's a pathetic, opportunistic quitter, abandoning the people she fooled into voting for her for money and fame (though, admittedly they are better off for it).

She's like Hitler, with worse ideas. wasnt hitler smart?

Originally posted by 753
wasnt hitler smart?
Debatable.

He was charismatic for sure, but he made a ton of easily avoidable mistakes that arguably cost Germany the war.

Of course it's difficult to tell how much of that was from his own natural failings and how much was from the fact that throughout the entire war (but especially during the last two-three years) he was as high as a kite on barbiturates and other drugs.

I'd say he was of average intelligence all things considered, perhaps a little above average. He basically came in at the right time and the right place to gain a following among a malleable demographic...like Palin.

Hitler was also on drugs.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Hitler was also on drugs.
Yeah I think I covered that...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Debatable.

He was charismatic for sure, but he made a ton of easily avoidable mistakes that arguably cost Germany the war.

Of course it's difficult to tell how much of that was from his own natural failings and how much was from the fact that throughout the entire war (but especially during the last two-three years) he was as high as a kite on barbiturates and other drugs.

I'd say he was of average intelligence all things considered, perhaps a little above average. He basically came in at the right time and the right place to gain a following among a malleable demographic...like Palin. I think he was excpetionally intelligent (and he certainly wasnt stupid like her), he just ****ed up a lot because of how he concentrated all the decision making and dellusional beliefs about the german race. But I think most of his incompetence can be atributed more to emotional unbalance and not to intellectual limitations.

Originally posted by 753
I think he was excpetionally intelligent (and he certainly wasnt stupid like her), he just ****ed up a lot because of how he concentrated all the decision making and dellusional beliefs about the german race. But I think most of his incompetence can be atributed more to emotional unbalance and not to intellectual limitations.
I didn't say he was stupid, I just don't think he ever showed signs of exceptional intelligence, except perhaps in the area of oration.

Most of his achievements were only possible because he had some rather competent underlings and favorable conditions. Hell if the French hadn't jobbed to him when he remilitarized the Rhineland the war might have never happened and Hitler's rise might have fizzled. I've actually heard rather intriguing theories to the effect that Hitler was just a charismatic figurehead/puppet for someone else. In some theories that 'someone else' is actually the doctor who kept supplying him with drugs.

Originally posted by 753
I think he was excpetionally intelligent (and he certainly wasnt stupid like her), he just ****ed up a lot because of how he concentrated all the decision making and dellusional beliefs about the german race. But I think most of his incompetence can be atributed more to emotional unbalance and not to intellectual limitations.

/shrug

he certainly knew how to capitalize on situations to gain power. The way he manipulated his way in with Hindenburg, etc.

But, in a lot of ways we can see that his ideology kind of made him dumb. He would assign multiple commities to accomplish the same task, convinced the competition would make the best one succeed. Basically creating huge beurecratic redundencies. Nazi "hyper-organizationalism" is kindof mythical.

Originally posted by inimalist
/shrug

he certainly knew how to capitalize on situations to gain power. The way he manipulated his way in with Hindenburg, etc.

But, in a lot of ways we can see that his ideology kind of made him dumb. He would assign multiple commities to accomplish the same task, convinced the competition would make the best one succeed. Basically creating huge beurecratic redundencies. Nazi "hyper-organizationalism" is kindof mythical.
The fact they made it as far as they did in spite of Hitler's poor decision making and hypercompartmentalization of the state is a testament to how damn good some of the German military and government were at their jobs.

Originally posted by inimalist
/shrug

he certainly knew how to capitalize on situations to gain power. The way he manipulated his way in with Hindenburg, etc.

But, in a lot of ways we can see that his ideology kind of made him dumb. He would assign multiple commities to accomplish the same task, convinced the competition would make the best one succeed. Basically creating huge beurecratic redundencies. Nazi "hyper-organizationalism" is kindof mythical. yes, but I think his incompetence stemmed more from inexperience, dellusional belief and unbalancement. And he still made good strategic calls as well. As a party tactician he excelled

Originally posted by 753
yes, but I think his incompetence stemmed more from inexperience, dellusional belief and unbalancement. And he still made good strategic calls as well. As a party tactician he excelled
So you're saying he was a person who was better at attaining power than he was at keeping it or using it effectively? Seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The fact they made it as far as they did in spite of Hitler's poor decision making and hypercompartmentalization of the state is a testament to how damn good some of the German military and government were at their jobs.

Originally posted by 753
yes, but I think his incompetence stemmed more from inexperience, dellusional belief and unbalancement. And he still made good strategic calls as well. As a party tactician he excelled

no doubt

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Debatable.

He was charismatic for sure, but he made a ton of easily avoidable mistakes that arguably cost Germany the war.

Of course it's difficult to tell how much of that was from his own natural failings and how much was from the fact that throughout the entire war (but especially during the last two-three years) he was as high as a kite on barbiturates and other drugs.

I'd say he was of average intelligence all things considered, perhaps a little above average. He basically came in at the right time and the right place to gain a following among a malleable demographic...like Palin.
Gives a new meaning to "war on drugs".

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You know her? Like... had lunch with her?

Fun fact: I had Mitt Romney's personal cellphone #. I called him a couple of times: one time, he was eating with his family at a diner and did not have time to talk, another time, he was too busy to talk to me because the republican nomations were ending. I understood that he was a busy man so I did not bug him and he was nice about it. I like the guy and as I got to know his political stances, I like him more as a politician now than I did before. I think he would have been a better president than Obama. However, I do not think Obama is bad, at all. I like Obama, too.


I lost his cell #, though, when my phone broke and I replaced it with my iPhone.

Wanna know how I got it? Huh, huh, huh? It's so cool how I got it.



As far as Palin, OMG! She is such a moron. I cannot stand her. And arguing with her supporters is even worse.

At least her daughter didn't win on DWTS, despite, I'm sure, all those damn supporters phoning in their votes 64,000x over.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Gives a new meaning to "war on drugs".

Being stupid, self-delusional, and manipulative are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like the guy and as I got to know his political stances, I like him more as a politician now than I did before. I think he would have been a better president than Obama. However, I do not think Obama is bad, at all. I like Obama, too.

...at all? How would you back up that position, if asked? What are the contrary positions you think would have made all that difference? If presidential candidates take a position to garner support, but then faulter on those positions when they assume office because of national favorability polls, how does it matter who the hell becomes president? If you like Obama and think he's "not a bad president...at all", then when and if he's relieved of the pressure of getting a second term, what would you like him to do that he isn't doing now? The second term is the only real contract with America any president really has, which ever half of America it is that got him or her re-elected.

I hope he gets a second term. I hope he becomes the semi-socialist I voted for, in the first place.

Originally posted by skekUng
...at all? How would you back up that position, if asked?

That's quite easy to do, since this is my opinion, not yours.


Variables:
var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore
...var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore = "" (Sets the value of this variable to nothing or null. It is obviously a string, at this point)
var_satisfaction



Definition: var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is found by an aggregation of agreenace to speeches, decisions, and positions while in office.

Get userinput "var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore" from user=dadudemon

If var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore > 50%

Then satisfaction = "Not bad at all."

...If var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 60% and < 70%

......satisfaction + "In fact, he's good."

...Else if var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 70% and < 80%

......satisfaction + "In fact, he's great."

...Else if var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 80% and < 90%

......satisfaction + "In fact, he's awesome."

...Else if var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 90% and < 100%

......satisfaction + "In fact, he's excellent."

...Else var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 100%

......satisfaction + "Wait...wait a minute. This is an imaginary number. Unless.........are you the president?!?!?!"

...End if

Else statisfaction = "I do not approve of this president."

End if


Originally posted by skekUng
What are the contrary positions you think would have made all that difference? If presidential candidates take a position to garner support, but then faulter on those positions when they assume office because of national favorability polls, how does it matter who the hell becomes president? If you like Obama and think he's "not a bad president...at all", then when and if he's relieved of the pressure of getting a second term, what would you like him to do that he isn't doing now? The second term is the only real contract with America any president really has, which ever half of America it is that got him or her re-elected.

I hope he gets a second term. I hope he becomes the semi-socialist I voted for, in the first place.

You can start reading, here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/

You're welcome.

You are a dork.

Originally posted by skekUng
...at all? How would you back up that position, if asked? What are the contrary positions you think would have made all that difference? If presidential candidates take a position to garner support, but then faulter on those positions when they assume office because of national favorability polls, how does it matter who the hell becomes president? If you like Obama and think he's "not a bad president...at all", then when and if he's relieved of the pressure of getting a second term, what would you like him to do that he isn't doing now? The second term is the only real contract with America any president really has, which ever half of America it is that got him or her re-elected.

I hope he gets a second term. I hope he becomes the semi-socialist I voted for, in the first place.

To be fair, Obama didn't portray himself as semi-socialist even in his campaign.

it's funny that democrats would be considered a center-right party anywhere else in the world

Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, Obama didn't portray himself as semi-socialist even in his campaign.

No, not really. But I could hope there was a glimmer of truth to the accusations made against him. It wasn't hard to miss if you lived here and listened to the slack-jaws whine about spreading the wealth and being kept from owning the imaginary business they assumed the American dream promised them.

The American dream is a dillusion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's quite easy to do, since this is my opinion, not yours.


Variables:
var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore
...var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore = "" (Sets the value of this variable to nothing or null. It is obviously a string, at this point)
var_satisfaction



Definition: var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is found by an aggregation of agreenace to speeches, decisions, and positions while in office.

Get userinput "var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore" from user=dadudemon

If var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore > 50%

Then satisfaction = "Not bad at all."

...If var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 60% and < 70%

......satisfaction + "In fact, he's good."

...Else if var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 70% and < 80%

......satisfaction + "In fact, he's great."

...Else if var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 80% and < 90%

......satisfaction + "In fact, he's awesome."

...Else if var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 90% and < 100%

......satisfaction + "In fact, he's excellent."

...Else var_dadudemonsPresidentialApprovalScore is > or = 100%

......satisfaction + "Wait...wait a minute. This is an imaginary number. Unless.........are you the president?!?!?!"

...End if

Else statisfaction = "I do not approve of this president."

End if




You can start reading, here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/

You're welcome.

I'm not impressed by all of it.

Very nice link. Now give us one that illustrates how Mitt Romeny had better positions and how they're at all reconcilable with what an adequate job Mr. Obama has, is and will do in your opinion. Where is that link to the site that tells us how Mr. Romey's positions were a better fit for America. I don't need to be convinced that mr. Obama is doing a good job, but I did ask how he's "at all" when compared to your real choice, Mr. Romney.

I'm not sure why I expected a more complex answer from someone who called me a 'sock troll' and 'too new to respond to', in the same post.

If your next answer involves using your name as a brand, then I'll appreciate you not wasting my time.

Originally posted by skekUng
No, not really. But I could hope there was a glimmer of truth to the accusations made against him. It wasn't hard to miss if you lived here and listened to the slack-jaws whine about spreading the wealth and being kept from owning the imaginary business they assumed the American dream promised them.

The American dream is a dillusion.

I think that is all that he did.

Originally posted by 753
it's funny that democrats would be considered a center-right party anywhere else in the world
Not in Iran.

In Iran they have red states and redder states.

hehe theocracy is a *****

What jut because there are only 96 true left-wingers in congress and only 2 congressmen that aren't guilty of impeachable offenses and our president is a corrupt, gutless, pussy?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The idea that she is unintelligent is merely a superficial analysis of her character, much like the dismissal of George W. Bush's intellect. Sarah Palin is immensely cunning. She is manipulative and sly, and she is dangerous. To handwave her presence as a non-factor would be foolish.

When she originally was announced as John McCain's running mate, I believed she would fade into the background once they suffered their inevitable defeat. Instead, she has risen through the ranks with unparalleled rapidity, becoming a celebrity politician. But she has not turned out the way that the Republican party had, I suspect, initially hoped. Instead of being a Republican standard-bearer, Palin was rejected after the election by a fair portion of Republicans due to her inexperience and potential for liability. This is partially her own fault, of course, given her ignorance and tendency toward cut-and-paste political talking points, but she has not let that stop her. Assimilating herself into the Tea Party, she has gradually usurped its small government origins into a Republican sect. An offshoot of traditional right-wing politics though it may be, it is only a matter of time before the Tea Party is wholly brought into the fold of Republican party, quelled and assured that the establishment Republicans will look out for their interests.

And when the Tea Party is fully a part of the Republican party, Sarah Palin will be right there with them. A political figurine grudgingly accepted, but a part of something larger. She has already proven herself adept at generating revenue, tapping into the fears and worries of the American people, and using Christianity to draw voters to her cause. She has slowly crafted the image she wishes to present of herself, eagerly accepting interviews and appearing at media events to put herself in the spotlight.

Like I said, Sarah Palin is cunning. She has gone from unknown Alaskan governor to media centerpiece over the course of two years. The idea that she is in any way "stupid" is preposterous. Is she a conniver only interested in promoting herself and increasing her fame? Absolutely. But is she dumb? Not at all.

She's foul and a sign of the corruption within US Politics.

I don't. He's spineless and cowardly. Watching him grovel to Republicans and apologize for "not reaching out" more made me want to vomit. The fact is, the Republifags we have in Congress are cancer on America. Not the ones we just voted in (not necessarily), but the career politicians who have made their livelihoods on selling trickle-down economics and enjoying government-funded health benefits while manipulating the masses into thinking that universal health care is socialism and death panels.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not in Iran.

In Iran they have red states and redder states.
What's funny is that in a UN committee on reproductive health, the delegates the US sent were so conservative that even Iran wouldn't agree with them on most things.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I think that is all that he did.

Does the shorter girl in your avatar have a goatee?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I don't. He's spineless and cowardly. Watching him grovel to Republicans and apologize for "not reaching out" more made me want to vomit. The fact is, the Republifags we have in Congress are cancer on America. Not the ones we just voted in (not necessarily), but the career politicians who have made their livelihoods on selling trickle-down economics and enjoying government-funded health benefits while manipulating the masses into thinking that universal health care is socialism and death panels.

I agree. I hink he needs a pair, but let's not neglect the fact that the entire democrat party is guilty of that mindset. It's not just the president.

I don't understand the part about "(not necesarily)", though. I seriously doubt that the new members of the congress are at all interested in just getting something accomplished and then getting the hell out. They're just career politicians at the beginning of their careers.

This is true. I am, however, hoping that this soon in their political careers that they are not yet corrupted.

They were corrupted before they ran.

No, she's not stupid. And that's why she's even worse than she appears.

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not impressed by all of it.

I'm not either, but thanks for letting me know as I was dying to know how my "extensive" glibe response would be seen by you.

Originally posted by skekUng
Very nice link. Now give us one that illustrates how Mitt Romeny had better positions and how they're at all reconcilable with what an adequate job Mr. Obama has, is and will do in your opinion. Where is that link to the site that tells us how Mr. Romey's positions were a better fit for America. I don't need to be convinced that mr. Obama is doing a good job, but I did ask how he's "at all" when compared to your real choice, Mr. Romney.

http://www.ontheissues.org/mitt_romney.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

I will not discuss with you which portions I agree with and which I do not as I do not like you and I think you're a troll.

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not sure why I expected a more complex answer from someone who called me a 'sock troll' and 'too new to respond to', in the same post.

lol

as if my pseudo-code was a simple response. That was probably the most complex answer you've ever received to any trolling political question you've asked.

Originally posted by skekUng
If your next answer involves using your name as a brand, then I'll appreciate you not wasting my time.


Go find someone else to troll.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What's funny is that in a UN committee on reproductive health, the delegates the US sent were so conservative that even Iran wouldn't agree with them on most things.
Really? Damn.

No why?lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
I will not discuss with you which portions I agree with and which I do not as I do not like you and I think you're a troll.

Go find someone else to troll.

If you are unwilling to discuss the specifics, then your entire assertion that he would have been the better president is a waste of your time, not mine.

Also, you're coming across as paranoid. If you've really expereinced that many trolls, then there might be something wrong with your posting style that makes people troll you. I've been on forums long enough to know that the people who get trolled the most are typically half the problem, themselves.

If you can't respond to a question without hurling accusations in the hopes that the moderators will just pick up on them and ban me simply because you're paranoid, then save yourself the time and effort and report me. OR, participate in the discussion and be willing to understand that everything you say isn't well-thought out and insightful, and won't be accepted simply because you said it. Not everyone that disagrees with you is automatically a troll. Standing on a soap box in the corner and screaming about trolls and socks is really a lazy way to participate in a discussion, and it gives you the leeway to never have to back up anything you say. Granted, you don't put much effort into discussing anything, as it is. You make an assertion, post a wiki link or two, say you hate me and won't be discussing anything from the massive and vague information found on your link and then start insulting.

So, let's just both just shit the hell up and avoid one another.

Originally posted by King Kandy
They were corrupted before they ran.
Potentially.

Anyway, the point stands: Sarah Palin is quite clever and manipulative. The idea that she is "stupid" is fed by the media, and liberal retards eat that shit up. ROFL SHE SAID NORTH KOREA IS OUR ALLY. And quickly corrected herself. It's like when Dubya almost said that the Bicentennial was in 1776 but caught himself midsentence. HURRR HE'S DUMB.

And this is because liberals are incapable of critical thinking.

They weren't "potentially" corrupted, they were 100% corrupted already. Their platforms already make that obvious. When nobody's personal views are pure, the only thing we can judge them on is their issues; every corporatist on the republican ticket already loses that by default.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Really? Damn.

I used to have an Iranian-American employee, and he said that most of them hate their govt and that many individuals in Iran are pretty liberal despite the news and their embarrassing nutcase president.

And most Iranian-Americans tend to vote blue.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I used to have an Iranian-American employee, and he said that most of them hate their govt and that many individuals in Iran are pretty liberal despite the news and their embarrassing nutcase president.

AJE had a report on Tehran, and they were saying that there is as much plastic surgery there as in southern california

I believe it.

Fun fact: Los Angeles has the world's largest Iranian population outside of Iran.

Originally posted by King Kandy
They weren't "potentially" corrupted, they were 100% corrupted already. Their platforms already make that obvious. When nobody's personal views are pure, the only thing we can judge them on is their issues; every corporatist on the republican ticket already loses that by default.
Prove it.

Originally posted by inimalist
AJE had a report on Tehran, and they were saying that there is as much plastic surgery there as in southern california
I saw a documentary on nose jobs in Iran, very interesting how they'll try to maximize the aesthetic value of what little real estate they're allowed by law.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Prove it.
lol, i'm not going to waste my time trying to "prove" anything to you. You make clear every time you post "liberals are retarded", "liberalism is a mental illness", "incapable of critical thinking", etc, that you have absolutely zero intention of trying to have a productive discussion with the vast majority of people on this site. I decline to take part in your mental masturbation, thank you very much.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And this is because liberals are incapable of critical thinking.

Shirley, you have to have another group you think so little of as to repeat yourself over and over again.

"Constant development is the law of life, and a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas in order to appear consistent drives himself into a false position." -even when his position is everything except (______).

Originally posted by King Kandy
I decline to take part in your mental masturbation, thank you very much.

Then do it for the rest of us.

Originally posted by skekUng
Shirley, you have to have another group you think so little of as to repeat yourself over and over again.

"Constant development is the law of life, and a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas in order to appear consistent drives himself into a false position." -even when his position is everything except (______).

Maybe "Zeal Ex Nihilo" is actually a sock of Ann Coulter? A lot of his posts are almost verbatim of lines in her books How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) and If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.

Who'd have thunk that she had the time to post on a forum so often...

Originally posted by King Kandy
lol, i'm not going to waste my time trying to "prove" anything to you. You make clear every time you post "liberals are retarded", "liberalism is a mental illness", "incapable of critical thinking", etc, that you have absolutely zero intention of trying to have a productive discussion with the vast majority of people on this site. I decline to take part in your mental masturbation, thank you very much.
How childish--running away when your bullshit is called on you. It's almost as if one could expect this sort of behavior from a liberal.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
How childish--running away when your bullshit is called on you. It's almost as if one could expect this sort of behavior from a liberal.
I suppose it's almost as childish as trolling a forum.

I ain't even trolling.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I ain't even trolling.
Sure you aren't.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
How childish--running away when your bullshit is called on you. It's almost as if one could expect this sort of behavior from a liberal.
I had hoped that you would have mellowed out after you got several threads closed through this kind of behavior. Evidently you would rather act with aimless trolling and aggression than have a discussion where you might have to change your opinions.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I had hoped that you would have mellowed out after you got several threads closed through this kind of behavior. Evidently you would rather act with aimless trolling and aggression than have a discussion where you might have to change your opinions.
Right. So demanding that you back up your opinions with facts is the equivalent of trolling, whereas making uncited claims of "hurr they're all corrupt!" is not. Full retard, son. You just went it.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Right. So demanding that you back up your opinions with facts is the equivalent of trolling, whereas making uncited claims of "hurr they're all corrupt!" is not. Full retard, son. You just went it.
No, your trolling has been apparent to everyone involved ever since you started punctuating every post with "liberalism is a mental disease". I'm reporting you.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Maybe "Zeal Ex Nihilo" is actually a sock of Ann Coulter? A lot of his posts are almost verbatim of lines in her books How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) and If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.

Who'd have thunk that she had the time to post on a forum so often...

If it was the only thing I've read him say, then I might agree with you. However, I have heard him say some things that pretty easily illustrate he is not Mr. Coulter. Even Ms Coulter is smarter than the Frau Coulter she plays on talking head pseudo-news programs.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Right. So demanding that you back up your opinions with facts is the equivalent of trolling, whereas making uncited claims of "hurr they're all corrupt!" is not. Full retard, son. You just went it.

Surely there's a wiki link you should be posting with this.

Originally posted by skekUng
If you are unwilling to discuss the specifics, then your entire assertion that he would have been the better president is a waste of your time, not mine.

No it is not because I've already taken the time to consider them and weigh them against my ideas of how shit should get done.

That's pretty obvious and you're getting towards the end of your troll rope, obviously.

Originally posted by skekUng
Also, you're coming across as paranoid. If you've really expereinced that many trolls, then there might be something wrong with your posting style that makes people troll you. I've been on forums long enough to know that the people who get trolled the most are typically half the problem, themselves.

Ah, here were go: a better attempt at trolling.

That's simply not the case. But, I'll take this post to be an indirect confession of "troll-hood."

Originally posted by skekUng
If you can't respond to a question without hurling accusations in the hopes that the moderators will just pick up on them and ban me simply because you're paranoid, then save yourself the time and effort and report me. OR, participate in the discussion and be willing to understand that everything you say isn't well-thought out and insightful, and won't be accepted simply because you said it. Not everyone that disagrees with you is automatically a troll. Standing on a soap box in the corner and screaming about trolls and socks is really a lazy way to participate in a discussion, and it gives you the leeway to never have to back up anything you say. Granted, you don't put much effort into discussing anything, as it is. You make an assertion, post a wiki link or two, say you hate me and won't be discussing anything from the massive and vague information found on your link and then start insulting.

lol

Didn't you want your sock account to last a little bit longer?

1. I never said I hated you.
2. Posted one wiki link (out of a total of 3 links) that listed out Romney's political positions...but posted a much larger one that included his voting record.
3. I have indicated, clearly, that I've thought about the political positions.
4. No matter what I post, no matter how correct it is and no matter how well thought out it is, you will find a reason to pretend there is something wrong because you're a troll. You do not deserve my opinions. However, if you really are that interested, you can find my of my opinions scattered throughout the forum and logically conclude, on your own, what exactly my political opinions are and how they sync up with Romney's positions. Go ahead: if you REALLY want to troll me that bad, you can do it.
5. Start insulting? Odd, as I never insulted you once.

Originally posted by skekUng
So, let's just both just shit the hell up and avoid one another.

Not gonna happen.

Now that you've had a little troll fest (Is that you, Lord Sorgo?), why don't you try to post on topic?



Obviously, Romney was the far better choice for the GOP presidential candidate as he's far from Palin: he's better spoken, has better economic policies, is not an idiot, and looks like a president, not a PTA member.


Originally posted by King Kandy
lol, i'm not going to waste my time trying to "prove" anything to you. You make clear every time you post "liberals are retarded", "liberalism is a mental illness", "incapable of critical thinking", etc, that you have absolutely zero intention of trying to have a productive discussion with the vast majority of people on this site. I decline to take part in your mental masturbation, thank you very much.



I've posted this already, but couldn't find it: liberals and conservatives are not more stupid than each other. They each have smart and dumb on each end. The link said that they were remarkably the same.


Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Maybe "Zeal Ex Nihilo" is actually a sock of Ann Coulter? A lot of his posts are almost verbatim of lines in her books How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) and If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.

Who'd have thunk that she had the time to post on a forum so often...

Nah. He's a handsome young man.

He doesn't strike me as a Coulter fan, either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not because I've already taken the time to consider them and weigh them against my ideas of how shit should get done

yeah? And they are? one wiki link is not my point. My point is that you make a statement, toss out very broad links to substantiate those statements and say "See! Look, I told everyone so." So far, the only thing I've seen you say is:

Originally posted by dadudemon
!!!>Obviously<!!!, Romney was the far better choice for the GOP presidential candidate as he's far from Palin: he's better spoken, has better economic policies, is not an idiot, and looks like a president, not a PTA member.

You think he's better than Palin and Obama, but won't tell us why you think he would have been a better choice. So, put up. Tell us what the hell you mean.


Originally posted by dadudemon
That's simply not the case. But, I'll take this post to be an indirect confession of "troll-hood."

Everything I've said you've taken as a confession of "troll-hood", why would my previous post be any different? It's not trolling to point out that you have been in my shit since the first time I found myself in the same conversation with you.


Originally posted by dadudemon
1. I never said I hated you.
2. Posted one wiki link (out of a total of 3 links) that listed out Romney's political positions...but posted a much larger one that included his voting record.
3. I have indicated, clearly, that I've thought about the political positions.
4. No matter what I post, no matter how correct it is and no matter how well thought out it is, you will find a reason to pretend there is something wrong because you're a troll. You do not deserve my opinions. However, if you really are that interested, you can find my of my opinions scattered throughout the forum and logically conclude, on your own, what exactly my political opinions are and how they sync up with Romney's positions. Go ahead: if you REALLY want to troll me that bad, you can do it.
5. Start insulting? Odd, as I never insulted you once.

1 Not literally, no. But it's apparent you're scared of me for some imaginary reason. I've seen your posts all over this site and you're excesively paranoid about trolls and socks and you cast anyone who disagrees with you as one. That seems a lot like hate to me.

2 again, wiki link all you want, or don't. My point remains a valid one. You make a statement, toss out a broad and general link to a site with massive amounts of information, and then say "See? Look how well-reasoned and insightful and intelligent my response was! What don't you get about it?" Well, I don't get anything from it, because you don't say anything, just post a lot of information to make yourself seem as though you've put any thought into your response.

3 I have just pointed out how you clearly HAVE NOT. If you had, you'd have something to say in your own words, rather than just posting links and claiming it was an intricate answer to a political question.

4 Then, by this definition, you are trolling me. Your paranoia seems to validate this sort of response to everyone on this site that isn't you.

5 yes, insulting. You've called me a troll in every response you've had to something I've said. You seem to just be pissed because you called me one a week ago in defense of Zeal, and that turned out to be a waste of time.

Originally posted by skekUng
yeah? And they are? one wiki link is not my point. My point is that you make a statement, toss out very broad links to substantiate those statements and say "See! Look, I told everyone so." So far, the only thing I've seen you say is:.


Broad links? They were very specific to Romney.



Originally posted by skekUng
You think he's better than Palin and Obama, but won't tell us why you think he would have been a better choice. So, put up. Tell us what the hell you mean.

I'll give you a hint:

Do some google searching.

Compare Romney's economic stances against Obama's. See where they differ. There's your answer. I'm not going to do your thinking for you. You should come into this thread knowing more than nothing if you wish to discuss anything.

But we both know you're a sock troll just trolling.

In this community, I can say something like, "I like Romney's economic polices over Obama's" and we are more than intelligent and informed enough to understand exactly what that means. I will not waste my time and other members' time by treating them like highschool students and educating them on policies that they themselves already know and may even know them better than I do.




Originally posted by skekUng
Everything I've said you've taken as a confession of "troll-hood", why would my previous post be any different? It's not trolling to point out that you have been in my shit since the first time I found myself in the same conversation with you.

No, not everything you've said. You don't want to get banned before you've had your sick fun, right?


It is trolling to troll from the very beginning of your membership, though.




Originally posted by skekUng
1 Not literally, no. But it's apparent you're scared of me for some imaginary reason. I've seen your posts all over this site and you're excesively paranoid about trolls and socks and you cast anyone who disagrees with you as one. That seems a lot like hate to me.

I have been wrong how many times?

Also, why are you not banned, yet, for being a sock troll? This point here should be obvious that you are a sock troll.

Originally posted by skekUng
2 again, wiki link all you want, or don't. My point remains a valid one. You make a statement, toss out a broad and general link to a site with massive amounts of information, and then say "See? Look how well-reasoned and insightful and intelligent my response was! What don't you get about it?" Well, I don't get anything from it, because you don't say anything, just post a lot of information to make yourself seem as though you've put any thought into your response.

But that's not what I said or even remotely implied.

Why do you want to know SPECIFICALLY from me, though? Do you see why you're being too obvious as a troll? Also, I did answer your questions, already.

Originally posted by skekUng
3 I have just pointed out how you clearly HAVE NOT. If you had, you'd have something to say in your own words, rather than just posting links and claiming it was an intricate answer to a political question.

You have to do better than a "nuh uhhhh!"

And I never claimed it to be an intricate answer.

Originally posted by skekUng
4 Then, by this definition, you are trolling me. Your paranoia seems to validate this sort of response to everyone on this site that isn't you.

Aha! But, you are a little bit late to try the old sock troll tactic of: "Accuse valid members of trolling to get them in trouble."



Originally posted by skekUng
5 yes, insulting. You've called me a troll in every response you've had to something I've said. You seem to just be pissed because you called me one a week ago in defense of Zeal, and that turned out to be a waste of time.

I have not called you a troll in every single response.

However, you are a sock troll and you've indirectly admitted to it.



Answer this: Are you Lord Sorgo's sock? If you are, I still don't hate you, I just think you're a sad person.

If not, are you a sock troll? If you are, I still don't hate you, but you need to get a life.



I will not post on anything I've commented on, above, anymore.

Stay on topic. If I refuse to answer your troll questions, feel free to PM me for an "intricate" answer, if I refuse.


I agree with portions of Romney's social policies, as well. I find them superior to Palin's stifling stances. Palin IS a moron but definitely has some skills at wooing the public. Part of the problem is people like how much of a moron she is but they fail to realize that the system was setup so that laymen could elect experts to properly represent their views in congress or in executive offices.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Broad links? They were very specific to Romney.

Yeah, they were broad links on Mr. Romney's career. If you asked me what I agreed with President Obama about, and I handed you his autobiography, then claimed to have even come close to explaining why I agreed with him, much less which of the things in that 400 page book I agreed with, you would be no closer to having any idea what the hell I was talking about than before.


Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll give you a hint:

This is my problem---><---with your tactic

Compare Romney's economic stances against Obama's. See where they differ. There's your answer. I'm not going to do your thinking for you. You should come into this thread knowing more than nothing if you wish to discuss anything.

See, you're being lazy and passing off your answers as though they're brilliant, insightful and well-reasoned. But, what your answers really amount to is claiming victory in what ever conversational contest you think you're having, and then telling the other person(people) to look up your answers for you. You want us to do the foot work for yourargument, for you. That's not how a conversation works. You say you like Romney's economic policies, someone asks why and you tell them to look them up. That's not a conversation or an argument, thats you making an unfounded and unproven statement and putting the burden of proof on everyone to whom you made the statement.


Originally posted by dadudemon
In this community, I can say something like, "I like Romney's economic polices over Obama's" and we are more than intelligent and informed enough to understand exactly what that means. I will not waste my time and other members' time by treating them like highschool students and educating them on policies that they themselves already know and may even know them better than I do.

Yeah, well in the short time I've been here, I've read at least two members say that it was up to the person making the statement to prove it. One of those two members was someone you attempted to defend from me, but didn't need you to rescue them from anything.


Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not everything you've said. You don't want to get banned before you've had your sick fun, right?


It is trolling to troll from the very beginning of your membership, though.

I have been wrong how many times?

Also, why are you not banned, yet, for being a sock troll? This point here should be obvious that you are a sock troll.

But that's not what I said or even remotely implied.

Why do you want to know SPECIFICALLY from me, though? Do you see why you're being too obvious as a troll? Also, I did answer your questions, already.

You have to do better than a "nuh uhhhh!"

And I never claimed it to be an intricate answer.

Aha! But, you are a little bit late to try the old sock troll tactic of: "Accuse valid members of trolling to get them in trouble."


I have not called you a troll in every single response.

However, you are a sock troll and you've indirectly admitted to it.

Answer this: Are you Lord Sorgo's sock? If you are, I still don't hate you, I just think you're a sad person.

If not, are you a sock troll? If you are, I still don't hate you, but you need to get a life.

I will not post on anything I've commented on, above, anymore.

Stay on topic. If I refuse to answer your troll questions, feel free to PM me for an "intricate" answer, if I refuse.

I agree with portions of Romney's social policies, as well. I find them superior to Palin's stifling stances. Palin IS a moron but definitely has some skills at wooing the public. Part of the problem is people like how much of a moron she is but they fail to realize that the system was setup so that laymen could elect experts to properly represent their views in congress or in executive offices.

Direct answer: No, I'm not Lord Sargo. I'm not any of the dozen members who have been banned in the last two days, either. I'm asking you to provide specific examples, because you don't provide any. Of the dozens of older members here that I had dealings and conversations with, you're the only one that has decided to dodge questions and provide no substantiating evidence, all while insulting me and accusing me of finding you interesting enough to e-stalk. You strike me as arrogant enough to actually believe that once you joined, no one else need apply because this site found the answer to all it's member dreams.

Which social policies do you agree with, the most? Maybe just one? Or two. Illustrate that you know ANYthing about what you're saying. No links, just a straight forward answer to "With which of Mitt Romney's social policies do you agree?"

I agree Palin isn't that bright, but that's what makes her most loved by the largely undereducated and uninterested population of this country. I'm fairly certain there are people out there that think the chick from dancing with the stars might run for president.

Originally posted by skekUng
...A bunch of trolling...


yawn

Didn't I tell you I wouldn't address your silly attempts at trolling me?

Originally posted by skekUng
Which social policies do you agree with, the most? Maybe just one? Or two. Illustrate that you know ANYthing about what you're saying. No links, just a straight forward answer to "With which of Mitt Romney's social policies do you agree?"

I will not tell you, here, because you want to troll.

If you want to know, PM me and I'll give you some of the things I like about his social policies.

Originally posted by skekUng
I agree Palin isn't that bright, but that's what makes her most loved by the largely undereducated and uninterested population of this country. I'm fairly certain there are people out there that think the chick from dancing with the stars might run for president.

They are definitely not apathetic: their ignorance is certainly active and they are getting more and more active and organized. Sources: my own observations of the Tea Party movement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
yawn

Exactly, your arguments are lazy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They are definitely not apathetic: their ignorance is certainly active and they are getting more and more active and organized. Sources: my own observations of the Tea Party movement.

I haven't asked for any sources. I've asked for quite the opposite, actually. What I've asked for are details regarding your position that Mr. Romney would have made a better President than both Mrs. Palin and President Obama. Something in your own words, not copy and pasted links that assume other people are going to research your opinion for you.

Originally posted by skekUng
Exactly, your arguments are lazy.

K.



Originally posted by skekUng
I haven't asked for any sources. I've asked for quite the opposite, actually. What I've asked for are details regarding your position that Mr. Romney would have made a better President than both Mrs. Palin and President Obama. Something in your own words, not copy and pasted links that assume other people are going to research your opinion for you.

Unrelated and unneeded.

You missed the point entirely.

Can you stop trolling for 2 seconds to have a civil conversation?

Originally posted by dadudemon
...Can you stop trolling for 2 seconds to have a civil conversation?

There you go raising the bar too high.

Originally posted by dadudemon
K.


I'm glad we agree on something.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Unrelated and unneeded.

You missed the point entirely.

Can you stop trolling for 2 seconds to have a civil conversation?

I've only been calling for a civil conversation since you first decided to attack 'the new guy' for daring to address an established member. You do not want a civil conversation, though. You want me to do your research for you. That is not a civil conversation. See, when you provide no information that establishes your position (other than vague statements of support for a concept you refuse to define yourself) it makes it that much easier for you to claim that you're being trolled and that you're never wrong. The very first thing you said to me was that I was too new to have my points addressed, now you want me to have a conversation with you in PM for the sake of what? So you can hurl even more obtuse and hateful accusations with the benefit of none of the moderators seeing them? The PM button works both ways. If you have something civil to say to me for the first time since you decided to address me, then feel free to send them on their way. Otherwise, tell us which of Mr. Romney's social and economic policies would have made him a better President than Mrs Palin and President Obama.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There you go raising the bar too high.

What possible reason is there for you to get involved, as well?

Originally posted by skekUng
What possible reason is there for you to get involved, as well?

I'm not involved. Are you so anal that you can't take a joke?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not involved. Are you so anal that you can't take a joke?

At this point, yes.

Originally posted by skekUng
At this point, yes.

Sorry. It must suck to feel that way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry. It must suck to feel that way.

Why do you participate in any of the discussions on this discussion board?

Originally posted by skekUng
Why do you participate in any of the discussions on this discussion board?

Are you an official troll now?

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm glad we agree on something.




I've only been calling for a civil conversation since you first decided to attack 'the new guy' for daring to address an established member. You do not want a civil conversation, though. You want me to do your research for you. That is not a civil conversation. See, when you provide no information that establishes your position (other than vague statements of support for a concept you refuse to define yourself) it makes it that much easier for you to claim that you're being trolled and that you're never wrong. The very first thing you said to me was that I was too new to have my points addressed, now you want me to have a conversation with you in PM for the sake of what? So you can hurl even more obtuse and hateful accusations with the benefit of none of the moderators seeing them? The PM button works both ways. If you have something civil to say to me for the first time since you decided to address me, then feel free to send them on their way. Otherwise, tell us which of Mr. Romney's social and economic policies would have made him a better President than Mrs Palin and President Obama.


If you want to know, PM me.

If you want to troll, post about it here and never get the response that you obviously desperately need.

I will not PM you as I am not bursting to tell you my opinions. But, even if you are a sock troll, I will still humor you and give you my responses via PM IF you want them. (Taking it to PMs is the very thing most trolls do NOT want because they cannot fulfill their jollies when only one person sees their trolling.)


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There you go raising the bar too high.



I think this is Lord Sorgo...and he's not even trying to hide the fact that he's a troll, anymore.

The guy is hardly trolling, he's asking others to solidify their stance.

No idea about the socking though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unrelated and unneeded.

You missed the point entirely.

Can you stop trolling for 2 seconds to have a civil conversation?
Um, he is. He's asked you, straightforward, for your position on issues related to the thread (several times). You're the one who keeps calling him a troll and for the life of me I can't figure out why you think that, because he's been trying to continue the topic the whole time he's been here.

Originally posted by Robtard
The guy is hardly trolling, he's asking others to solidify their stance.

No idea about the socking though.

I offered to give it to him in PMs but he is not interested in any sort of civil discussion. Still no PM. Lord Sorgo wants to try and make a fool out of me because of our past encounters so he wants it here, on the board.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, he is. He's asked you, straightforward, for your position on issues related to the thread (several times). You're the one who keeps calling him a troll and for the life of me I can't figure out why you think that, because he's been trying to continue the topic the whole time he's been here.

Please don't legitimize an obvious sock troll. Next time, please PM me if you disagree. You have no idea how much "lulz" that just gave Lord Sorgo.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you an official troll now?

I'm just assuming it's not to be harassed and blamed for the behavior of others. If you participate to have a discussion, then we're here for the same reasons. If you are only participating in this discussion to stir the turd, then trolling becomes as subjective accusation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I will not PM you as I am not bursting to tell you my opinions.

You were the first to behave like an ass, so the olive branch is yours to extend.

Nobody cares, you dramaqueen. Please start contributing to the discussion or stop posting.

Originally posted by skekUng
You were the first to behave like an ass, so the olive branch is yours to extend.

If you don't want to know, that's fine.

Back on topic.



Read Robtard's post in the other thread. Obama has disappointed me, again. He failed to deliver on a major campaign promise.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I offered to give it to him in PMs but he is not interested in any sort of civil discussion. Still no PM. Lord Sorgo wants to try and make a fool out of me because of our past encounters so he wants it here, on the board.



Please don't legitimize an obvious sock troll. Next time, please PM me if you disagree. You have no idea how much "lulz" that just gave Lord Sorgo.

You have very deep issues with this sock troll you keep addressing. If you need me to be him, that's fine. But if that's all you have to offer any discussion in which we both find ourselves, then that makes you the problem. Not being something that you constantly accuse me of being irritates me, but you're the one who seems to dwell on it to the point of paranoia. All I've asked for, repeatedly, is that you offer ANY personal insight into the statements you've made regarding Romney v. Obama/Palin. If not wanting to have a hidden conversation where you aren't held accountable for your insults doesn't explain itself after the barrage of accusations you've made against me in public, then I can't make it any more clear for you. Again, perhaps your aggressive approach to any new member is why this site suffers from trolling and why you personally feel so insecure.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Nobody cares, you dramaqueen. Please start contributing to the discussion or stop posting.

Legitimate contribution has been my point from the beginning. You might just have issues with me because I illustrated how your support for moderately progressive conservatives is exactly what you're getting from the current President. Don't act like I'm taking anything said in this forum more or less personally than you are.

Armchair psychology at its finest. You are fat.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Read Robtard's post in the other thread. Obama has disappointed me, again. He failed to deliver on a major campaign promise.

So, again, you're unwilling to do your own work. I have to read a third party's post to understand what you should be more than capable of explaining yourself?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Armchair psychology at its finest. You are fat.

Maybe I am. But one's physical appearance, other than that of Mitt Romney looking presidential, isn't the point. You have tyo admit that if, even for a second, you didn't think I was a troll, that his behavior comes across as paranoid.

Please go away. You have contributed nothing to this thread except derailment.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Please go away. You have contributed nothing to this thread except derailment.


Why don't we all leave together and make this a better site?

I've asked for specifics to further the conversation. Defending myself is an unintentional detrailing of the coversation made necessary by the paranoia entertained by some members.

I would like to hear this, and I am sad that no one else does.

Originally posted by skekUng
You have very deep issues with this sock troll you keep addressing. If you need me to be him, that's fine. But if that's all you have to offer any discussion in which we both find ourselves, then that makes you the problem. Not being something that you constantly accuse me of being irritates me, but you're the one who seems to dwell on it to the point of paranoia. All I've asked for, repeatedly, is that you offer ANY personal insight into the statements you've made regarding Romney v. Obama/Palin. If not wanting to have a hidden conversation where you aren't held accountable for your insults doesn't explain itself after the barrage of accusations you've made against me in public, then I can't make it any more clear for you. Again, perhaps your aggressive approach to any new member is why this site suffers from trolling and why you personally feel so insecure.

Please stop trolling. I told you I would not address this type of dialogue, anymore.

I have asked you nicely and I am trying to be civil with you.

If you want to know, PM me. If you do not, do not bring it up.

Originally posted by skekUng
So, again, you're unwilling to do your own work. I have to read a third party's post to understand what you should be more than capable of explaining yourself?


Please stop trolling.

I clearly explained what Robtard was talking about in the other thread. I even looked it up and posted a news article on it to prove his post as accurate. If having to click one thread down to figure out a conversation, frustrates you, ask, politely, in this thread or via PM, in what context the post is being presented. Had either of those been done, I would have gladly linked you to the relevant post of mine.


Kind Kandy, do you see the difference, now, between a normal poster and a troll?


Originally posted by skekUng
Why don't we all leave together and make this a better site?

I've asked for specifics to further the conversation. Defending myself is an unintentional detrailing of the coversation made necessary by the paranoia entertained by some members.

"If you want to know, PM me. If you do not, do not bring it up."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please stop trolling. I told you I would not address this type of dialogue, anymore.

I have asked you nicely and I am trying to be civil with you.

If you want to know, PM me. If you do not, do not bring it up.




Please stop trolling.

I clearly explained what Robtard was talking about in the other thread. I even looked it up and posted a news article on it to prove his post as accurate. If having to click one thread down to figure out a conversation, frustrates you, ask, politely, in this thread or via PM, in what context the post is being presented. Had either of those been done, I would have gladly linked you to the relevant post of mine.


Kind Kandy, do you see the difference, now, between a normal poster and a troll?




"If you want to know, PM me. If you do not, do not bring it up."

You can go into three paragraphs about stalking Mitt Romney, but putting that much effort into explaining why he would make a better president than Obama and Palin is too much effort? It's amazing that you trying to have a conversation about the topic of this thread in PM is more important than having a conversation about the direction in which you took the thread, in the thread. Don't play the happy, civil member with me. Both members who have accused me of newb butthurt, being a drama queen and a sock troll too new to actually address, are participating in this thread. Both of those members have repeatedly insulted me for no valid reason, other than participating in the conversation and expecting others to actually validate their own statements. On every other forum I've ever been on, you take private conversations to PM. I don't have anything to say to you in private because the only thing I've asked is for you to back up what you've asserted to be a valid statement.

Originally posted by skekUng
You can go into three paragraphs about stalking Mitt Romney, but putting that much effort into explaining why he would make a better president than Obama and Palin is too much effort? It's amazing that you trying to have a conversation about the topic of this thread in PM is more important than having a conversation about the direction in which you took the thread, in the thread. Don't play the happy, civil member with me. Both members who have accused me of newb butthurt, being a drama queen and a sock troll too new to actually address, are participating in this thread. Both of those members have repeatedly insulted me for no valid reason, other than participating in the conversation and expecting others to actually validate their own statements. On every other forum I've ever been on, you take private conversations to PM. I don't have anything to say to you in private because the only thing I've asked is for you to back up what you've asserted to be a valid statement.

"If you want to know, PM me. If you do not, do not bring it up."

Cut out that sort of behaviour, dadude. If you think a poster is a troll, stop replying. Your attitude is not only poor in relation to thread participation, it is also doing NOTHING about any potential trolling- indeed, it would be making it worse.

And your hostile attitude is also being noted, zeal. Both of you will receive formal warnings if you carry on this way.

Get this back on topic now, please.

Originally posted by skekUng
You were the first to behave like an ass, so the olive branch is yours to extend.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Cut out that sort of behaviour, dadude. If you think a poster is a troll, stop replying. Your attitude is not only poor in relation to thread participation, it is also doing NOTHING about any potential trolling- indeed, it would be making it worse.

And your hostile attitude is also being noted, zeal. Both of you will receive formal warnings if you carry on this way.

Get this back on topic now, please.

Well, this "new" poster admitted to having specific past knowledge of myself, so it's more than obvious he's a sock troll.




And, I'm a little confused, dropping the subject, entirely, and requesting he take it to PMs is having a poor attitude? I thought that is what we were supposed to do when someone was taking the thread off topic? Please clarify as I will quote your official ruling on that in the future: it has come up more than once in several threads on what the proper procedure is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, this "new" poster admitted to having specific past knowledge of myself, so it's more than obvious he's a sock troll.




And, I'm a little confused, dropping the subject, entirely, and requesting he take it to PMs is having a poor attitude? I thought that is what we were supposed to do when someone was taking the thread off topic? Please clarify as I will quote your official ruling on that in the future: it has come up more than once in several threads on what the proper procedure is.

Please validate your first statement.

The second I have already addressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvKFJ6iyGrI&feature=related

b/c she believes dinosaurs and ppl co existed and we bn on the planet for only 4k and even thinks we are in a holy war.

She may be stupid, but did you see pictures of her when she was younger? I'd hit it for a dollar.

This woman must be the opposite of Palin, I wonder if they can put her up. It would make it interesting.

KBXe3Kvg-qU

That woman has absolutely no clue how politics actually work. Does she think Romney is unique in being unethical? She also seems to be a Tea Party nutcase

Sarah Palin is not stupid......


........ when she is guided by her cow handler-like people and fed catch-phrases word by word into an earbud.