believer
Posts: 8,153
Jun 5, 2011 4:23pm
Aw now Fish, there you go again...not playing fair. I've warned you before that truth makes liberal heads implode.fish82;791417 wrote:Her selection helped him go from 5-6 points down to 2-3 points up prior to the financial meltdown that September/October, which was the real nail in his coffin. IIRC, most exit polling showed she had minimal if not nil effect on the final numbers.
It's a popular talking point to say she cost him the White House, but the reality is she kept him from getting his ass kicked twice as badly.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Jun 5, 2011 5:20pm
believer;791210 wrote:Typical Democrat ploy. If your guy's an idiot, deflect that fact by portraying your opponent as an idiot.
........
........believer;791114 wrote:Why not? Anything's possible. After all, look who's in the White House at the moment.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 5, 2011 6:21pm
Funny, that kettle looks chocolate brown to me. 
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jun 5, 2011 6:49pm
That's just because you're a bigoted, gun-wielding Tea Party conservative.Writerbuckeye;791481 wrote:Funny, that kettle looks chocolate brown to me.
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Jun 5, 2011 7:11pm
Even I would have found the right colors
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Jun 5, 2011 7:15pm
fish82;791417 wrote:Her selection helped him go from 5-6 points down to 2-3 points up prior to the financial meltdown that September/October, which was the real nail in his coffin. IIRC, most exit polling showed she had minimal if not nil effect on the final numbers.
It's a popular talking point to say she cost him the White House, but the reality is she kept him from getting his ass kicked twice as badly.
You are correct that McCain's numbers went up, but how much was the traditional bump from the convention? Had McCain chosen someone the independent voters could embrace it's entirely possible the economic meltdown wouldn't have cost him so dearly. McCain initially wanted Leiberman, which would have pissed off the extreme right wing of the party, but would have drawn a lot of independents and some conservative Democrats. Instead he caved to the power brokers and that, IMO, is why his candidacy ultimately failed.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jun 5, 2011 7:30pm
Ehhhh....That may indeed have been a factor, but Fish is correct....the McCain campaign was in serious trouble but the moment he introduced Palin he received a significant bump in support. It's my humble opinion that McCain would have lost the election no matter who his running mate choice was or who the Democratic candidate was. Bush Fatigue killed McCain's chances. The Republicans offered up McCain as the sacrificial lamb. End of story.stlouiedipalma;791540 wrote:You are correct that McCain's numbers went up, but how much was the traditional bump from the convention? Had McCain chosen someone the independent voters could embrace it's entirely possible the economic meltdown wouldn't have cost him so dearly. McCain initially wanted Leiberman, which would have pissed off the extreme right wing of the party, but would have drawn a lot of independents and some conservative Democrats. Instead he caved to the power brokers and that, IMO, is why his candidacy ultimately failed.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jun 5, 2011 8:55pm
I really don't believe that.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Jun 5, 2011 9:04pm
Writerbuckeye;791481 wrote:Funny, that kettle looks chocolate brown to me.
believer;791510 wrote:That's just because you're a bigoted, gun-wielding Tea Party conservative.
Point: Successfully dodged
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 5, 2011 11:37pm
More like: Point ridiculously stupid.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jun 5, 2011 11:49pm
Exact wording of the Paul Revere "Gotcha!" question: "What have you been doing during your visit to Boston?"
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Jun 6, 2011 12:11am
Then it should be easy for you to address it, rather than deflecting.Writerbuckeye;791847 wrote:More like: Point ridiculously stupid.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jun 6, 2011 4:24am
Probably studying how to put 57 stars in the American flag.I Wear Pants;791851 wrote:Exact wording of the Paul Revere "Gotcha!" question: "What have you been doing during your visit to Boston?"
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Jun 6, 2011 9:24am
A: "Well, there's this guy on an Ohio message board who seems to have a semi-obsessive dislike for me...so I thought I'd set up camp in his head until it finally explodes."I Wear Pants;791851 wrote:Exact wording of the Paul Revere "Gotcha!" question: "What have you been doing during your visit to Boston?"
OOPS: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 6, 2011 12:27pm
I Wear Pants;790593 wrote:[video=youtube;hxBuNCpfWAk][/video]
Just skip to the Palin parts.
She doesn't even understand Paul Revere.
Apparently, she does -- but you (and the media) do not.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2011/06/06/the_left_hates_sarah_palin_and_paul_revere/page/full/
bigdaddy2003
Posts: 7,384
Jun 6, 2011 12:30pm
Writerbuckeye;792112 wrote:Apparently, she does -- but you (and the media) do not.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2011/06/06/the_left_hates_sarah_palin_and_paul_revere/page/full/
Ha nice! I don't care what anyone says I would take her over Obama in a heart beat.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jun 6, 2011 2:09pm
I don't think those were very good defenses of what she said. Especially the second one that makes a completely unnecessary swipe that gender identity issues are worthless.
Actually on topic: Santorum declared today. No one cares though.
Actually on topic: Santorum declared today. No one cares though.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 6, 2011 2:31pm
You may not think so, but apparently people considered experts on the subject do.
I think it's hilarious that the arrogant, elitist media got caught up in their own hubris. They were just SURE she was wrong, so they went after her again. Most reporters are just as ignorant of history as they are of math.
I think it's hilarious that the arrogant, elitist media got caught up in their own hubris. They were just SURE she was wrong, so they went after her again. Most reporters are just as ignorant of history as they are of math.
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Jun 6, 2011 2:53pm
I suppose in a "splitting hairs" kind of way she was sort of correct, but c'mon. Even a sixth grader could tell you that Paul Revere rode to warn of the impending British attack. Sarah, being the revisionist she is, had to put her own spin on history again, invoking Second Amendment stuff of taking their guns. Sarah and her ilk seem to have no problem toying with historical fact to suit their message. The scary part is that there are actually those who accept it as gospel.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Jun 6, 2011 2:57pm
Writerbuckeye;791196 wrote:I LOL when I hear people slam Palin's "stupidity" knowing full well they voted for the most inept president we've seen since Carter, and that ticket included a VP who has made Dan Quayle look like a member of Mensa.
I lol when people say shit like this, as if either candidate was worth a shit. Same goes for 2004. There was no winning.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 6, 2011 3:52pm
stlouiedipalma;792278 wrote:I suppose in a "splitting hairs" kind of way she was sort of correct, but c'mon. Even a sixth grader could tell you that Paul Revere rode to warn of the impending British attack. Sarah, being the revisionist she is, had to put her own spin on history again, invoking Second Amendment stuff of taking their guns. Sarah and her ilk seem to have no problem toying with historical fact to suit their message. The scary part is that there are actually those who accept it as gospel.
I'll take this guy's word over yours, any and every day.
But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson.
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Jun 6, 2011 4:37pm
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Jun 6, 2011 5:10pm
This is exactly like the "Party like it's 1773" episode...the left started a feeding frenzy of mockapalooza on Palin....only to discover the next day that hey....that pesky Boston Tea Party took place in....1773.
Here's hoping for you people doing better next time. Third time's the charm they say. but on the other hand...watching y'all repeatedly face plant does entertain.
Here's hoping for you people doing better next time. Third time's the charm they say. but on the other hand...watching y'all repeatedly face plant does entertain.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 6, 2011 10:02pm
Nice red herrings...here's some more reading for you:stlouiedipalma;792370 wrote:You mean this guy?
http://blogs.kitschmag.com/newsmaker/2009/05/08/conservative-cornell-law-professor-william-a-jacobson-finds-himself-at-center-of-national-debate-on-obamas-mustard-habits/
Or this guy?
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/06/06/sarah-palin-was-right-about-paul-revere
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jun 6, 2011 10:06pm
ts1227;792286 wrote:I lol when people say shit like this, as if either candidate was worth a shit. Same goes for 2004. There was no winning.
^^^ Gets it.
Also, even if we say she was right and everyone jumped the gun here a bit. I expect then the exact same reaction out of you guys everytime Fox and the Conservative blog force goes apeshit over an Obama story that turns out to be false/not really true. Which won't happen though.