patrick.net

Bap33 says

Depending of what the definition of is, is

Being the genius you are, you probably think this is some kind general indictment of the way "liberals" are.

Not that you will listen, or comprehend this, but just to remind others of the context. Republicans were on a long witch hunt against Clinton.

They finally found something real that he had done, and it was bad, although many normal people (you know, the ones Bap says have a mental disorder) would question whether it was really any of our our business. And of course, it wasn't part of the original reason for the special prosecutor.

This was a sin in Clinton's personal life. Bap can probably explain why this was also a sin against the people, that was worthy of a special prosecutor's focus.

(now you have something to respond to rather than understanding my point).

Here's the point: Clinton was somewhat cornered and probably should have fessed up right away, but instead he said "There is no improper relationship."

Later he claimed this was not a lie, unless by "is" he had meant there isn't and never was.

Shocking that the president would not want to fess up for such a transgression in his personal life.

Interesting that in this day and age, where so many AMericans constantly lie, nobody would have said anything if he had just said, "I said there is no relationship, and that was true when I said it," people would have understood why he said that and what he meant.

But when they got that awesome quote, "it depends on what the definition of is is." That was a stupid thing for Clinton to say. Now it's quoted by dimbulbs like Bap, with only half an idea what the context was, they just think it's a really sweet indictment of the behavior of liberals. And since Clinton was and is so intelligent, it makes this all the sweeter. "hey, he may be way up there in intelligence, but he said "it depends on what the meaning of is, is." So now I can feel superior.

MAybe this is how Bush learned to say literally hundreds of really stupid things, you know, so there would not be just one that was quoted and that he would be known for.

Nobody was or is going to overmisunderestimate Bush.

cool marcus, now apply that logic of yours to what has went on with Hermen Cain and give some of your zippy insight. Thanks.

Bap33 says

God's existance does not require anyone's belief.

marcus says

Nobody was or is going to overmisunderestimate Bush.

or BAP, who also simply doesn't get it.

Bap33 says

cool marcus, now apply that logic of yours to what has went on with Hermen Cain

IT's a travesty. The liberal media is trying to distract everyone from talking about his bold policy ideas; preventing China from obtaining nuclear weapons.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/03/cain-china-nukes-arrogance/

His contribution are up in the wake of claims of sexual harassment.

By the way, just FYI, the betting money has never given Cain better than a 3% chance of winning the nomination. On the IEM, he isn't even listed, he's just part of the category "other" that has what

http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/index.cfm

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/356.html

You should send in your $500 and play. Perry has a 10% chance (according to the money), Romney has a 73 % chance, and people other than ROmney, Perry, Paul and Bachman have less than a 2% chance.

YOu can bet $500 and if Cain or Christie, or anyone else who isn't Romney, Bachman or Perry wins (the nomination), you'll get back $25000.

That's RROF_NOM.

Here's the gragh showing history.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_RCONV12.cfm

The money never had Cain having more than what, a 3% chance. Note
the RROF category includes that chance that CHristie enters at the last minute. Actually I think it might be a decent bet for that reason.

The media paying so much attention to someone everyone knows has less chance than Ron Paul of being elected, just because of BS polls, is all just part of the axis of bullshit (i got that from BB).

I'm not saying the polls are false, but rather that we all know they don't mean anything at this point.

Cain? He's the current DISTRACTION from the rest of the GOP field. Fox News will dump him like yesterdays' news shortly before the election, when they swing back to pumping their favorites full-time. Right now Cain keeps the spolight off Romney and Perry. The person that should be ticked is Michelle, Herman is taking her job of drawing off fire.

Meanwhile in poll fantasy land, Ron Paul wins another straw poll:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45178834

I saw Paul on Fox today (don't ask).

Motherfucker was sitting there justifying defunding CDC and NIH so as to let drug co's more profitably solve the world's problems on their own dime.

Most dangerous ideologue on the planet given his presence in our system. I guess we can thank our Founders for their wisdom in setting up a system of checks and balances and not some totalitarian BS, but if the American people actually elected this clown we'd truly deserve the misery and woe that would follow.

Well, nobody corrected be on it, but I was off by a factor of 10. The Iowa exchange market RROF (which is the chance of anyone other than Romney, Paul, Bachman, or Paul) is at around 15% not 1.5%.

I thought that was too cheap. And yes, I know, I'm the math guy.

You people need something else to do.

KILLERJANE says

You people need something else to do.

Maybe the world actually did end, and we're now in some alternate universe. My proof:
Bellingham Bill says

I saw Paul on Fox today.

Question: why can't it be one where there is no math?

marcus says

I'm the math guy.

Damn!

Nomograph says

I would call it self-loathing:

Wow, I did not know all this history about Bap. What a self-contradiction. That makes me take everything he/she says much less seriously - major hypocrite who keeps getting bailed out by the rest of us.

Of course, that's in addition to the lack of facts/evidence + making a logical argument generally in almost every post.

lol ... weak!! Punt 2.0

corntrollio says

Of course, that's in addition to the lack of facts/evidence + making a logical argument generally in almost every post.

I'd like to second that motion. Or third it, as the case may be.

Bap33 says

lol ... weak!! Punt 2.0

Fail.

negative, corn punted up yonder. NEXT!! No soup for you!!

What am I punting from? Your poor arguing style, your lack of general evidence of any of the nonsense you spout, and your fundie religious beliefs? Why would that be a punt? Please explain. Again, if you were ever able to make a coherent argument, this would be more interesting. As it is, I don't see the point.