Even a blind pig will sometimes find a stopped clock.
Makes me sad that I ever liked her on SNL.
Fuck me days, Big Meltdown lines all it's ducks up in a row.
Not getting out of this boat either.
I dunno...when you think you're crazy, and Glen Beck is your only recourse to see if you're sane, I'd say that you should stick with your initial assessment.
Hmmm...I read it as irony. The idea is so preposterous it can't be in earnest. Breitbart is a loon, of course, but I bet even he realizes it's COMEDY and is laughing all the way to the bank AT his fan-base.
It's more ambiguous than that. A lot of Big Hollywood's contributors including Victoria Jackson have been pretty earnest about socialism/communism charges, and Breitbart's an ass enough that he insists on corrections in others.I think he knows there are exaggerations, but that he really believes Obama is a would-be Soviet premier.
Oh. I thought it was parody. Then I followed the link. Either the parody is very subtle, or that group makes Birchers cringe. The only things that make me think it's still parody are the Colbert reference and the posh San Marino address.
Retracto, the Correction Alpaca is a Senior Fellow at Breitbart.com.This explains everything.
Yeah, well. That communist beat McCain by a bigger vote margin than Reagan had over Carter. That communist has a bigger mandate than the sainted Reagan. Suck on that, right-wing nutballs.
Yeah, well. That communist beat McCain by a bigger vote margin than Reagan had over Carter. That communist has a bigger mandate than the sainted Reagan. Suck on that, right-wing nutballs.Huh?1980 election:Reagan: 50.7% (PV), 489 (EV)Carter: 41.0% (PV), 49 (EV)deltas: 9.3% (PV), 440 (EV) - Reagan2008 election:Obama: 52.9% (PV), 365 (EV)McCain: 45.7% (PV), 173 (EV)deltas: 7.2% (PV), 192 (EV) - Obama.Not even close, and no cigar for you. BTW, what are you smoking to believe that. You must listen to Olbermann and MSNBC obsessively to believe that.
The cheat there, dear Scorpius, is to read the words as written. The vote margin for Obama is bigger than Reagan's and he got more votes than Reagan.Of note is that turnout was higher too.
Substance,Considering we don't actually vote FOR a Presidential Candidate and instead we vote for electors who do vote for a candidate, "vote margins" are irrelevant when looking at the popular vote; they are only of importance when looking at the electoral vote. In that, Reagan had a much larger margin of victory (votes) and a better claim to a mandate.
Scorpius, if you thought actual votes were irrelevant you wouldn't have included the percentage vote in your attempt to grapple with clear English.All I'm trying to do is explain what you didn't understand. Have I done that?
Obama got 52.9 % of the vote. Reagan got 50.7 % of the vote. On my planet, 52 is bigger than 50.
Post a Comment