I’m not sure. I’ve heard that Jesus is registered to vote in Ohio.
The issue can take care of itself. It you that doesn’t need to be taken seriously, because you’re so lazily indiscriminate about the subject that you’re like the biddy aunt with a 5000-name e-mail forward list passing glurge by reflex.
Sorry, we’ll have to disappoint you. At this point in American history, getting a Dem into the WH is only half the battle; there still remains a lot of purging of egregious Bush appointees to be done, and those who can’t be purged because of civil-service protection will have to be transferred to counting paper clips at their current salary.
Aha! I’ve discovered the flaw in your thinking. The links in the OP in no way jive with the majority of Obama supportors – I’d venture to say, less so here than in the general public.
If you want to call Farrakhan a nutter, you won’t get much argument from me.
It would be like me saying to you, “Corsi claims that Obama is a Kenyan citizen, and he also thinks that 9-11 was an inside job. … You sure are stupid, Shodan.”
One has nothing to do with the other.
It’s funny because you are a conservative and thus must post things that support the notion that you are a conservative.
I will enjoy. Thank you.
Oh, just one thing … what the fuck does it mean?
Shit, it’s been a few years since I took Logic 101. Am I right in thinking that the following is logically sound?
P = It is raining
q = There are clouds in the sky
See, I don’t get the idea of making fun of Obama having any legs. He’s smart and earnest and pleasant and, most of all, DULL. He’s Coolidge plus competence and Coolidge was a one-joke president. It’s like making fun of your top accountant.
What are you? 12?
Ok. That clears everything up.
So if I can’t read the last line, I need the glasses, then?
Nitpick: The word is “jibe.” (An error I see frequently, like “straight-laced” for “strait-laced.”)
I’m a little curious. What’s this supposed to mean?
racist!!!
You’re putting words into my mouth. If it makes you happy to make fun of politicians go for it. I could use a laugh…unfortunately your brand of humor is the Mallard Fillmore kind. as in not funny, just spiteful and hateful.
And just for the record, I don’t look at all of this as "I win, you lose! thing. I want a president and administration that will benefit all of us. Right or Left we all have a stake in this. do I prefer Obama? Yes, I do. But I won’t go into the schoolyard taunting that you seem to like. But then if you didn’t do it, I might lean right in some ways. As it is, I can’t stand the bitter taste it gives and you deliver with gusto.
I’m guessing 13. I’ve wasted enough energy on Shodan, though. He’s not worth the effort, truly and he’s already claimed he does this for some form of amusement. I assume he can think of himself as a good person with feelings of good will towards all but i don’t understand how. Either way I don’t particularly care that much. There will always be assholes in the world. At least now I can attach a name to one of them.
You know, something just occurred to me.
If Obama is not the messiah and people live as though they believe he is, no harm done.
If Obama is the messiah and people refuse to believe it, they’re in danger of eternal damnation.
Therefore is it not prudent to choose to believe he is the messiah, whether he is or not?
It’s the truth table for the logical operation of implication. The statements are
p: Farrakhan says Obama is the herald of the Messiah
q: Obama is the herald of the Messiah.
Logically if p were true we could say q would be true. But since Farrakhan saying it doesn’t make it true, we can’t say if q is true or not. Q may well be true, but Farrakhan saying it has no value whatsoever because he’s an idiot and an asshole.
Similarly, your propositions
p: Corsi claims that Obama is a Kenyan citizen, and he also thinks that 9-11 was an inside job. …
q: You sure are stupid, Shodan.
Q is not truthfully implied by p, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the truth of q in and of itself. It may be true, it may be false. Having a p which does not logically imply q doesn’t tell us anything about q’s truth value.
That’s what I said, only with more letters and stuff.
Enjoy,
Steven
Wednesday at 10:30 doesn’t work for me, I’m getting my hair cut. Can we do it over lunch?
I really don’t understand this logic.
If we’ve had W in office for the last 8 years… and Obama is the leftest of the lefties, wouldn’t stand to reason that Obama + a Democratic Congress will pretty much handle things in the opposite manner as W’s administration? So, even if Obama screws up everything he sees, wouldn’t that STILL be an improvement over the direction the Bush43 administration has taken us? Things are so bad now, I can’t see how anyone, with a few possible exceptions like Dick Cheney, could possibly screw this country up even worse than it already is.
Unless this argument begins with the premise that things are just groovy in the WH right now, and W has done a heckuva job. If that’s the argument, then I’d like a few of those happy pills you’re taking. W started his first administration with a budget surplus, no war with brown peoples, low interest rates and high productivity. Now, were in the worst economic situation since 1932 and we’re bitterly embroiled in at least two senseless wars on which we’ve made exactly zero progress and both of which have bled our budget dry.
How, exactly, is Obama – or hell, McCain or anyone – going to make that worse? :rolleyes: