en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/3612662 Comments by Pratsky http://tv.breitbart.com/flashback-romney-brags-about-bringing-washington-money-back-to-massachusetts/#IDComment307700832 If you are an American please realize most of us don't give a S H I T when you drag your Sunday School parking lot discussions in here. Maybe, if and when Mormons start knocking down buildings in New York and D.C., otherwise stick your theological nitpicking up your theocratic a s s. We're electing a President, not a minister. Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:53:07 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/flashback-romney-brags-about-bringing-washington-money-back-to-massachusetts/#IDComment307700832 http://tv.breitbart.com/flashback-romney-brags-about-bringing-washington-money-back-to-massachusetts/#IDComment307698192 If you are an American please realize most of us don't give a S H I T when you drag your Sunday School parking lot discussions in here. Maybe, if and when Mormons start knocking down buildings in New York and D.C., but otherwise stick your theological nitpicking up your theocratic a s s. We're electing a President, not a minister. Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:47:13 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/flashback-romney-brags-about-bringing-washington-money-back-to-massachusetts/#IDComment307698192 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment305492181 Careful, officer. Don't confuse your role-playing with prostitutes and your activities here. Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:57:11 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment305492181 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2012/02/29/romney-camp-blames-confusing-blunt-amendment-answer-on-confusing-question/#IDComment305418114 Come back when Mitt goes dead silent in response to a question about the President's actions in a foreign policy crisis headlining around the world at that moment. Not even close to comparable. Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:55:44 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2012/02/29/romney-camp-blames-confusing-blunt-amendment-answer-on-confusing-question/#IDComment305418114 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment305374703 Amazing, you actually failed to understand that that was all sarcasm (!) mocking your preposterous premise. I repeat (but decoded this time for the simpleminded): your analysis is idiotic and laughable on its face. But there are enough self-deluding "conservatives" around here to at least keep your self esteem intact. Good, you're obviously going to need that emotional cushion in the coming days and weeks when the voters begin systematically disabusing you of your foolish notions. How dumb do you have to be to believe that the man who lost to Bob Casey not all that long ago by 18 points, and who sold out the faith and good credit of the conservative movement to Arlen Specter for a pat on the head from Karl Rove, is the man to beat against Obama! Oh, and that "spineless RINO" you mentioned? That's who Santorum endorsed for President in 2008 when he WASN'T running himself... Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:51:09 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment305374703 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment304435291 Sure it is. That's why the clowns at the Daily Kos and the union bosses in Michigan tried to steal the primary there for Santorum. They thought it would be a funny prank to punk Obama and stick him with a more difficult opponent in November. Behind the scenes David Axelrod is reportedly FURIOUS with their sophomoric hijinks !! Just when they had Mitt Romney all locked in the way they wanted their own people almost blew it for them fooling around! Imagine having to spend the whole campaign trying to convince the American people that President Kennedy didn't really make people want to puke or that women using contraception isn't totally icky creepy disgusting immoral. Yep, the President dodged a bullet. Brilliant analysis O/D--you're one sharp cookie. ;-) Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:58:50 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment304435291 http://tv.breitbart.com/moore-operation-hilarity-to-keep-santorum-in-race/#IDComment304298152 Hey fool! What happened to you coming back to gloat about your prediction that Santorum was going to run the board, starting with victories over Romney today in Arizona and Michigan?? What was that you were saying about how your predictions have all been right? Remember how I told you that that was the stupidest thing I ever saw posted on BB and that I would make a point to come find you and laugh at you and mock you for being a gutless juvenile trash talker? And remember how I got all those thumbs down because you were cluck-clucking in front of your like-minded blowhard clique? And now you don't say a word, do you? What a thoroughly discredited, air-headed, goofy, grandstanding intellectual lightweight! Tell us about your predictions some more... Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:32:12 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/moore-operation-hilarity-to-keep-santorum-in-race/#IDComment304298152 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9T6D2901&show_article=1#IDComment304296399 Hey fool! What happened to you coming back to gloat about your prediction that Santorum was going to run the board, starting with victories over Romney today in Arizona and Michigan?? What was that you were saying about how your predictions have all been right? Remember how I told you that that was the stupidest thing I ever saw posted on BB and that I would make a point to come find you and laugh at you and mock you for being a gutless juvenile trash talker? And remember how I got all those thumbs down because you were cluck-clucking in front of your like-minded blowhard clique? And now you don't say a word, do you? What a thoroughly discredited, air-headed, goofy, grandstanding intellectual lightweight! Tell us about your predictions some more... Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:28:42 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9T6D2901&show_article=1#IDComment304296399 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment304227705 Exactly a s s backwards, neoconenemy! I supported a bloodletting in 2008, a clearing of the Republican deadwood. We got that to a large degree. Then the great Tea Party surge of 2010 occurred and we made some real progress. 2012 is now the time to carry that progress forward, not go weak-kneed because Ronald Reagan refuses to rise from the grave and personally escort us to the promised land. Keep your eye on the ball, pal. Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:15:14 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment304227705 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment304220812 What a convenient rationale for making the perfect the enemy of the good. And by the way, how do you figure that one of the Not Romneys might be the messiah to rescue us from the left's nanny state utopia given that they can't even gain enough traction to push aside the candidate everyone is so unenthusiastic about? Sorry, doesn't add up. You play to win. You do the best you can with what you got. And you don't allow your disillusionment with the Presidential race to be the Trojan Horse of victory for the left in HUNDREDS of other congressional, gubernatorial, state, and local elections. Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:01:45 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment304220812 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment304208148 Just what we DON'T need to make the K e n y a n Katastrophe a one-term President: your whiny, defeatist attitude. Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:39:40 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-wins-all-29-az-delegates/#IDComment304208148 http://tv.breitbart.com/santorum-adviser-on-michigan-we-have-already-won/#IDComment303411535 Ah, yes. Gotta love the player who gloats and takes his bows BEFORE the big game. So much safer that way, isn't it frothy? Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:26:43 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/santorum-adviser-on-michigan-we-have-already-won/#IDComment303411535 http://tv.breitbart.com/santorum-adviser-on-michigan-we-have-already-won/#IDComment303402998 Exactly! Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:09:47 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/santorum-adviser-on-michigan-we-have-already-won/#IDComment303402998 http://tv.breitbart.com/santorum-adviser-on-michigan-we-have-already-won/#IDComment303347531 What goes up Must come down Spinning wheel Got to go 'round... Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:18:00 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/santorum-adviser-on-michigan-we-have-already-won/#IDComment303347531 http://tv.breitbart.com/newt-ive-fallen-short-of-the-glory-of-god/#IDComment302612211 Oh, please! Anyone making these types of blanket declarations is himself a complete fool OR doesn't want to deal with what the polling is telling them. Assuming a poll is conducted credibly it is usable data that tells you SOMETHING about the subject at hand at that moment in time--a snapshot is the common analogy. It is how you employ that data analytically that determines its utility. So, yes, because a competent poll shows some particular thing at a given moment does not necessarily make it predictive of the future. Indeed, one of the principal reasons political campaigns use polls is to find out where a candidate or issue stands with a specific audience at that moment in order to learn where best to focus their efforts to CHANGE the audience response. As, for example, when a candidate polls in a given state and learns that he is down 15 points against his opponent mainly because of issues A, B, and C. The candidate then will tailor his stump speech and his media advertising to try to change the audience perception. If polling were strictly palm-reading, hocus pocus, astrology type baloney the people who run campaigns, and the folks who report on them, would not rely so heavily upon them. So if you want to explain to us WHY the polling being cited doesn't reflect what will become the final state of opinion, please, do so! But stop with the ignorant populist b u l l s h i t about how polls are meaningless, foolish, sinister, fake. etc. I've noticed right here on these boards that, invariably, someone (like you) who is contemptuous and dismissive of polls one minute can be found the next minute trumpeting the result of some poll the results of which they like! Just as you almost certainly would if the polling Liberty4All was citing was favorable to Newt and not unfavorable. Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:20:16 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/newt-ive-fallen-short-of-the-glory-of-god/#IDComment302612211 http://tv.breitbart.com/mitt-scores-az-gov-brewer-endorsement/#IDComment302455494 Putting great store in the Intense Debate point system are we? Kudos on your 163--that's some prolific pandering. Aren't you the proud little b l o w fish swimming about so haughtily in this obscure little tidepool! Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:23:41 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/mitt-scores-az-gov-brewer-endorsement/#IDComment302455494 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-my-wife-drives-a-couple-cadillacs/#IDComment302119269 Why did you stop beating your wife to ask me that question? In a nutshell it calls into question the credibility of anyone who wildly overstates their critique of Romney's conservative bona fides. In the immediate context of the Santorum surge that's especially relevant because Rick happens to be one of those people who endorsed Mitt's candidacy and vouched for his conservatism in 2008 (several years after the implementation of RomneyCare, I might add). It is therefore eminently reasonable and fair to question why he would now be saying something completely different. It says, in effect, Santorum was either (a) being disingenuous in 2008; or (b) is cynically going back on his own words for political expediency in the current campaign. Either way, it reflects poorly on Santorum (and Rush too). Is it THAT complicated, Roger?? Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:49:58 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-my-wife-drives-a-couple-cadillacs/#IDComment302119269 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-my-wife-drives-a-couple-cadillacs/#IDComment302104464 You keep changing the subject as a tactic, apparently, to excuse the know-nothing style of debate that goes on here. You interjected yourself into a conversation specifically concerned with an individual denying documentable facts about who endorsed Mitt Romney's candidacy and conservatism just 4 years ago. We weren't debating Romneycare. We were wrangling over the logical absurdity of people making such ludicrous claims as Romney being the most liberal Republican to ever contend for the nomination. The point that so many people wildly overstate any plausible case that Romney is not a "true" conservative is, it so happens, effectively demonstrated by the prior public statements of many pillars of the Conservative Establishment--Rush, National Review, RICK SANTORUM, Herman Cain, et al. That's all. Get it Roger? You can still be opposed to Mitt Romney, and I can still support him as the most viable in a weak field of candidates, while acknowledging the truth. Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:19:52 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-my-wife-drives-a-couple-cadillacs/#IDComment302104464 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-my-wife-drives-a-couple-cadillacs/#IDComment301685309 Now who's being stupid? I don't have a beef with Rush's endorsement. Why would I call him? My beef is as I just stated, people who hyperbolically lay it on about Romney being so unacceptably un-conservative that he's just beyond the pale (Falcon: "the most liberal Republican candidate in history") when there are all these establishment conservative endorsements out there from the last election cycle? The very fact that you and others are being so defensive about it speaks volumes. Sun, 26 Feb 2012 02:00:44 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-my-wife-drives-a-couple-cadillacs/#IDComment301685309 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-my-wife-drives-a-couple-cadillacs/#IDComment301679396 But since you interjected... I'm just fine with Rush. He's a hero of mine. What can be said of the debate here, though, when people like trapper can't even get beyond childish denial? Why be so ridiculous as to persist in denying that this endorsement ever even occurred? Why not do what you just did, chalk it up to a "Rush may have thought..." explanation thing? Let me suggest a reason! Because the fact that folks like Rush (and National Review AND Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, et al) did endorse Mitt in 2008, and vouch for his conservative bona fides, suggests that maybe the efforts to paint him now as some whacked out liberal ring a little hollow? Talk about flip-flopping! Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:49:00 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-my-wife-drives-a-couple-cadillacs/#IDComment301679396