Sunday, April 8, 2012
Note to Rick Santorum
You know something, Rick, you're right, it kinda is "half-time". But I also need to tell you that the score at this particular half-time is 600-234, and, unless you've got a whole hell of a lot of "hail Mary's" in that arsenal of yours, I'm not exactly seeing a major comeback brewing here. I mean, if I were in your situation (and I'm seriously thankful that I'm not), I would get out and get out soon. The last thing that you need is for you to get your frigging ass handed to you in your own home state of Pennsylvania. That, me-bucko, would more than likely ruin you and any future endeavors. I mean, you are in fact thinking toward the horizon, no?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I'm sure the Frothy one has plenty of Hail Mary's, as well as plenty of Novena's and Our Father's to sustain and take him to victory. No?
Looking to the future we should only be so lucky aa to have him continue...
Well, he does give us fodder, That is definitely true.
And the longer he stays in the race, the better Obama's chabpnces are.
Go, Rick, GO!!! To the convention, that is.
btw, "Rational", what do you care? Rick staying in the race isn't going to help Gary Johnson.
Gary who?
More arrogance from dmarks. Who the hell are you to tell "Rational" that his decision to vote for Gary Johnson is pointless because a lot of people don't even know who he is? Isn't "Rational" accurately perceiving that Gary Johnson best represents his interests? Yet, dmarks, someone who has no idea about others lives, makes a wild guess that "Rational" voting for Gary Johnson is pointless?
Maybe people should be able to voice their opinion regarding who they're going to vote for without being shat on? Obviously the arrogant dmarks disagrees.
"Isn't "Rational" accurately perceiving that Gary Johnson best represents his interests?"
Of course. If Rational votes for Johnson, he is doing so because he is informed about Johnson, not because of any wool is being pulled over his eyes.
A person would either be a liar or totally misinformed (or somewhere in between) to claim that Rational is some sort of dupe for voting for a Libertarian, instead of voting how the Occupy movement would wish him to. The same is true if Rational chooses to back and vote for Romney.
Yet you implied his vote would be pointless. If nobody knows who Gary Johnson is, clearly he has no chance of winning. Wasn't your comment an insult directed at "Rational"? I certainly perceived it to be so.
I noticed how you pushed him toward Romney at the end of your comment. Now you think you can win him over (and cause him to vote for your candidate) by buttering him up?
But I doubt that will work, as everyone saw your veiled insult. I find it extremely arrogant that dmarks thinks he can trick people into changing their vote.
"Yet you implied his vote would be pointless."
No, I did not. You are making up something, and then attacking me for saying what I never said. That's lame.
I may not agree with voting for Gary, but I respect completely Rational's right to do so, and I know that he's no fool or dupe if he does.
"I noticed how you pushed him toward Romney at the end of your comment"
Actually, that was to address another extremely arrogant comment from you elsewhere about how those who back Romney have the wool pulled over their eyes.
"But I doubt that will work, as everyone saw your veiled insult. I find it extremely arrogant that dmarks thinks he can trick people into changing their vote."
The real problem here is that you are seeing something I never did and never wanted to, and that you imply that Rational is so simple-minded that a "trick" that I never intended and wasn't implicit or explicit will make him suddenly vote for Romney.
Rational, what do you think of this? Did you see my mention of respecting your choice to make an informed vote about anyone, including Romney, as some sort of trick to suddenly make you go "Rah Rah Romney!"?
dmarks: The real problem here is that you are seeing something I never did and never wanted to...
But you do that to me all the time. Like when you said "it's obvious that his definition of stealing an election is someone who successfully runs against a Democrat, and attempted stealing is someone who runs against the Democrat and loses the election".
No, I was talking about REAL election theft by bush operatives.
But I predict your arrogance won't allow you to see what a hypocrite you are.
And I don't care what "Rational" thinks. He's a dupe who's allowing the wool to be pulled over his eyes.
No disrespect to "Rational" intended. I respect his decision to allow himself to be duped.
wd - if you weren't such a remarkably intelligent dip s*it I'd explain my comment. But seeing as how it would pass over your ponty head anyway I'm not bothering.
I'm grateful for that.
Les is a very interesting, open-minded, unconventional (in a good way) and thoughtful person, wd. You probably SHOULD listen to him. I mean, you don't necessarily have to agree with him all the time but just to get a different perspective from time to time from that constant Olbermann/Hartmann drivel.
"I respect his decision to allow himself to be duped."
Perfect example of arrogance: ignorant insulting of others who don't happen to share his narrow ideological view.
I've talked with Les. I know for a fact he is not duped at all. Just because someone has a different opinion does not mean they are duped.
It's kind of a lesson of kindergarten: if you think that any time anyone thinks different from you that they are misled/fooled, you aren't playing well with others.
Will: ...just to get a different perspective from time to time from that constant Olbermann/Hartmann drivel.
I listen but disagree... but that reflects poorly on me. You dismiss my point of view as "drivel", and that also reflects poorly on me.
Also, when I disagree with you... you argue harder. If I still disagree then the name-calling starts. All kinds of terrible things that amount to me being a worthless human being.
Yet I use the word "duped" and I'm a horrible closed minded arrogant person.
Clearly what it all boils down to is you can't stand me disagreeing with your superior (and much much better informed) opinions.
Will: You probably SHOULD listen to him.
And nobody should listen to me ever, right?
WD said: "Yet I use the word "duped" and I'm a horrible closed minded arrogant person."
Since it is not true at all about Les, you are either intentionally lying, or have no idea what you are talking about and insist on a position of ignorance. Either way, it is not good.
Honestly, I don't think that you do listen, wd. You certainly don't to the degree that Les does.
Also, I DO think that the progressives have some good ideas (and certainly some very good goals), wd. I just think that when you sometimes take those good ideas and infuse them with some conservative principles, the end result can often be a better idea. The Hegelian dialectic, in other words.
dmarks: Since it is not true at all about Les...
He's a Libertarian. I, being a progressive, disagree with Libertarians on much of what they believe. Libertarianism doesn't work. So of course I think he's duped. Am I supposed to lie about me believing Libertarianism doesn't work? Should I stop being a progressive so dmarks doesn't find me so "arrogant"?
Will: ...the end result can often be a better idea.
Often? Give 100 examples.
How about 25 examples? Or even one?
Post a Comment