Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Let's face it: I get a lot of inane comments. As much as I'd like to give each and every one of them the elementary dissection/beat down they deserve, there simply aren't enough hours in the day for that and more important/entertaining things like hitting myself in the head with a hammer. I can usually tell when I'm about to receive a particularly 'special' comment because there will be an @revelife after their name, indicating they come from a melting pot of all sorts of purposefully misinformed soldiers for god (revelife and I have had some differences in the past).
Case and point from my post earlier about loving Sarah Palin:
John McCain lost, not Sarah Palin. Every candidate Palin has endorsed this primary season has scored outrageous upsets against the Republican establishment.
Christine O'Donnell of Delaware, the Tea Party candidate endorsed by Palin, just handed liberal Republican Party endorsed Mike Castle his hat. Earlier she endorsed the Tea Party candidate for senator of Alaska who whipped entrenched establishment politico Murkowski. These loses were incredibly devastating to the Republican establishment.
Palin is extraordinarily effective if one looks at her results.
Thanks, thenewseminarian@revelife! First, the logic - namely correlation not equaling causation. Even if Sarah Palin endorsed five candidates who all won, this tells us what? That they won due to her endorsement? Perhaps she can comprehend English long enough to read polls? I mean, how much did her endorsement of John McCain help? (That was a rhetorical question) Speaking of which...
Second, John McCain and Palin lost the election, but she didn't help him. You'll recall that it was the addition of that laughing stock that pretty much sank McCain (positive surge after it was announced she was his running mate followed by immense negative after people learned more about her). Surely you don't think that had the roles been reversed, and Palin was the presidential candidate with McCain playing second fiddle, that the results would have been better? Palin was the one bombing interviews left and right. Making fun of her miscues during the presidential race was of similar ease to throwing a rock into the ocean with your feet in the water.
Third, if she is assaulting the Republican establishment, doesn't that make my point for me about having her run in 2012?
Fourth, you mentioned that she bumped Christine O'Donnell who won the primary. Let's meet Christine O'Donnell, who has been working to improve the public good for years now. While her peers were working towards cleaner air, financial security, alleviating poverty, and such, Christine was waging her own battles.
What does it say of god that he made us really want to masturbate and then set the rules in opposition? What a dick!
This is who Palin thinks is the best choice. Let's be clear about one thing: red states sell more porn per capita than blue states (if you ask me, I'd say it's because missionary position gets boring after a while). Maybe they're buying it for the plot and not to masturbate? You think an anti-masturbation candidate has a snowball's chance in hell to win the actual election in those areas? Yeah, next thing you'll be telling me is that Jews rise from the dead and walk on water.
'If he already knows what pleases him and can please himself, then why am I in the picture?'
Because, apparently, her only purpose in the relationship is to provide a little friction, and the only way she can improve on her man's experience is by keeping him ignorant. So yes, why is she in the picture?
Yes, 'marriage is so great and special, but why am I here if he can please himself?' I mean, it's not like variety rules or that women serve other roles in the relationship aside from being a warm hole(s).
What do you bet she wants to preserve the 'sanctity of marriage' by keeping those awful gays from gettin' hitched?
Ah, revelife - a group of idiots who have decided to be vocal.