You’re right, Mitt Romney is an idiot. What kind of politician thinks using a calculus based figure of speech is a good idea? Does he want to be painted as an Ivory tower egghead (or do only liberals have to worry about that one)? Does he think most of his audience will get it?
Since this is the Barbecue Pit, can I state that anyone who really believes in the angel Moroni and all that Mormon stuff really tends towards the idiotic? Cause that’s what I think, and I usually try to be open minded as far as religions go. I’m ashamed to say I’m one of those bigoted people that doesn’t want a Mormon in the White House. Though, Lord knows, how anything could be any worse than what we’ve got, I don’t know.
But you haven’t answered the key question: Is he someone you’d like to sit down and have a beer with?
Assuming he could drink alcohol, that is.
Taber–you’re right! He made a speech that only John Kerry would enjoy!
Here’s a handy-dandy dictionary on my desk. An ogee is defined as a double curve, resembling an S. Perhaps Mitt has recreational drugs sprinkled on his Post-Toasties? Try as I might, I can’t see much today (except perhaps the GOP’s righteous stance on “family values”) resembling something doubled back on itself. As a term of reference describing religious fundamentalism, it makes no sense.
Thanks for the calculus explanation. I never made it to calculus–for all I know, the term may have come up in Trig–which I have tried, with great success, to erase from my mind, but I still see the drunken Mr. Leonard in my mind: “Imagine a unit circle…” grinding his chalk into the board. <shudders>
I’m having a bit of trouble seeing how this was dragged into a campaign speech. Turning point, crossroads, point of no return, even tipping place–I can see as a way of bringing your POV across.
It wasn’t his own term, he was actually quoting someone else (he said the guy’s name but I forget).
Well, at least you’re ashamed of it. What difference does the man’s religion make? Last time I checked, the Constitution dictated “no religious test for office.”
Is it just me, or do Aeschines’ threads have a pattern of him crowing about something only he thinks is a victory and everyone else thinks is a sad cry for attention?
True. And I think the fact that he goes by “Mitt” is a bigger strike against his intelligence. Unless his given name is Mittens.
Would that it didn’t seem to dictate the candidate’s “base” like in years of yore (do we have to go back to pre-Vietnam era for this? I think we do).
Frankly, the more religious a candidate comes across, the more it turns me off of him or her. I am too concerned about the fallout from religious didacticism and the resultant legislation or veto to discount any candidate’s religious views.
It wasn’t me who explained in the first place, but no, you won’t have learned about it in trig. A point of inflection is where the second derivative of the curve goes from a positive to a negative value or vice versa.* But I think it didn’t make all that much sense, even beyond the silliness of putting a calculus reference in a speech, pointy-headed academic or not.
Incidentally, I somehow don’t think the Constitution was intended to dictate what is an acceptable basis on which to vote. Just a thought.
*(The first derivative of a curve is its slope. The second derivative is often called its acceleration, which is what it would be in physics if the slope was velocity and the original curve was position.)
Funny, when a candidate plays up his religion or he talks about “values”, especially “family values”, my reflexive reaction is to assume that he has something to hide; like he’s a crook, closet homosexual or just full of hate for the outgroup of the month.
That’s basically what I said. IMO, true followers of Christianity or X have no need to spout off about it. Religion should be a private matter-not a political stunt.
I’ll go on record as saying I’ll drink with darn near anyone, as long as they are buying.
But I’ll eventually get drunk and mock him for his stupid religious beliefs. Then not vote for him. Possibly even urinate on his shoes at some point of the evening.
Side note: Why have both major parties foisted un-electable people on us? Jesus Q Fucking Christ! I’m betting on “None of the Above” for President.
Mitt’s candidacy is a sad cry for attention?
Mitt can’t even agree with himself. What does that say about him?
Empty suit. It quickly becomes clear to anyone upon even cursory study of the man.
The man’s given name actually is Mitt. His full given name is Willard Mitt Romney. Personally, if I were given the choice between those two names to have people call me, I’d certainly not go with the famous rat’s name.
I think you’ll have a hard time showing that it’s his religion at root. Afer all, the Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid (whose first name actually is Harry), is both a Democrat and a Mormon.
Personally, I would peg that as a kind of paranoia. Our system is set up a little better than that and I really don’t see any one religion taking over as in “If This Goes On—”. On top of that, I don’t see the man shouting from the rooftops, “I’m a Mormon and I’m going to make sure that every law in the country is based on Mormonism!” I seem to recall John F. Kennedy never shouted a similar phrase either.
Willard was the rats’ keeper. Ben and Socrates were the rats.
Out of Rudy, Mitt, John McC, and Fred, it’s a toss-up for me between Mitt & Fred so far. Both of them have uneven conservative records. However, every voter is free to use their own personal “religious test” when choosing a candidate. The Constitution only prevents the government from using a religious test.
That said, any religious conservatives who would let Hillary win rather than support a LDS member is in my estimation idiotic. I bet if that’s the final choice, we’ll see a statement from Pat Robertson, James Dobson, one of Jerry Falwell’s sons, etc about how we’re electing a President for the country, not a pastor for our faith.
Thanks!
Okay, I buy Socrates as an appropriate name for a super rat, but why Ben?
Why the hatred of Hillary from the self-styled “values voters”? Is it based on some principle you’d be the first I’ve heard explicate, or just on partisan reflex, as it usually appears?