let's all vote mccain!
because that obama guy
stutters a bit much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Stalkers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(81)
-
▼
August
(13)
- gustav two: electric boogaloo
- gustav
- Thank Goodness
- Michelle Obama is one hot snatch
- let's all vote mccain: another haiku
- Are you lonesome tonight (for bananas)?
- Land of confusion
- growing the rainbow
- Sweet Memories, part deux (electric boogaloo)
- No country for old men
- sweet memories
- Olestra: A Haiku
- Pre-weekend Bitchassery
-
▼
August
(13)
18 comments:
How much do you wanna bet that a smokin' hot chick flashed him?
Right. Let's see you spend eighty plus hours a week in front of people for the better part of two years without becoming flustered every once in a while.
I'm with the scoot.
If we're gonna call out Obama for stuttering, we've got a long road ahead with that elderly McCain guy, what with Altzheimers and a massive stroke probably just months away...
h-h-hand me my p-p-pils...
i'm curious where you got those numbers, and how accurate they are. because "eighty plus hours a week in front of people for the better part of two years" sounds like a lot, and i'd hate to think you made it up just to try to make a point.
regardless, i'm not running for president, so it doesn't matter whether i would become flustered. what does matter is that the so-called "leader of the free world" is capable of handling the pressure, fictional 80-hour weeks aside.
Jeremy, have you never seen a presidential campaign before in your life?
Fifteen to sixteen hour days for months at a stretch are pretty much standard.
Not to mention the travel hours... I am amazed these people don't keel over two weeks after Iowa.
pretty much standard based on what research? out of curiosity...
Dude, seriously. Don't rely on me. Check it out for yourself.
so you did make up numbers and present them as facts to support your argument...
how very michael moore-ish.
Prove it.
oh sh--...
Hey!!! Did you guys see I called Michelle Obama a hot snatch??
Kris, all he has to do is show that campaigns are not grueling endurance contests where candidates spend two thirds of the day meeting and greeting people or on the road.
I mean, if my assertion is obviously false, he will have no problem finding evidence to show as much.
Perhaps he could look at the itineraries that the candidates post on their websites. Or maybe a reporter's notebook showing that the average day is closer to eight hours.
It's not that hard. He apparently just doesn't want to look.
oh scooter.
scooter, scooter, scooter.
if you go back and re-read all the comments, i think you'll find that i've provided every bit as much proof against your argument as you have for it.
(you don't really have to go back and re-read the comments; i didn't provide any proof. just like you.)
you see, in our society, the burden of proof is generally on the person who makes a claim, and does not typically fall on the shoulders of any challengers of that claim.
you present data as fact to support an argument, you really should be able to explain how you came about that data. otherwise, with no source to back it up, your data is really nothing more than hearsay.
this is an important life lesson, and i'm happy to have been able to play a part in your learning of it.
now back to the topic at hand:
i never claimed campaigns weren't "grueling endurance contests." i never said anything that was even close to that, and i have no interest in trying to prove they aren't. i only asked you where you got your information. if it really is "not that hard" to come about it, i'd have thought you would have done so.
you didn't.
See, Kris?
It's a simple claim. Candidates spend close to two-thirds of their days traveling and making public appearances.
Such an assertion can be supported by myself through simple research, two sources of which I have already alluded to.
I don't want to do that, because if Jeremy actually did the research himself, he would be able to be confident in his due diligence.
Instead, he alludes to who bears the burden of proof. I don't care if society says I have to prove what I say... I want Jeremy to find out whether or not I am being truthful on his own.
Now, Jeremy can continue to state that I have not made any substantial efforts to support my claims, or he can get it through his head that I am intentionally not supporting my claims, and look it up himself.
The ball is in his court.
oh scooter.
scooter, scooter, scooter.
your claim wasn't that "candidates spend close to two-thirds of their days traveling and making public appearances," it was that obama spent "eighty plus hours a week in front of people for the better part of two years." it was very specific, not only in terms of time but in what he actually did during those 80+ hours.
i know that because i did the research (i.e. copied and pasted from your earlier comment). all by myself.
and when i asked you where you got your information, i wasn't saying you were wrong; i was only asking where you got your data.
but it seems like you're getting upset, so allow me to ease your troubled mind:
i did the research. on my own.
and your claims are wrong.
all of them.
wrong.
dead wrong.
in fact, according to the research i did, your claims could not be more wrong if you tried to make them more wrong, which i suspect you may attempt just to prove me wrong on that, but according to my research you will fail.
if you were to do more research, you would see how wrong you are. you'd probably feel bad for getting so upset about all this, too. but i want you to do that research on your own.
you can do it; i know you can.
Ok, I can concede that I might have typed faster than I thought with the specific "80 hours a week in front of people". I am still pretty sure that both candidates spend over sixteen hours a day on travel and public appearances.
Now, you can try to turn my words around on me, which is petty and pointless, or you can actually do the research, and be more forgiving to both candidates when they flub lines.
Because, I don't care what you say here. I only care if you expand your critical thinking skills.
oh scooter.
scooter, scooter, scooter.
if you actually did the research, how come you're only "pretty sure" about your claim? either you did the research and can back up your statement, or you didn't and you can't.
i, on the other hand, actually did the research. and i'm very sure you're wrong. according to the research i did.
("very" is more sure than "pretty," you see, so i guess i did more research than you. but i always was an overachiever. got an award in second grade and everything.)
the statement you made originally - the one i questioned and then you responded and all this got started - you've now admitted you probably made without thinking. but you're continuing to defend a point that was never called into question, scooter pie, and that is what i think is petty and pointless.
maybe not as petty and pointless as making relatively serious political comments on a blog that was obviously written in jest, mind you, but petty and pointless nonetheless.
So, that would be a "no" on the whole "expand my critical thinking skills instead of trying to win an argument on the internet" suggestion, then?
Fine.
what do you mean "trying?"
Post a Comment