Thursday, June 07, 2007

Conservatives are just fucking retarded: Part 6,428,081.


How stupid do you have to be to be the American President? About this stupid.

12 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

I saw that null set comment the other day and I believe I suffered brain damage from it.

I think Romney learned how to sound sciency when he was at Brigham Young.

E in MD said...

Can I move up there with you guys if some Republican asshat gets elected in the next Pres election? I figure it'll at least be a few years before the USA invades Canada so there might be some peace to be had.

You guys need competent programmers right?

Ti-Guy said...

No, you have to stay there and maintain the buffer zone between us and Talibama.

E in MD said...

Damnit!

dom said...

"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."...Muhammad ElBarradei, IAEA, March 7, 2003


From December 1998 till November 2002, weapons inspectors were barred from Iraq. What do you suppose Hussein did with his time?

Three whole months of inspections? In a country covering just shy of 167000 square miles? There were a reported 105 inspectors in Iraq, so if they all worked around the clock for ninety days, they'd each have to inspect, thoroughly of course, around seventeen square miles each day. Let's call it about 2/3 of the area of the city of Waterloo, each day. No sleeping, no eating (unless it was carry-out fast food), and no stopping for a piss (diapers could have been provided, I suppose).

I can't imagine why anyone would be skeptical of claims that Iraq had no WMD. How fucking stupid does someone have to be to become president, indeed.

CC said...

That scraping you hear is the sound of goalposts being moved, as "dom" avoids the actual issue and changes the subject entirely.

The debate, dom, is not about whether the inspections could have been thorough. The debate (since you are clearly too fucking stupid to understand simple English) is whether IAEA inspectors were ever allowed to enter Iraq.

How much simpler can I make that, dom? Based on what you can read (or, alternatively, based on what you can have someone read to you), inspectors clearly entered Iraq and spent at least three months there, while Romney is just as clearly suggesting that they never even made it into the country.

So, dom (and I say this with the greatest respect), fuck off until you're ready to come back and read simple English.

Seriously, I don't get paid enough to mentor the intellectually shortchanged.

dom said...

I'll repeat, in plain, simple English, that part of my comment that you either could not read or couldn't have read to you: "From December 1998 till November 2002, weapons inspectors were barred from Iraq.". Romney was referring to Hussein's period of brinkmanship, not his eventual concession. Perhaps too subtle for you?

It is not at all surprising that you don't get paid to mentor.

Ti-Guy said...

Romney was referring to Hussein's period of brinkmanship, not his eventual concession

That's not clear from what Romney said. Stop trying so hard. It makes you look foolish and credulous.

...*tsk*...What am I saying? Credulity is all those people have ever had.

dom said...

I am quite sure that if we played word-association, Ti-Guy, you and I would have different answers for virtually everything: Romney's comments immediately brought to mind the banning of weapons inspectors from Iraq. So, I didn't have to try too hard at all. As to credulity, you seem willing to go with CC's "what-an-asshole-goalpost-moving-blah-blah-blah" approach, anything to avoid the fact that Romney's words should reasonably be interpreted in the manner to which I refer. Romney is not unaware that inspectors were allowed back in prior to the war, so common sense says that he was referring to the long period prior to their return.

*tsk*...I forgot where I am: common sense is not so common here. My mistake.

Ti-Guy said...

That's not how life works in the reality-based world, Dom. You don't get to take what appears to be an ignorant statement and turn it into the informed one by making all kinds of assumptions you can't prove.

This trait is all too common with rightwingers these days; that every mistake can be undone by simply speculating about motive or intent and introducing a level of (not even reasonnable) doubt. It's a consequence of rightwingers all thinking they can be lawyers and lawyers (especially American ones) being amoral and corrupt. It's also a consequence of very poor-quality eduction.

How's that working out?

In any case, if you want to talk common sense, after seven years of Republicans who lie like other people breathe, I don't think your on much solid ground here.

As I said...credulous. In your case, though, I think you're just deceitful. Thanks for boring me with your sophistry and your perfidy.

Adam C said...

Romney: "In my world, the sky is red."

Dom: "Obviously he's referring to sunsets on evenings with moderate cloud cover."

Sparky said...

Where in his little spiel can you parse the words 'from 1998 to 2002'?
No, anyone who has the least education in english speaking can see that his little speech denies any inspectors visits before the war, 'or we wouldnt' be having this conversation'.
See, if you want to use 'Romney Logic', the result of no inspections before the war is why we're at war--had Saddam allowed the inspectors in, well, we wouldn't be having these converations.
To which those of us who don't rewrite history respond--"Hey, waittaminute! There was this guy named Blix who was mandated and allowed to go look at whatever he wanted until GWB ordered him out."
So, in the end, who didn't allow inspectors to do their job? And who then used the "well, no WMD's were found, but they're there and we know where they are so we're invading anyway". And then, once having destroyed the place comes out and says, "Well, there weren't any WMD's but we went in to bring democracy anyway, so the WMD's weren't important", and then, when that didn't win the 'hearts and minds' now states, "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, but be scared here anywayz 'cause I can protect you from the boogeymen!!"
Dom, because of the likes of you, the children in charge can do whatever they want--move the goalposts anywhere--and when the adults try and fix it you'll come out and find some way of, 'Oh, what he meant to say was...' and think you're doing the world a favour.
No, dom--you're not helping. What would help is for either you to find reality--start calling out these politicians who continually rewrite history--or sit down and shut up and let the adults fix the mess you helped create.