Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   This article from the Daily Fail says Mitt Romney has taken the lead in national polling, according to the "respected Rasmussen Reports"   ( dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Fail, Mitt Romney, Daily Mail, Rasmussen Reports, lead in, Apopka, swing states, political satire, running mate  
•       •       •

2345 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2012 at 11:49 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



473 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-10-07 05:16:40 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Threadjack:

The Biden/Palin debate is on C-Span right now.

/Threadjack


No offense, but I am watching the Patriots lose right now, why would I want to watch a Patriot win?
 
2012-10-07 05:22:19 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: skullkrusher:
Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now


To be fair to skullcrusher there have been some ridiculous attempts to make excuses for obama's lackluster performance. Personally I don't think Obama did as badly as many folks seem to assume (in that i thought it was just a poor showing not a complete disaster). This "it's a rope-a-dope, it was the altitude, he couldn't keep up with the lies" sounds silly and honestly like excuses Republican's made for Romney over the course of what until last week was a pretty clownshoes campaign. However, folks claiming that this was some sort of deathblow to the Obama campaign are equally as way out there.

Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.
 
2012-10-07 05:24:08 PM  

RyogaM: And Nate Silver correctly predicted 49 out or 50 state results in the 2008 election, only missing Indiana by giving it to McCain, and, obviously, correctly predicted the Obama win in the electoral college, which is the only win that matters..

Yet, somehow, the cons have been calling him a fraud since Obama has been his predicted winner all this election cycle.

Funny how that works.


Not only that, someone set up unskewedpolls.com so Conservatives could prove to themselves that Nat's wrong and Romney will win.

I wonder what they'll say when he doesn't.
 
2012-10-07 05:24:22 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: Threadjack:

The Biden/Palin debate is on C-Span right now.

/Threadjack

No offense, but I am watching the Patriots lose right now, why would I want to watch a Patriot win?


i1162.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-07 05:26:17 PM  

amiable: This "it's a rope-a-dope, it was the altitude, he couldn't keep up with the lies" sounds silly and honestly like excuses Republican's made for Romney over the course of what until last week was a pretty clownshoes campaign.


Agreed. However, now that the hand has been dealt it does appear the Obama campaign's going to play it that way (as they should).
 
2012-10-07 05:27:59 PM  

amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.


Done and done.
 
2012-10-07 05:32:13 PM  

skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now

what outrage? I have been utterly convinced that Obama intentionally looked foolish during the debate as part of some political masterstroke


C'mon man, I clearly implied that Republicans aren't American and you totally missed it. Skull I am disappoint.

Nobody knows what the hell Obama's problem was. Did you ever play sports when you were younger, and one team was so cocky that they expected to win and were completely shocked when the underdog came out and got lucky? That is what Obama's supporters are still dealing with right now.

I could pull half a dozen reasons out of my ass for why Obama didn't bother trying. Those awesome BLS numbers were reported on Friday, but do you know when they were finalized? Tuesday. You think Obama might have the clearance for that info? Maybe Obama was letting Romney talk as much as he wanted, hoping Romney would trot out that bogus "no President has ever been reelected with unemployment over 8%" line that has all but disappeared since Friday.

See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.
 
2012-10-07 05:34:00 PM  

skullkrusher: amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Done and done.


lol what?
 
2012-10-07 05:34:51 PM  

amiable: skullkrusher: amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Done and done.

lol what?


it means I couldn't have said it better meself
 
2012-10-07 05:35:29 PM  

amiable: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: skullkrusher:
Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now

To be fair to skullcrusher there have been some ridiculous attempts to make excuses for obama's lackluster performance. Personally I don't think Obama did as badly as many folks seem to assume (in that i thought it was just a poor showing not a complete disaster). This "it's a rope-a-dope, it was the altitude, he couldn't keep up with the lies" sounds silly and honestly like excuses Republican's made for Romney over the course of what until last week was a pretty clownshoes campaign. However, folks claiming that this was some sort of deathblow to the Obama campaign are equally as way out there.

Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.


Well of course, and that is why I augmented Skully's point by adding sno cone's hilarious assertion. I just wish they would stroke it just a little bit faster so they cum already and can start thinking clearly again.
 
2012-10-07 05:36:22 PM  

skullkrusher: amiable: skullkrusher: amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Done and done.

lol what?

it means I couldn't have said it better meself


Ah. Well then, Thank you!
 
2012-10-07 05:37:33 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.


"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.
 
2012-10-07 05:39:11 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: amiable: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: skullkrusher:
Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now

To be fair to skullcrusher there have been some ridiculous attempts to make excuses for obama's lackluster performance. Personally I don't think Obama did as badly as many folks seem to assume (in that i thought it was just a poor showing not a complete disaster). This "it's a rope-a-dope, it was the altitude, he couldn't keep up with the lies" sounds silly and honestly like excuses Republican's made for Romney over the course of what until last week was a pretty clownshoes campaign. However, folks claiming that this was some sort of deathblow to the Obama campaign are equally as way out there.

Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Well of course, and that is why I augmented Skully's point by adding sno cone's hilarious assertion. I just wish they would stroke it just a little bit faster so they cum already and can start thinking clearly again.


I think you might be the only person with any idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-10-07 05:41:37 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: Threadjack:

The Biden/Palin debate is on C-Span right now.

/Threadjack

No offense, but I am watching the Patriots lose right now, why would I want to watch a Patriot win?


Thank you, I'll be here all week, try the veal, etc etc

/I actually changed it over to try and get Wednesday's taste out of my mouth, but the camera was zoomed in on Palin's face and I got disgusted and had to change back.
 
2012-10-07 05:44:00 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: /I actually changed it over to try and get Wednesday's taste out of my mouth, but the camera was zoomed in on Palin's face and I got disgusted and had to change back.


She said something to the effect of "Foreign policy is for adults who have a clear plan..." and I turned it over to Mythbusters before I got DERP poisoning.
 
2012-10-07 05:44:41 PM  

skullkrusher: amiable: skullkrusher: amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Done and done.

lol what?

it means I couldn't have said it better meself


And you'll never get me lucky charms, ooh hoo hoo!

/sorry, couldn't resist
 
2012-10-07 05:46:59 PM  
Oh man, I know I got here late, but this thread was pretty much doomed from the get-go.
 
2012-10-07 05:47:18 PM  
I would like to point out that voter fraud begins early and ends with the SCOTUS.

These polls are just put out there to make Mitt Romney winning the election via voter fraud with the eventual support of the SCOTUS less suspicious.

Stealing an election is a long process. These polls are just one part of it.
 
2012-10-07 05:51:24 PM  

skullkrusher: I think you might be the only person with any idea what you're talking about.


Whoa, whoa, let's not go overboard. I have posted some really stupid stuff on Fark, and it won't be long before I do it again. Case in point: the lucky charms post I just made.
 
2012-10-07 05:51:37 PM  

Whiskey Pete: And I hope the worst for these people. Being dangerously ignorant should hurt and hurt bad.


Very true. But remember that these same people enabled the government to militarize the police and a number of other agencies to keep them along with everybody else in check. It's going to be hard to overthrow the same government that these people keep throwing money at to stockpile more SWAT teams, more organizations, and so forth. And to some point, I think they acknowledge that. What they may or may not realize, however, is how another Oklahoma City is going to create another panic that focuses directly on the right-wing militant problem. And that's something the media can't really tiptoe around for a month before resuming business as usual.

I think that's the bottom line for a lot of the media organizations that make hay and cash off of these types. They're only good until one chucklefark hillbilly gets off his ass to do something and ends up bringing the whole thing down on his heads. Exactly who would stop a full-blown persecution of the Republican Base in this environment? Nobody in the world likes them very much (with very good reason), and a lot of Americans wouldn't lift a finger if Cletus and the other white supremacy assholes end up locked away for the rest of their lives. Sure, we'll get a few people bitter and angry and vowing vengeance, but nothing will destroy the right-wing faster than them following through with their playacting. And they know this, and that's why they try to keep it under wraps.
 
2012-10-07 05:51:58 PM  
m5.paperblog.comView Full Size


/was looking for something else, got this instead
 
2012-10-07 05:57:15 PM  
 
2012-10-07 05:57:48 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Whiskey Pete: And I hope the worst for these people. Being dangerously ignorant should hurt and hurt bad.

Very true. But remember that these same people enabled the government to militarize the police and a number of other agencies to keep them along with everybody else in check. It's going to be hard to overthrow the same government that these people keep throwing money at to stockpile more SWAT teams, more organizations, and so forth. And to some point, I think they acknowledge that. What they may or may not realize, however, is how another Oklahoma City is going to create another panic that focuses directly on the right-wing militant problem. And that's something the media can't really tiptoe around for a month before resuming business as usual.

I think that's the bottom line for a lot of the media organizations that make hay and cash off of these types. They're only good until one chucklefark hillbilly gets off his ass to do something and ends up bringing the whole thing down on his heads. Exactly who would stop a full-blown persecution of the Republican Base in this environment? Nobody in the world likes them very much (with very good reason), and a lot of Americans wouldn't lift a finger if Cletus and the other white supremacy assholes end up locked away for the rest of their lives. Sure, we'll get a few people bitter and angry and vowing vengeance, but nothing will destroy the right-wing faster than them following through with their playacting. And they know this, and that's why they try to keep it under wraps.


Indeed. If you are ever feeling too good about your fellow Americans go over to Freeperville or any wingnut site or even a Yahoo political story and read the comments. These people are aggressively ignorant, full of lies and hatred and proud of it. I don't doubt that something will happen along the lines that you described after Obama wins.
 
2012-10-07 06:00:53 PM  

skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.


Wait, "your" guy is Obama? I have you farkied as "right-wing" in orange (albeit as "comic" and not "troll" or "shill" like the others, because you have a good sense of humor and a good, logical head on your shoulders); I might have to reevaluate my judgement of you and upgrade your color.

Yeah, all these conspiracy theories are just human nature, but they are really starting to get out of hand. I'll admit I am fully on the bandwagon with the Romney tax returns/amnesty one. But only because it fits my narrative and gives me hope, and it is at least possible. Plausible? Maybe. Probable? I'm not betting any money on it.
 
2012-10-07 06:01:39 PM  

IrateShadow: shower_in_my_socks: The media gets to pretend this is a close race, and the republicans get a brief moment of hope. It's nice for them, I guess.

It terrifies me. The narrative that the right has set up and the extremes they've pushed themselves to over the past decade or two have me worried that there will be a lot of misdirected rage and violence when they lose the election.


As long as they've got cable, they'll sit in their barcaloungers and biatch, same as always.
 
2012-10-07 06:02:59 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: /I actually changed it over to try and get Wednesday's taste out of my mouth, but the camera was zoomed in on Palin's face and I got disgusted and had to change back.

She said something to the effect of "Foreign policy is for adults who have a clear plan..." and I turned it over to Mythbusters before I got DERP poisoning.


Haaaaaa I would have punched my tv.
 
2012-10-07 06:08:53 PM  
A picture is worth 1000 words.
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.netView Full Size
 
2012-10-07 06:10:45 PM  

smitty04: A picture is worth 1000 words.
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]


I see that they're letting the third string trolls play a couple of innings.
 
2012-10-07 06:10:47 PM  

TV's Vinnie: farkityfarker: I love watching the cons get all excited. It'll only make election day that much bigger of a blow for them.

THIS'd! Back in my pre-Internet days, I'd tune in to The 700 Club to watch Pat Robertson sh*t kittens the day after the election about Clinton winning in 1992. Now these days, I tune into Freepublic to read all of the HerpaDerps scream and wail.


I'm wondering if there will be mass suicides a la Heaven's Gate this year.
 
2012-10-07 06:12:16 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Guntram Shatterhand: Whiskey Pete: And I hope the worst for these people. Being dangerously ignorant should hurt and hurt bad.

Very true. But remember that these same people enabled the government to militarize the police and a number of other agencies to keep them along with everybody else in check. It's going to be hard to overthrow the same government that these people keep throwing money at to stockpile more SWAT teams, more organizations, and so forth. And to some point, I think they acknowledge that. What they may or may not realize, however, is how another Oklahoma City is going to create another panic that focuses directly on the right-wing militant problem. And that's something the media can't really tiptoe around for a month before resuming business as usual.

I think that's the bottom line for a lot of the media organizations that make hay and cash off of these types. They're only good until one chucklefark hillbilly gets off his ass to do something and ends up bringing the whole thing down on his heads. Exactly who would stop a full-blown persecution of the Republican Base in this environment? Nobody in the world likes them very much (with very good reason), and a lot of Americans wouldn't lift a finger if Cletus and the other white supremacy assholes end up locked away for the rest of their lives. Sure, we'll get a few people bitter and angry and vowing vengeance, but nothing will destroy the right-wing faster than them following through with their playacting. And they know this, and that's why they try to keep it under wraps.

Indeed. If you are ever feeling too good about your fellow Americans go over to Freeperville or any wingnut site or even a Yahoo political story and read the comments. These people are aggressively ignorant, full of lies and hatred and proud of it. I don't doubt that something will happen along the lines that you described after Obama wins.


Well, seeing how the reaction from the right-wing was positive after the Benghazi attack (as in, don't come together as a nation and support the President like we all did for Bush after 9/11, but instead attack and blame Obama while the attack is still happening), I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't wait until after the election to do something.

/I really hope I'm wrong
 
2012-10-07 06:13:38 PM  

Smackledorfer: MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.


I made an argument backed up by links that debunked the assertion that Rassmussen is an inaccurate pollster. Along with the overall trend in 2008 that matched Rassmussen's trend. They simply didn't wait till the end to get accurate. Everyone shifted in Obamas favor as election day 2008 approached.

That you think I made a fool of myself and not the idiots saying otherwise should cause you to do some self evaluation in regards to issue judgment.
 
2012-10-07 06:17:12 PM  

AcneVulgaris: IrateShadow: shower_in_my_socks: The media gets to pretend this is a close race, and the republicans get a brief moment of hope. It's nice for them, I guess.

It terrifies me. The narrative that the right has set up and the extremes they've pushed themselves to over the past decade or two have me worried that there will be a lot of misdirected rage and violence when they lose the election.

As long as they've got cable, they'll sit in their barcaloungers and biatch, same as always.


Well if they have have cable, we can only assume they also have a refrigerator, and are therefore living in the lap of luxury and have nothing to biatch about.
 
2012-10-07 06:18:41 PM  

Mrbogey: Smackledorfer: MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.

I made an argument backed up by links that debunked the assertion that Rassmussen is an inaccurate pollster. Along with the overall trend in 2008 that matched Rassmussen's trend. They simply didn't wait till the end to get accurate. Everyone shifted in Obamas favor as election day 2008 approached.

That you think I made a fool of myself and not the idiots saying otherwise should cause you to do some self evaluation in regards to issue judgment.


No.
 
2012-10-07 06:21:11 PM  

skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.


Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?
 
2012-10-07 06:22:50 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Mrbogey: Smackledorfer: MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.

I made an argument backed up by links that debunked the assertion that Rassmussen is an inaccurate pollster. Along with the overall trend in 2008 that matched Rassmussen's trend. They simply didn't wait till the end to get accurate. Everyone shifted in Obamas favor as election day 2008 approached.

That you think I made a fool of myself and not the idiots saying otherwise should cause you to do some self evaluation in regards to issue judgment.

No.


That and their track record in 2010 was pretty terrible too:


The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight's database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen's polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen's polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases - that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.


So tell me MrBogey, why should I trust Rasmussen again if they can't even get a Senate election in Hawaii right?
 
2012-10-07 06:23:46 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?


i1162.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-07 06:26:06 PM  

Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?


Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?
 
2012-10-07 06:28:23 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?


This is exactly what the 'INTREDASTING' guy was thinking!
 
2012-10-07 06:32:02 PM  

Mrbogey: Smackledorfer: MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.

I made an argument backed up by links that debunked the assertion that Rassmussen is an inaccurate pollster. Along with the overall trend in 2008 that matched Rassmussen's trend. They simply didn't wait till the end to get accurate. Everyone shifted in Obamas favor as election day 2008 approached.

That you think I made a fool of myself and not the idiots saying otherwise should cause you to do some self evaluation in regards to issue judgment.


Why even respond? Rasmussen was most accurate last two prez elections. Farklibs have consistently shown total disregard for reality when it comes to certain subjects (Rasmussen and the Anthony Weiner affair being among the most laughable). Just laugh at their lunacy.
 
2012-10-07 06:34:52 PM  
They're clearing the bench over at GOPTROLL, inc. today!
 
2012-10-07 06:36:07 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?


First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.
 
2012-10-07 06:36:07 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?

I think his point is that be cause they didn't plant WMD that proves that Bush wasn't lying, just wrong, which is better in his opinion.

Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?


Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.
 
2012-10-07 06:38:12 PM  

Ricardo Klement: First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD


Really I thought most of his speach was about yellow cake.
 
2012-10-07 06:39:11 PM  

Ricardo Klement: First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.


i1162.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-07 06:39:55 PM  

spongeboob: Ricardo Klement: First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD

Really I thought most of his speach was about yellow cake.


* shakes tiny fist *
 
2012-10-07 06:40:38 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?


And leave a trail of people who could blackmail in the future to set something like that up? The risk of blowback would have been too great. As it is, it didn't really matter if Bush found WMD's, he already succeed in invading Iraq and the non-presence of WMD's still left enough plausible deniability that Bush wouldn't get into too much trouble.

It isn't like the Bush administration had an Office of Special Plans just to forge evidence so they can go to war with Iraq.

The analogy to forging unemployment doesn't hold though, because unlike planting WMD's, forging better numbers would include no additional risk.
 
2012-10-07 06:41:42 PM  

spongeboob: Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.


"welcomed as liberators something, something"
 
2012-10-07 06:42:24 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.

[i1162.photobucket.com image 307x360]


Precisely - that was a vial of "Anthrax".
 
2012-10-07 06:45:35 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?

First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.


I guess maybe next time a Vice President will think twice before trying to scare the American public into an illegal war using the term "mushroom cloud" in a televised speech.
 
2012-10-07 06:45:57 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Precisely - that was a vial of "Anthrax".


Yes. That's why a GIS for "Colin Powell Yellowcake" turned it up.
 
Displayed 50 of 473 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report