Dream GOP Candidate for Obama in 2012?

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, surely you meant a 'shoo-in' not a 'shoe in' in your post #214.

Of course, I may be wrong, because as you have so often and so gloatingly pointed out, English is my second language.

BTW, have you found my post yet, where I predicted a 50 state sweep by Palin?

I have not looked for it, YJ. I don’t think it is worth bothering. But I see you had no answer to my question, so let me repeat it.

Do you think it is likely that Palin may not sweep all 50 states in 2012? If so, which states do you think she will lose?

You evidently cannot contemplate the thought of her losing even a single state. If so, this would indeed be consistent with your opinion that she will sweep 50 states.

 

[countryboy]

Sez you. I have never seen you say anything positive about any Democrat, all your praise is aimed solely at Republicans.

That is what I find puzzling about conservatives. I am a liberal, I make no attempt to hide that, I shout it from the rooftop, and I don’t care if everybody knows it.

But for some reason, conservatives here seem to be ashamed to admit that they indeed are conservative, they claim not to be biased one way or other. And invariably they lay into Democrats (or Liberals) and praise Republicans (and Conservatives) to high heaven. Why? Why be ashamed of who you are? Why be ashamed to admit that you are a conservative?

I assume my referring to Palin as Joan of Arc bothers you. Well, if it bothers conservative, all the moor reason to use it.

Is this what you refer to as "foaming at the mouth?" You seem to have gotten all worked up about statements / assumptions that you created here.

The opening sentence is one I could take a shot at addressing though...let's see...I like the sign that Harry Truman displayed on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." I know that's not "praise" but it is positive...I really do think that was a cool sign.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think it's pretty safe to say that a lot WILL happen between now and 2012, if history is any kind of teacher at all.

Quite so, countryboy, that is the sign of a partisan. He always assumes that things will happen which will be favorable to his side, and that his side will win. Before the 2008 election, the far right was confidently predicting that McCain was going to win (the logic there was that he will flip over Pennsylvania, win it by 2% and win the election).

Now me, I don’t make any prediction, I don’t know what is going to happen in the next three years (you evidently do, your side is going to win). If things stay as they are today and economy continues to recover, Obama wins hands down. If economy is in the tank, he will lose.

But then, I assume you know that economy will be in the tank in three years’ time (a lot WILL happen between now and then) and Joan of Arc will win a glorious victory over the forces of darkness, forces of wickedness.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, please strart bothering someone else about a prediction that NOBODY made. I am sick and tired of refuting your mindless babble about this.

You have made a point several times in other threads that one can not prove a negative. So, I can not prove that I never predicted a 50 state presidential sweep by Sarah Palin. The onus is on you to prove that I did.

I am waiting.

In the meantime re-read my post #201.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Is this what you refer to as "foaming at the mouth?" You seem to have gotten all worked up about statements / assumptions that you created here.

The opening sentence is one I could take a shot at addressing though...let's see...I like the sign that Harry Truman displayed on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." I know that's not "praise" but it is positive...I really do think that was a cool sign.

That doesn’t surprise me, countryboy. Conservatives have no problem praising dead Democrats. It doesn’t mean anything, and it gives them the appearance of being non partisan.

So, many conservatives say kind things about Truman, Kennedy etc. I expect 30 years from now, when Clinton is dead, they may even give him the credit for turning the economy around (even though they hated him with a visceral passion when he was the president and impeached him for political, partisan reasons).

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, you must be foaming at the key board.

'all the moor reason'? 'shoe in'?

Are you sure English in your first (and only) language?

 

[countryboy]

Quite so, countryboy, that is the sign of a partisan. He always assumes that things will happen which will be favorable to his side, and that his side will win. Before the 2008 election, the far right was confidently predicting that McCain was going to win (the logic there was that he will flip over Pennsylvania, win it by 2% and win the election).

Now me, I don’t make any prediction, I don’t know what is going to happen in the next three years (you evidently do, your side is going to win). If things stay as they are today and economy continues to recover, Obama wins hands down. If economy is in the tank, he will lose.

But then, I assume you know that economy will be in the tank in three years’ time (a lot WILL happen between now and then) and Joan of Arc will win a glorious victory over the forces of darkness, forces of wickedness.

Should we be calling the above two statements a "qualified paradox?"

As far as YOUR assumption goes (last paragraph),

I really like your description of Joan's victory. Very eloquent and thank you very much. But alas, you could be wrong with that prediction...she would have to win the Republican nomination first, and with the broad spectrum of candidates in that party, she will have lots of very capable competitors vying for the position. It's always difficult trying to choose "the best of the best." Of course, the real winners will ultimately be the citizens of the United States of America. And that's the way it should be.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think it's pretty safe to say that a lot WILL happen between now and 2012, if history is any kind of teacher at all.

Which history are you talking about, countryboy? After one year, Reagan was roughly where Obama is now in popularity rating, he easily won the second term. After two years, Clinton was at 41%, he easily won the second term.

A year before the election, the elder Bush had over 90% popularity rating and he lost the election to Clinton. In 1980, the economy was in the tank big time and Carter lost second election to Reagan.

So which history are you talking about? I assume you are talking about Carter and Bush losing the second term and ignoring Reagan and Clinton winning the second term. Now, why doesn’t that surprise me?

 

[EagleSmack]

You did not give me any prediction. Perhaps now you are ready to make a prediction, based upon the Massachusetts result.

Same now as it was before. Slowly chipping it away.

Just as I said.

 

[EagleSmack]

You did so much research into my posts? Gee, thanks. Glad to know that somebody is paying attention to what I write.

Which is why you're here. I guess two weeks of fetching drinks and carrying luggage broke you down.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Should we be calling the above two statements a "qualified paradox?"

As far as YOUR assumption goes (last paragraph),

Conditional prediction is not a prediction, countryboy. If A happens, B will happen is not a prediction. It is conditional upon A happening. Such a prediction means nothing.

But your prediction, where you seem to predict confidently that Joan of Arc is going to win, now that is a prediction.

 

[lone wolf]

Potty, if nothing else, your buffoonery is an exercise in pure boredom as entertainment.

 

[YukonJack]

'But your prediction, where you seem to predict confidently that Joan of Arc is going to win, now that is a prediction.'

SirJosephPorter, please, please show just ONE, one single ONE prediction by ANYONE that says that Palin will win 50 states. I beg you!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, please strart bothering someone else about a prediction that NOBODY made. I am sick and tired of refuting your mindless babble about this.

You have made a point several times in other threads that one can not prove a negative. So, I can not prove that I never predicted a 50 state presidential sweep by Sarah Palin. The onus is on you to prove that I did.

I am waiting.

In the meantime re-read my post #201.

I have already answered your question, YJ. I am not going to go over the same ground again. Answer my question and we will consider the matter settled.

But think. You cannot even entertain the thought that Palin may lose even a single state. Then why do you find it hard to believe that you predicted that she will sweep all 50 states? Aren’t you in effect saying the very same thing now? That is evident from the fact that you seem incapable of answering my question (“Is it likely that Palin may not sweep all 50 states”)?

Anyway, as far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. If my referring to your prediction bothers you so much, I won’t refer to it again. I just hope you realize how ridiculous that prediction sounds.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yup...he's foaming at the mouth for sure.

Just look at his posts. On the playground we called it a mental fit.

 

[countryboy]

Which history are you talking about, countryboy? After one year, Reagan was roughly where Obama is now in popularity rating, he easily won the second term. After two years, Clinton was at 41%, he easily won the second term.

A year before the election, the elder Bush had over 90% popularity rating and he lost the election to Clinton. In 1980, the economy was in the tank big time and Carter lost second election to Reagan.

So which history are you talking about? I assume you are talking about Carter and Bush losing the second term and ignoring Reagan and Clinton winning the second term. Now, why doesn’t that surprise me?

Um, I guess we're on two different levels here. I was referring to the history of the modern world in general...many things have happened in 3 year periods. It was a general statement.

And in your last paragraph, you've gone ahead and made another assumption about what I was talking about. Tsk, tsk. If you're not sure, you can always ask.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yup...he's foaming at the mouth for sure.

Just look at his posts. On the playground we called it a mental fit.

'Foaming at the mouth'? Now, I realize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am flattered. But surely you can be more original than that.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, I am typing this REAL SLOW, so that you can understand:

1. I never predicted that Palin even will win the Republican primary.
2. I never predicted that Palin would win the Presidency, if she won the Primary.
3. Therefore, I NEVER PREDICTED that she would win 50 states.

So, get off this topic already! And first and foremost stop pretending that you know what is on my mind, or for that matter, based on your sweeping posts, on anybody's mind. Concentrate on your own, Heaven knows, your work is cut out for you!

We all know that your Annointed One won 58 states, but He is about as close to God as an atheist like you would ever acknowledge and worship.

 

[countryboy]

Conditional prediction is not a prediction, countryboy. If A happens, B will happen is not a prediction. It is conditional upon A happening. Such a prediction means nothing.

But your prediction, where you seem to predict confidently that Joan of Arc is going to win, now that is a prediction.

I see. OK, if that makes the discussion more meaningful for you, let's go with it.

 

[EagleSmack]

'Foaming at the mouth'? Now, I realize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am flattered. But surely you can be more original than that.

Much like you ripping my use of the word "yapping".

Joey...you are very slow.

"Fetch my sun glasses honey...they are up in the room."