Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nope, got that straight from the libtards "how to avoid a question" handbook. There wasn't a question in the post you or I responded to. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 There wasn't a question in the post you or I responded to. Try again. What? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 What? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Simple reading comprehension is apparently tough for you, too? You do have a lot in common with Ms. Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Simple reading comprehension is apparently tough for you, too? You do have a lot in common with Ms. Palin. I don't speak gibberish. You'll have to translate for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Kelly, an exercise in futility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Kelly, an exercise in futility. LOL! Oh the irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I don't speak gibberish. You'll have to translate for me. I don't know why I should have to explain it to you. But there wasn't a question posed to you when you responded with something Palinesque stupid. And then when I asked you about it, you supported your stupid Palinesque response by saying you were just avoiding the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Isn't the correct Bidenesque? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I don't know why I should have to explain it to you. But there wasn't a question posed to you when you responded with something Palinesque stupid. And then when I asked you about it, you supported your stupid Palinesque response by saying you were just avoiding the question. All I got from you so far is....BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Isn't the correct Bidenesque? Bidenesque is an entirely different kind of stupid. Incredibly and unfathomably stupid in its own right, but not the same kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 All I got from you so far is....BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH You're "Ginger" in this scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 You're "Ginger" in this scenario LOL! Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Hey, what I say is half in jest. Don't take me to seriously. But the other half.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 You're "Ginger" in this scenario Mary Ann > Ginger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Palin is more experienced than Obama. Why are you letting experience of the VP affect your decision when you're siding with a candidate who pretty much has displayed only his intentions for running for presidency while in office thus far. Yuking it up again... Right after watching what the mayor of Wasilla's responsibilities are and the way Palin conducts herself, I don't think in good conscience you should keep repeating that lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I saw Sanjay Gupta, a doctor who was one of those invited to see McCain's records and he said it was a farce. They were allowed to look at those 1200 pages but there was a lot of stuff missing and blacked out, they weren't allowed to copy any of it, and the 1200 pages were left intentionally without page numbers, so they couldn't reference anything. he said it left more questions than answers for the doctors. That said, I think Obama should have released a lot more info. One page isn't enough. EDIT: This was some of what Gupta said: ""We were given three hours to go over 1,200 pages of records. That is a lot to go through. It was very sort of cloak and dagger and I'm sure they had their reasons. Given that I had my medical training, I was able to hone in on what it thought was important more quickly. But the pages weren't numbered, so I had no way of knowing what was missing... As a reporter I can only comment on what I saw but I can't say by any means that this was complete... As far as the secretiveness of it, what they said to us is that you can't take anything out of the room, but you could make notes. So it was a lot to go through in a short period of time." Typical Republican smoke screen, kinda like the evidence they put forth about the weapons of mass destruction... Same kind of tactic from what our intelligence guy told us. I wouldn't believe much coming out of either side right now and until election day. If either told me the sky was blue, I would go verify it more than once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Yuking it up again... Right after watching what the mayor of Wasilla's responsibilities are and the way Palin conducts herself, I don't think in good conscience you should keep repeating that lie. Obama is running for the Presidency and I'm able to compare his experience and leadership with the VP candidate across the table. Wake up and smell the hot coffee. That's a sign bad enough to indicate that Obama's experience is lacking. Being a State Legislator is all well and good...if you're intention is to be a house of representative of course... ...oh wait, that was his goal. And in 2000 he lost a bid in the Democratic Primaries for a House spot. In 2000 Obama was losing in the primaries for a seat in the house, and McCain was losing in the primaries for the President of the United States with 13 years of Senatorial work behind him already. I'm not saying experience is really all that important...but please refrain from pretending that Obama is experienced. And I'm sure you'll say that he is more experienced than Palin and that was your claim, but to that, I'll say I guess my point is proven...That you need to compare Obama to the VP candidate in order to express how experienced he is. Next you'll say something like...experience means nothing, and thus goes on the cycle of ignorance and retorts that is the liberal basis for hope and change or whatever nonsense you're all parading about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Obama is running for the Presidency and I'm able to compare his experience and leadership with the VP candidate across the table. And I'm sure you'll say that he is more experienced than Palin and that was your claim, but to that, I'll say I guess my point is proven...That you need to compare Obama to the VP candidate in order to express how experienced he is. I do believe as a law professor and legislator Obama is more experienced than Palin.... That being said, the fact that none of that has stopped the Republicans from repeating the lie and that I agree is a problem. Because the GOP values any executive experience as somehow more valuable as a qualification for the Presidency they try to get away with it. That being said, what of McCain's recent executive experience... NADA. Serving in the United States Senate for roughly 27 years if my math is correct is, is not executive experience... political yes, not executive. His record and personal records that he has released for more than a few hours show him to be petulant and tempestuous and that doesn't seem to have changed since he went through adolescence. Great campaign tactic on the Republican's side, but that is all it is and it becomes more and more disingenuous the more they repeat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The witty reply would be to use a 60s rhetorical retort... "Are you experienced" Jimmy Hendrix Yuk, Yuk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I do believe as a law professor and legislator Obama is more experienced than Palin.... That being said, the fact that none of that has stopped the Republicans from repeating the lie and that I agree is a problem. Because the GOP values any executive experience as somehow more valuable as a qualification for the Presidency they try to get away with it. That being said, what of McCain's recent executive experience... NADA. Serving in the United States Senate for roughly 27 years if my math is correct is, is not executive experience... political yes, not executive. His record and personal records that he has released for more than a few hours show him to be petulant and tempestuous and that doesn't seem to have changed since he went through adolescence. Great campaign tactic on the Republican's side, but that is all it is and it becomes more and more disingenuous the more they repeat it. I'm happy you responded the way you did. You sound upset that people keep using experience as a campaign tactic. Too bad that's one of history's longest tactics. And personally if Obama's lack of experience shies people away from him that seems more valid and legitimate to me than when people stay clear of McCain because he's republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 Why don't you just come out and say you are not going to vote for McCain because he picked a WOMAN for his VP? Don't feed me this BS about she is so terrible. That is a crock of sh-- and you know it. If you don't vote for Obama your a racist. If you don't vote for McCain, your a sexist! I hope, for your own sake, that this is tongue in cheek. If a candidate is not even smart enough to PRETEND that they know a single periodical (honestly, she couldn't even bullsh*t an answer and say she read Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal or anything), I don't care if that person is a woman, man, hermaphrodite, or what have you...I am NOT potentially making that person the most powerful person in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts