Reply to It's Hard to Take You Seriously

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "It's Hard to Take You Seriously"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail.  Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this.  Remember Howard Dean?  He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out.  Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

[b]We have a minimum standard.[/b]  You apparently do not.  You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality.  I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps.  Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?[/quote]

2 words: John Edwards[/quote] Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.[/quote]

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!  :D[/quote]Nice try but it's not Perry's "King john II" moment or his "I forgot what agency I want to cut" moment or Cains crazy brain reboot during his interview about Libya or Palin getting stumped on what newspapers she reads daily [/quote]

Nice try?! As I said, there's all kinds of "smart." John Edwards' "smarts" have cost him his position in the community, political goals, respect of those who once admired him, basically his family, etc. That was my point. His candidacy did not meet the "minimum standard."[/quote]

I think your answer is just another data point for the OP's hypothesis.  The fact that you think there's some equivalence between the rolling shit-show that is the GOP primary candidates and John Edwards (who lied in private and was only "outed" after the primary was long over) is only further confirmation of your piss-poor judgement and overall point-missing.[/quote]

For many voters (guessing not so much for you), character is important. John Edwards is sorely lacking in that department. Failing the character test, he also displayed numerous examples of his stupidity (i.e., not using good reasoning skills) and poor judgment (also related to reasoning ability). [/quote]

Of course character is important.   And I think he was pretty quickly weeded out once his affair came to light, just as the Republicans did with Herm Cain.

But you are dodging the issue of intelligence and basic knowledge.  Pointing to John Edwards, whatever you think of him, does not explain the unbelievable fact that your party has supported - even rallied behind - candidates who can't keep basic facts, or even sometimes their own positions, straight in their heads.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics