OT: Why couldn't it be the altitude?

[popinjay999]

You know I'm not an Obama fan, but I've listened to some facts about
adjusting to the high altitude of Denver and it seems somewhat
plausible to me. I have never been there, but by all accounts it
takes some getting used to. And isn't it true that he had not been in
Denver very long, and didn't get much chance to adjust and prepare?

I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I am not one to
defend him, especially since I totally disagree with his policies and
philosophy, but why couldn't this excuse about the altitude of Denver
be a true factor in his poor performance?

I know some of you, like PuppyToes, have joked about this, But I'm
just asking. It seems plausible to me.

[Dutch]

popinjay999 wrote:
> You know I'm not an Obama fan, but I've listened to some facts about
> adjusting to the high altitude of Denver

Who gives a shit? Romney came across as healthy as a horse and he was at
the same altitude.

[popinjay999]

On Oct 4, 9:50 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>
> Who gives a shit? Romney came across as healthy as a horse and he was at
> the same altitude.

Dutch, I'm not trying to argue, but if that were the case, then I
would have mentioned it. But Romney had been there a long time.
People don't stay subdued forever at that altitude, there is just some
period of getting adjusted to it. C'mon, are you for real? I was
asking a legitimate question. And it is a fact that a person needs to
adjust to that, some more so than others.

[Dutch]

popinjay999 wrote:
> You know I'm not an Obama fan, but I've listened to some facts about
> adjusting to the high altitude of Denver and it seems somewhat
> plausible to me.

I was thinking and you might have a point here, but it was Mitt Romney
who was affected, not Obama. Romney was high to the point of delusions.
He suddenly did 180 degree reversals on just about every position he's
been taking on the campaign trail. Some of them he didn't even remember
when Obama mentioned them. He even said he cares about the 47% now! Poor
guy, I hope he's feeling better soon.

[brattt]

This was a twitter comment (I don't tweet, but copied from 10 best twitter
comments after debate)

Al Gore blames altitude for Obama's debate loss. You'd think Obama's
college years would prepare him for being that high.



---------------------------------------------------------------

Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[BillB]

In my experience, very few healthy people suffer any altitude symptoms
at all at 5000ft. If they do, they are very mild. Just to be on the safe
side, it wouldn't hurt to get there 48 hours prior, but Obama has a
country to save, so I'm sure he was very busy.

The real problem? It almost seems like Mitt was wearing *two* pairs of
magic underpants, giving him liar superpowers. Wouldn't that be
considered cheating?

[mo_ntresor]

sickle cell can be fatal at altitude.

mo_ntresor

[Dave the Clueless]

Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?

-------
"The people are sending a message, and elected officials would do well to
take heed: You aren't getting any more of our tax dollars until you can
show you're responsible and can be trusted with the money you have now."

- Debbie Dooley, state coordinator of the Georgia Tea Party Patriots

[Dave the Clueless]

What exactly is your experience with high altitude, and how is it relevant?

[popinjay999]

On Oct 5, 6:03 am, "Dave the Clueless" <a987...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>
> Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?
>

I doubt that, but I am not asking the question to come to his
defense. I'm just wondering why it's not plausible. I'm sure I would
certainly need to take a nap and walk around and get adjusted to the
difference, if it were me. If not, I'd be a little "rummy", at least
not at my sharpest level. And despite what others have said, I think
MILE HIGH is significant, especially if you're accustomed to lower
elevation.

[Clave]

"Dave the Clueless" <a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:9a23k9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

> On Oct 5 2012 1:43 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
>> You know I'm not an Obama fan, but I've listened to some facts about
>> adjusting to the high altitude of Denver and it seems somewhat
>> plausible to me. I have never been there, but by all accounts it
>> takes some getting used to. And isn't it true that he had not been in
>> Denver very long, and didn't get much chance to adjust and prepare?
>>
>> I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I am not one to
>> defend him, especially since I totally disagree with his policies and
>> philosophy, but why couldn't this excuse about the altitude of Denver
>> be a true factor in his poor performance?
>>
>> I know some of you, like PuppyToes, have joked about this, But I'm
>> just asking. It seems plausible to me.
>
> Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?

You think you're smarter than Barack Obama.

That's fucking hilarious.

Jim

[brattt]

Jerry said he was - talk about fucking hilarious

[Clave]

"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ch3k9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

> On Oct 5 2012 11:49 AM, Clave wrote:
>
>> "Dave the Clueless" <a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:9a23k9x...@news.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Oct 5 2012 1:43 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>> >
>> >> You know I'm not an Obama fan, but I've listened to some facts about
>> >> adjusting to the high altitude of Denver and it seems somewhat
>> >> plausible to me. I have never been there, but by all accounts it
>> >> takes some getting used to. And isn't it true that he had not been in
>> >> Denver very long, and didn't get much chance to adjust and prepare?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I am not one to
>> >> defend him, especially since I totally disagree with his policies and
>> >> philosophy, but why couldn't this excuse about the altitude of Denver
>> >> be a true factor in his poor performance?
>> >>
>> >> I know some of you, like PuppyToes, have joked about this, But I'm
>> >> just asking. It seems plausible to me.
>> >
>> > Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?
>>
>> You think you're smarter than Barack Obama.
>>
>> That's fucking hilarious.
>>
>> Jim
>

> Jerry said...

Could you just get over your obsession with him for maybe a day?

Jim

[Dave the Clueless]

On Oct 5 2012 1:49 PM, Clave wrote:

> > Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?
>
> You think you're smarter than Barack Obama.
>
> That's fucking hilarious.
>
> Jim

You think you understood what I posted, that's fucking hilarious.

[Clave]

"Dave the Clueless" <a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:uhi3k9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

> On Oct 5 2012 1:49 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> > Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?
>>
>> You think you're smarter than Barack Obama.
>>
>> That's fucking hilarious.
>>
>> Jim
>

> You think you understood what I posted...

Get over yourself. You aren't complex.

Jim

[Dutch]

mo_ntresor wrote:
> sickle cell can be fatal at altitude.

Darkie in the Whitehouse Martha, do something!

[brattt]

sure - as soon as you stop responding to ever post I made with ridiculous
things.

[Clave]

"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:1qj3k9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

> sure - as soon as you stop responding to ever post I made...

You can get over yourself too.

I don't even *open* half of the stupid shit you post, and most of the rest
is accidental.

Jim

[Dutch]

Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Oct 5 2012 1:43 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
>> You know I'm not an Obama fan, but I've listened to some facts about
>> adjusting to the high altitude of Denver and it seems somewhat
>> plausible to me. I have never been there, but by all accounts it
>> takes some getting used to. And isn't it true that he had not been in
>> Denver very long, and didn't get much chance to adjust and prepare?
>>
>> I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I am not one to
>> defend him, especially since I totally disagree with his policies and
>> philosophy, but why couldn't this excuse about the altitude of Denver
>> be a true factor in his poor performance?
>>
>> I know some of you, like PuppyToes, have joked about this, But I'm
>> just asking. It seems plausible to me.
>
> Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?

Because Newt said so? Newt says Obama's lazy too, and that he is good at
basketball and has rhythm. This is the subtlety of the GOP these days.

[brattt]

sure clavie - unless its something you prefer not to address. Like this
one

From: brattt <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
Subject: Re: Will Romney's Debate Lies Become the Story?

On Oct 4 2012 5:32 PM, Clave wrote:


> There are also people here who DO know he was lying, but don't care. They
> like being lied to, expecially if it gets the black guy out of the white
> house.
>
> Jim

I do not want to make up a position for you, but are you inferring that
only Romney lied during the debate?

[John Putnam]

LOL Paul, if he behaves like a slack jawed idiot at 5000 feet, I hope
he's not conducting any official business in Air Force One.

Regulations specify that the air pressure in the cabin of a commercial
airliner must not be lower than that found at an altitude of 8,000 ft
(2,438 m). The pressure at this altitude is 1,572 pounds per square
foot or 75 kilopascals. This pressure is only about 75% that found at
sea level, which is 2,116 psf (101 kPa).

This pressure was chosen for two reasons. First, the skin of the
aircraft is designed to maintain its shape given the difference in
pressure internal and external to the cabin. Aircraft manufacturers
want to keep that difference as small as possible because it reduces
the amount of structure needed to maintain the integrity of the
aircraft's shape. The less structure required, the lighter and less
expensive the plane will be.

Ideally, the internal and external pressures would always be equal to
minimize the structural weight. However, the pressure cannot be too
low or passengers could suffer from altitude sickness or pass out from
oxygen deprivation. Most cases of altitude sickness occur at altitudes
greater than 10,000 ft (3,050 m) and oxygen deprivation is typically
not a concern below 14,000 ft (4,265 m).

The altitude of 8,000 ft was chosen as a tradeoff to satisfy these two
requirements. The pressure at this altitude is low enough that it
significantly reduces the amount of structure needed to maintain the
plane's shape yet high enough that it prevents altitude sickness among
the passengers. The pressure on a specific aircraft may vary as
different manufacturers offer different environmental systems aboard
their planes. In general, most airlines maintain an internal pressure
comparable to that found at 6,000 to 8,000 ft (1,830 to 2,440 m). The
pressure will obviously increase at lower altitudes to equalize with
the external pressure encountered at takeoff and landing.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0206a.shtml

Air Force One is a 747.

There is a general belief that the pressure in the cabin (or, as it is
known, cabin altitude) is equivalent to that at sea level. This is not
the case. Cabin altitude can fluctuate from 5,000 to 8,600 feet in
cruise levels and is dependent on many variables, including the load
factor, fuel burn, the aircraft’s age and model and , above all, the
airline or captain’s preference.

In the instance of an aircraft cruising at an altitude below its
operational ceilings, there is a choice. The pilot can either select
the maximum cabin differential pressure (about 5,000-6,000 feet) to
increase the comfort of the passengers, or make things easier on the
cabin structure (what is known as “prolonging the cabin’s fatigue
life”) by keeping the differential pressure at a setting of around
8,000 feet.

The optimum cabin altitude for the 747-400 at flight levels of
29,000-41,000 feet is 8,000 feet, according to Bob Fletcher, Head
Flight Operations Engineer of Air New Zealand. The Concorde was an
exception because its cabin altitude could be maintained at 5,000 feet
due to its high cabin pressure differential.

http://www.aviation-health.co.uk/news/browse.php?load=aibs.html#PRESSURISE

[TruthSeeker]

On 4/10/12 10:43 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> You know I'm not an Obama fan, but I've listened to some facts about
> adjusting to the high altitude of Denver and it seems somewhat
> plausible to me. I have never been there, but by all accounts it
> takes some getting used to. And isn't it true that he had not been in
> Denver very long, and didn't get much chance to adjust and prepare?

I live near Denver and before I moved here I traveled here several
times, for ski trips and endurance competitions. If you are climbing a
mountain, running a Marathon, or riding a long bicycle race, it's going
to affect you. Normal everyday activity, it will not. You'll feel it
with moderate exercise after a day or two, but not the first day.

Al Gore's going for that excuse was such a grasping at straws that it
provided a lot of people with their biggest belly-laugh of the day.



--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/10/12 10:49 AM, Clave wrote:
>
> "Dave the Clueless" <a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

>> Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?

> You think you're smarter than Barack Obama.

> That's fucking hilarious.

A lot of people are smarter than Obama. Just because you are not one of
them is not a reason to suggest that others aren't.

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:c4GdnYjS4uJi8fLN...@giganews.com...

> On 5/10/12 10:49 AM, Clave wrote:
>>
>> "Dave the Clueless" <a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
>>> Why couldn't it be that Obama just isn't that bright?
>
>> You think you're smarter than Barack Obama.
>
>> That's fucking hilarious.
>

> A lot of people are smarter than Obama...

That you count yourself among them is fucking hilarious.

Jim

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> Al Gore's going for that excuse was such a grasping at straws that it
> provided a lot of people with their biggest belly-laugh of the day.

You must have a boring life if that's the funniest thing you heard today.

[TruthSeeker]

Did you see Al? He was hilarious, also that guy who said "exactly."
What boobs.

OTOH I can understand why you would not find it funny.

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> A lot of people are smarter than Obama.

He rose from a modest background to graduate from Columbia then Magna
Cum Laude from Harvard Law, then went on to become president of the
United States. How many people have done that? You have a different take
on "a lot of people" than I do.

[TruthSeeker]

Oh, you stepped in it here. Cite one time, anywhere, where I have made
such a claim.

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 5/10/12 5:49 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> Al Gore's going for that excuse was such a grasping at straws that it
>>> provided a lot of people with their biggest belly-laugh of the day.
>>
>> You must have a boring life if that's the funniest thing you heard today.
>
> Did you see Al? He was hilarious, also that guy who said "exactly."
> What boobs.
>
> OTOH I can understand why you would not find it funny.

I didn't say it wasn't funny, just not biggest belly laugh of the day
funny. Maybe it was funnier first hand.

[TruthSeeker]

OK, fair enough. "Biggest belly laugh" was an exaggeration. Mea culpa.

[Bill Vanek]

Who isn't smarter than any Progressive?

[TruthSeeker]

His background wasn't all that modest. And W. Bush graduated from Yale
and went on to become President of the United States, and many people
didn't consider him particularly intelligent.

Obama is a very intelligent man, but not IMO to the exalted degree that
many of his admirers believe.

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 5/10/12 5:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> On 5/10/12 5:49 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>>>> Al Gore's going for that excuse was such a grasping at straws that it
>>>>> provided a lot of people with their biggest belly-laugh of the day.
>>>>
>>>> You must have a boring life if that's the funniest thing you heard today.
>>>
>>> Did you see Al? He was hilarious, also that guy who said "exactly."
>>> What boobs.
>>>
>>> OTOH I can understand why you would not find it funny.
>>
>> I didn't say it wasn't funny, just not biggest belly laugh of the day
>> funny. Maybe it was funnier first hand.
>
>
> OK, fair enough. "Biggest belly laugh" was an exaggeration. Mea culpa.

fwiw I found it pathetic. stfu Al.

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message

news:u7adnZya4vMB7vLN...@giganews.com...

> On 5/10/12 5:37 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
>> news:c4GdnYjS4uJi8fLN...@giganews.com...
>>> On 5/10/12 10:49 AM, Clave wrote:
>
>>>> You think you're smarter than Barack Obama.
>
>>>> That's fucking hilarious.
>
>>> A lot of people are smarter than Obama...
>
>> That you count yourself among them is fucking hilarious.
>
> Oh, you stepped in it here. Cite one time, anywhere, where I have made
> such a claim.

Isn't it pretty strongly implied when you mock his intelligence?

Of course it is, you disingenuous ass.

Jim

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 5/10/12 5:54 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> A lot of people are smarter than Obama.
>>
>> He rose from a modest background to graduate from Columbia then Magna
>> Cum Laude from Harvard Law, then went on to become president of the
>> United States. How many people have done that? You have a different take
>> on "a lot of people" than I do.
>
> His background wasn't all that modest.

It was pretty darn modest, compared to most presidential candidates,

> And W. Bush graduated from Yale
> and went on to become President of the United States, and many people
> didn't consider him particularly intelligent.

He was also greased through everything by an incredibly rich family,
shit, his father was the president!

> Obama is a very intelligent man, but not IMO to the exalted degree that
> many of his admirers believe.

I don't perceive that people think he's a super genius, just very smart.

[Travel A]

Cripe, it was a debate, not an NFL football game against the Broncos.

At 5,000 ft the thinner air can make people a little more sluggish at
first, if they're doing something physically demanding, but that's about
it.

Even actual Altitude Sickness is very rare under 8,000 feet. Families
from all over, with little kids and parents in their sixties get off a
plane and immediately ski Aspen.

Obama has even been in Colorado a lot lately and it didn't stop him from
giving all those hopping-round, energized stump speeches.

Obama practically does nothing but play basketball, walk five miles
during numerous golf rounds and flies all over the place doing fund
raisers.

Overheard at Apen: "Mommie! little Joey beat me in the ski race because
he's been here two days longer!"

Obama lost in an indoor debate because of the altitude?
Wake the fuck up please.

[Clave]

"Bill Vanek" <bilv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:mo5v689qekf5nk5mg...@4ax.com...

1.8

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:28:37 -0700, Bill Vanek <bilv...@invalid.com>
wrote:

You, for one.

--

Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

[John Putnam]

Bush 41 wasn't president when W graduated Yale, heel his first elected
office was a US Rep from Texas 2 years after W was admitted to Yale.

[Pepe Papon]

The biggest belly laugh of the day in the realm of debate spin. It
was such a lame excuse that it did nothing other than provide fodder
for jokes.

[fffurken]

On Oct 5, 5:43 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> You know I'm not an Obama fan, but I've listened to some facts about
> adjusting to the high altitude of Denver and it seems somewhat
> plausible to me.  I have never been there, but by all accounts it
> takes some getting used to.  And isn't it true that he had not been in
> Denver very long, and didn't get much chance to adjust and prepare?
>
> I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I am not one to
> defend him, especially since I totally disagree with his policies and
> philosophy, but why couldn't this excuse about the altitude of Denver
> be a true factor in his poor performance?
>
> I know some of you, like PuppyToes, have joked about this,  But I'm
> just asking.  It seems plausible to me.

What?
--
"I am not a troll" by Paul Popinjay, various dates.

[Dutch]

I'd give it a pffft.

[Bill Vanek]

Well, I guess I asked for it. I should have expected this devastating
response from a self-proclaimed genius.

[BillB]

On 10/5/2012 7:31 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:

> Obama is a very intelligent man, but not IMO to the exalted degree that
> many of his admirers believe.

Is he smarter than you?

[BillB]

On 10/5/2012 6:00 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> What exactly is your experience with high altitude, and how is it relevant?

I was a mountain guide for years. I took people (usually groups) from
sea level (or close to it) to the alpine on a nearly daily basis, and
part of my job was frequently assessing their mental and physical
fitness to continue. I don't remember anyone ever complaining of
altitude symptoms at 5000ft. I am personally quite sensitive to
altitude, and I have never experienced any symptoms at 5000ft. For me,
the headaches start kicking in around 10,000ft. In short, my personal
experience with the physiological effects of altitude are on par with
your experience with being a stupid person (i.e. extensive).

[popinjay999]

On Oct 5, 9:22 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "I am not a troll" by Paul Popinjay, various dates.

You can't quote someone in a signature line without a fucking date.
This would never stand up.

[popinjay999]

On Oct 5, 7:28 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:

>
> Who isn't smarter than any Progressive?

Progressives are for the opposite of progress. It is conservatives
who want real progress.

[aryan khan]

Boxer Vs Underwear | I Am Sexy And I Know It

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvnXa1OpoaY

Subscribe for more footage.

[TruthSeeker]

I believe so.

Now you tell us if you believe that Obama is smarter than you.

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/10/12 8:28 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:

> Who isn't smarter than any Progressive?

Another Progressive? ;^>

[BillB]

On 10/6/2012 10:44 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 6/10/12 2:34 AM, BillB wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 7:31 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>>> Obama is a very intelligent man, but not IMO to the exalted degree that
>>> many of his admirers believe.
>
>> Is he smarter than you?
>
> I believe so.

Yet you are a self-proclaimed genius. So you believe Obama is a genius?

[brattt]

In the words of your little buddy, why are you dodgeting the question?


---------------------------------------------------------------

Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[TruthSeeker]

So you say. Are you going to answer the question (do you believe that
Obama is smarter than you)?

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bce25f86-c1c9-433d...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

Forward into the 19th century!!!

Jim

[Travel A]

Still wating for Poupon to name the state where he was the governor.
Can't imagine why Poupon thinks that he's smarter than Sarah Palin.

[popinjay999]

On Oct 6, 4:17 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Fuck you, Clave, your "new" philosophy is as old as mankind. It's the
conservatives who cherish the concepts our country was founded on who
are new on the scene. Our ideas are new. Your ideas are old. And
you're too fucking stupid to recognize that fact.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:3ef11202-9bc2-413c...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 6, 4:17 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bce25f86-c1c9-433d...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 5, 7:28 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Who isn't smarter than any Progressive?
>>
>> > Progressives are for the opposite of progress. It is conservatives
>> > who want real progress.
>>
>> Forward into the 19th century!!!
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> Fuck you, Clave, your "new" philosophy is as old as mankind. It's the
> conservatives who cherish the concepts our country was founded on who
> are new on the scene.

Beg pardon.

Forward into the 18th century!!!

Jim

[FL Turbo]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:31:41 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/10/12 5:54 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:

>>> A lot of people are smarter than Obama.
>>
>> He rose from a modest background to graduate from Columbia then Magna
>> Cum Laude from Harvard Law, then went on to become president of the
>> United States. How many people have done that? You have a different take
>> on "a lot of people" than I do.
>

>His background wasn't all that modest. And W. Bush graduated from Yale

>and went on to become President of the United States, and many people
>didn't consider him particularly intelligent.
>

>Obama is a very intelligent man, but not IMO to the exalted degree that
>many of his admirers believe.

Liberals have always promoted the concept that any Liberal is always
much more intelligent than any Conservative.
Obama is a Liberal, therefore he must necessarily be really, really
intelligent.

Anyone arguing that Obama ain't just the second smartest next to
Albert Einstein, must then be a Raaaaacist.
I'm sure you've run into that charge.

[Dutch]

FL Turbo wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:31:41 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/12 5:54 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>>> A lot of people are smarter than Obama.
>>>
>>> He rose from a modest background to graduate from Columbia then Magna
>>> Cum Laude from Harvard Law, then went on to become president of the
>>> United States. How many people have done that? You have a different take
>>> on "a lot of people" than I do.
>>
>> His background wasn't all that modest. And W. Bush graduated from Yale
>> and went on to become President of the United States, and many people
>> didn't consider him particularly intelligent.
>>
>> Obama is a very intelligent man, but not IMO to the exalted degree that
>> many of his admirers believe.
>
> Liberals have always promoted the concept that any Liberal is always
> much more intelligent than any Conservative.

Not true at all, the overall average, that's a different thing.

> Obama is a Liberal, therefore he must necessarily be really, really
> intelligent.

Not true at all, more likely to be educated maybe maybe.

>
> Anyone arguing that Obama ain't just the second smartest next to
> Albert Einstein, must then be a Raaaaacist.
> I'm sure you've run into that charge.

I get it, yer just funnin'. ha ha

[Clave]

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:vvb27899oj233v4uq...@4ax.com...

<...>

> Liberals have always promoted the concept that any Liberal is always
> much more intelligent than any Conservative.

That may be the stupidest lie I've ever heard a conservative say.

Tinfoil hat much?

Jim

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, that's another way to describe Progressives.

[Pepe Papon]

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 5:24 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


You're a friggin Hercules. Of course you didn't agree with my
statement about progressives and conservatives, that's because you've
bought a ticket for the gravy train. "Liberalism", which is really
collectivism, dates back as far as man has had systems of government,
centuries before Marx, centuries before Christ. And it's always been
sold as something "new". That's part of the appeal to stupid fucks
like you.

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 3:35 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> On 6/10/12 5:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>

> > "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

> >news:bce25f86-c1c9-433d...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 5, 7:28 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Who isn't smarter than any Progressive?
>
> >> Progressives are for the opposite of progress.  It is conservatives
> >> who want real progress.
>
> > Forward into the 19th century!!!
>
> Yes, that's another way to describe Progressives.
>

You are exactly right, Truthseeker. These modern day progressives
really think they've invented a new mouse trap.

[BillB]

Before there were groups of people, there had to be individuals,
therefore conservatism is older. neener neener

[BillB]

On 10/7/2012 6:47 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> You are exactly right, Truthseeker. These modern day progressives
> really think they've invented a new mouse trap.

You talk as if greed and selfishness haven't been around for a while
too. Doesn't greed and selfishness long pre-date the desire to help
random people who are not as well off?

[brattt]

Who is greedy and selfish?

[BillB]

On 10/7/2012 8:27 AM, brattt wrote:
> On Oct 7 2012 8:58 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/2012 6:47 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>>
>>> You are exactly right, Truthseeker. These modern day progressives
>>> really think they've invented a new mouse trap.
>>
>> You talk as if greed and selfishness haven't been around for a while
>> too. Doesn't greed and selfishness long pre-date the desire to help
>> random people who are not as well off?
>
> Who is greedy and selfish?

For example, people who don't think everyone should benefit from the
same level of medical care they enjoy, simply because it might raise
their taxes some tiny percentage.

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 7 2012 9:56 AM, BillB wrote:

> > Who is greedy and selfish?
>
> For example, people who don't think everyone should benefit from the
> same level of medical care they enjoy, simply because it might raise
> their taxes some tiny percentage.

here's pepe's lesson for this weekend: what's a strawman? the great part
of the above post is it's a strawman mounted on the rear of another
strawman.

mo_ntresor

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 7 2012 9:27 AM, brattt wrote:

> > You talk as if greed and selfishness haven't been around for a while
> > too. Doesn't greed and selfishness long pre-date the desire to help
> > random people who are not as well off?
>
> Who is greedy and selfish?

the government. progressives are just idiots.

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

It's pretty clear you don't have any clue what is meant by the term
"strawman." She ask me who is greedy and selfish, and I gave her a prime
example. That has absolutely nothing to do with a strawman fallacy.

Educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[popinjay999]

That "progressive philosophy" is a "desire to help random people who
are not well off" is a sham. It is, and always has been, a sham.
There are none so greedy and selfish as the progressives are.

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 6:49 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

>
> Before there were groups of people, there had to be individuals,
> therefore conservatism is older. neener neener

But Bill, there was a whole group of amoebas and tadpoles who all
simultaneously grew feet and mustaches and turned into a group of
people.

[BillB]

On 10/7/2012 9:35 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> That "progressive philosophy" is a "desire to help random people who
> are not well off" is a sham.

No, it's not. But if that makes you feel more comfortable with your
selfishness, you keep believing that, k?

> It is, and always has been, a sham.

Right. Progressive civil rights legislation didn't help black people at
all. The halving of their poverty rate that immediately followed was
pure coincidence. Doh!

> There are none so greedy and selfish as the progressives are.

Yes, and black is white and up is down.

[brattt]

You obviously enjoy a higher standard of living than the majority of us
here, so why isn't is selfish and greedy of you not to share your wealth
with us lowly citizens who work hard for our existence, but haven't
attained the same level as you?

[popinjay999]

I just went through this with Pepe. Why would I expect you to agree
with me when I know you have swallowed the progressive bait, hook,
line and sinker? I'm just stating how it is, because that's what I do
around here, state how it is. I already know you and Pepe were raised
on Liberal Avenue and have never left the neighborhood.

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 9:03 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>  the great part
> of the above post is it's a strawman mounted on the rear of another
> strawman.
>

Is this another gay reference, Mo?

[Bill Vanek]

And if those words had been spoken, would the speaker more likely have
been Stalin, or Reagan? Mao or Bill Buckley? Pol Pot or Thomas Sowell?

And do think 1984 is better described as an attack on Republicans, or
on Progressives?

"Ignorance is strength" is the very foundation of the Democratic party
today.

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 7 2012 10:09 AM, BillB wrote:

> >>> Who is greedy and selfish?
> >>
> >> For example, people who don't think everyone should benefit from the
> >> same level of medical care they enjoy, simply because it might raise
> >> their taxes some tiny percentage.
> >
> > here's pepe's lesson for this weekend: what's a strawman? the great part
> > of the above post is it's a strawman mounted on the rear of another
> > strawman.
>

> It's pretty clear you don't have any clue what is meant by the term
> "strawman." She ask me who is greedy and selfish, and I gave her a prime
> example. That has absolutely nothing to do with a strawman fallacy.
>
> Educate yourself:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

LMFAO! yeah, you were talking hypotheticals. lying shithead strikes
again.

mo_ntresor

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 12:57 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:24:21 -0500, Pepe Papon

>

> >WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
>
> And if those words had been spoken, would the speaker more likely have
> been Stalin, or Reagan? Mao or Bill Buckley? Pol Pot or Thomas Sowell?
>
> And do think 1984 is better described as an attack on Republicans, or
> on Progressives?
>
> "Ignorance is strength" is the very foundation of the Democratic party
> today.

Very well said, Bill. But I'm going to lay you 10-to-1 that Pepe
doesn't know wtf you're talking about.

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 7 2012 10:35 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> > You talk as if greed and selfishness haven't been around for a while
> > too. Doesn't greed and selfishness long pre-date the desire to help
> > random people who are not as well off?
>
> That "progressive philosophy" is a "desire to help random people who
> are not well off" is a sham. It is, and always has been, a sham.
> There are none so greedy and selfish as the progressives are.

it's a philosophy predicated on their generous use of other's resources.
those with resources are too greedy and selfish to help, so nice little
"progressives" -- with (surprise!) no resources of their own -- intervene
to do the lord's work for them.

seriously, can this group's leftwing morons find two nickels between them?
no way. not a chance.

mo_ntresor

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:Oc6dneSaHqeexuzN...@giganews.com...

> On 6/10/12 5:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:bce25f86-c1c9-433d...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Oct 5, 7:28 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who isn't smarter than any Progressive?
>>>
>>>
>>> Progressives are for the opposite of progress. It is conservatives
>>> who want real progress.
>>
>> Forward into the 19th century!!!
>
> Yes, that's another way to describe Progressives.

What scathing wit.

Fucking dumbass.

Jim

[Dutch]

mo_ntresor wrote:
> On Oct 7 2012 10:35 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
>>> You talk as if greed and selfishness haven't been around for a while
>>> too. Doesn't greed and selfishness long pre-date the desire to help
>>> random people who are not as well off?
>>
>> That "progressive philosophy" is a "desire to help random people who
>> are not well off" is a sham. It is, and always has been, a sham.
>> There are none so greedy and selfish as the progressives are.
>
> it's a philosophy predicated on their generous use of other's resources.
> those with resources are too greedy and selfish to help, so nice little
> "progressives" -- with (surprise!) no resources of their own -- intervene
> to do the lord's work for them.

Like Bill Gates, the Kennedys, Warren Buffet, all those Hollywood types..

> seriously, can this group's leftwing morons find two nickels between them?
> no way. not a chance.
>
> mo_ntresor

I was born into a dirt poor family and through a lifetime of honest work
and saving now I'm well off. That's not inconsistent with having a
social conscience. Your stereotypes are all fucked up.

[Bill Vanek]

Of course not. Ignorance is his strength, too.

[BillB]

No, I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I am talking about a large
percentage of real, live US citizens. I offered them as a prime example
of who I consider greedy and selfish. That was the question.

You really need to learn what a "strawman" is before you use the term
again. You came off looking like a complete idiot, even more than usual.

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, that's exactly what we're pointing out ... they adopted the name
"Progressive" in an Orwellian fashion.

[TruthSeeker]

It's not my fault that you walked right into that with your feeble
sophistry.

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message

news:j66dnSNvfLGRnu_N...@giganews.com...

> On 7/10/12 6:24 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 04:02:41 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
>> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> Progressives are for the opposite of progress. It is conservatives
>>> who want real progress.
>
>> WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
>
> Yes, that's exactly what we're pointing out ... they adopted the name
> "Progressive" in an Orwellian fashion.

Joe's gone into full-goose bozo IKYABWAI today.

Jim

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message

news:j66dnSJvfLF9nu_N...@giganews.com...

Yes, your IKYABWAI is indeed mighty.

As far as you know.

Jim

[mo_ntresor]

ROFL. you found the people who push grannies off cliffs!

fucking idiot.

mo_ntresor

[TruthSeeker]

On 7/10/12 4:44 PM, Clave wrote:
> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message

>>>>>> Progressives are for the opposite of progress. It is conservatives
>>>>>> who want real progress.

>>>>> Forward into the 19th century!!!

>>>> Yes, that's another way to describe Progressives.

>>> What scathing wit.

>> It's not my fault that you walked right into that with your feeble
>> sophistry.

> Yes, your IKYABWAI is indeed mighty.

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

I'm pointing out that the name "Progressive" as applied to a political
ideology is Orwellian. The name posits an image of good, as it implies
that the movement is for "progress." And most people like progress, and
rightly associate it with "getting better." As the principles that
"Progressives" foster would actually make things worse, it is the
opposite of progress. Hence, Orwellian.

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message

news:JuydnfGslfR_ou_N...@giganews.com...

> On 7/10/12 4:44 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
>
>>>>>>> Progressives are for the opposite of progress. It is conservatives
>>>>>>> who want real progress.
>
>>>>>> Forward into the 19th century!!!
>
>>>>> Yes, that's another way to describe Progressives.
>
>>>> What scathing wit.
>
>>> It's not my fault that you walked right into that with your feeble
>>> sophistry.
>
>> Yes, your IKYABWAI is indeed mighty.
>
> "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
>
> I'm pointing out that the name "Progressive" as applied to a political

> ideology is Orwellian...

Sure thing, Beldin.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 7:58 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message

>
> > I'm pointing out that the name "Progressive" as applied to a political
> > ideology is Orwellian...
>
> Sure thing, Beldin.
>
> Jim

Who are you calling Beldin? Truthseeker is absolutely 100% correct,
so you are arguing with the truth. Now who's a Beldin, Beldin?

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:bd4eeaec-933c-4bd4...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 7, 7:58 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message
>
>>
>> > I'm pointing out that the name "Progressive" as applied to a political
>> > ideology is Orwellian...
>>
>> Sure thing, Beldin.
>

> Who are you calling Beldin? Truthseeker is absolutely 100% correct,
> so you are arguing with the truth. Now who's a Beldin, Beldin?

I'd say it's a dead heat between the two of you.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 8:54 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

One question. One simple question. Between me, Truthseeker, or you,
which one of us has a greater compulsion to "get the last word in"?
Answer me that, and then tell me that you aren't more Beldin-like.
You maggot.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:90cb5376-fe5f-43b1...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 7, 8:54 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bd4eeaec-933c-4bd4...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 7, 7:58 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> >> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > I'm pointing out that the name "Progressive" as applied to a
>> >> > political
>> >> > ideology is Orwellian...
>>
>> >> Sure thing, Beldin.
>>
>> > Who are you calling Beldin? Truthseeker is absolutely 100% correct,
>> > so you are arguing with the truth. Now who's a Beldin, Beldin?
>>
>> I'd say it's a dead heat between the two of you.
>

> One question...blah, blah, blah...

Whatever the question was, the answer is probably go fuck yourself.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 9:39 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> Whatever the question was, the answer is probably go fuck yourself.
>
> Jim

Beldinish "last word" noted.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:786e6e82-3e21-4c0d...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 7, 9:39 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Whatever the question was, the answer is probably go fuck yourself.
>
>

> Beldinish "last word" noted.

That was a try at the *Clavish* last word, as it contained some wit.

I leave the witless Beldinic last word, along with the transparently
self-serving and revisionist Beldinic dictionary, to the likes of you.

Bark, bitch.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Oct 7, 10:54 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> I leave the witless Beldinic last word, along with the transparently
> self-serving and revisionist Beldinic dictionary, to the likes of you.
>
> Bark, bitch.
>
> Jim

[auto-response] Paul is out of the office now. Please go fuck
yourself until Monday.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:594f0ff0-2fcc-4d07...@tr7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 7, 10:54 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I leave the witless Beldinic last word, along with the transparently
>> self-serving and revisionist Beldinic dictionary, to the likes of you.
>>
>> Bark, bitch.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> [auto-response]

Good bitch. Now go lay by your dish.