Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
4 more years, II
()
Date: February 08, 2012 02:00PM
Though he may be "peaking early" (*), Obama is now favored over Romney in Virginia per Yet Another Nonpartisan Poll. This should also help Kaine.
-----------
(*) Also not surprisingly, I do not think Obama is "peaking" at all; he's on his way up with a long way up to go before he peaks. We'll see if THAT happens early (meaning he'll decline again).
-----------
(*) Also not surprisingly, I do not think Obama is "peaking" at all; he's on his way up with a long way up to go before he peaks. We'll see if THAT happens early (meaning he'll decline again).
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not that good of news
()
Date: February 08, 2012 02:04PM
Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link. You didn't want people to see that the post was inside the margin of error making it a virtual toss up. For a state the President won by more than 6 points in 2008, being within the margin of error must sting a bit.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Hatemotor
()
Date: February 08, 2012 02:08PM
Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he just got swept yesterday,,,
Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your rear view mirror, you have no chance of beating Obama,,,
Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your rear view mirror, you have no chance of beating Obama,,,
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
CoCo
()
Date: February 08, 2012 02:11PM
Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he just
> got swept yesterday,,,
>
> Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your rear
> view mirror, you have no chance of beating
> Obama,,,
I have heard that they have some pretty good intro to politics courses at NOVA. Maybe you and 4 more years can get a group discount.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he just
> got swept yesterday,,,
>
> Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your rear
> view mirror, you have no chance of beating
> Obama,,,
I have heard that they have some pretty good intro to politics courses at NOVA. Maybe you and 4 more years can get a group discount.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Frothy
()
Date: February 08, 2012 02:19PM
Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he just
> got swept yesterday,,,
>
> Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your rear
> view mirror, you have no chance of beating
> Obama,,,
The headlines today were covered with Santorum. Too much Santorum will only make the convention process that more messy. Its dirty, but Romney needs to suck it up and take Santorum head on.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he just
> got swept yesterday,,,
>
> Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your rear
> view mirror, you have no chance of beating
> Obama,,,
The headlines today were covered with Santorum. Too much Santorum will only make the convention process that more messy. Its dirty, but Romney needs to suck it up and take Santorum head on.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: February 08, 2012 02:19PM
If Gingrich would get his fat ass out of the race, Santorum might actually be able to take Romney down. Then the GOP can win two states in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Country Roads
()
Date: February 08, 2012 02:25PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Gingrich would get his fat ass out of the race,
> Santorum might actually be able to take Romney
> down. Then the GOP can win two states in 2012.
LOL. Sorry, I take this about as seriously as your notion that Obama has a chance of winning WV. Bachmann could beat Obama in WV!
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Gingrich would get his fat ass out of the race,
> Santorum might actually be able to take Romney
> down. Then the GOP can win two states in 2012.
LOL. Sorry, I take this about as seriously as your notion that Obama has a chance of winning WV. Bachmann could beat Obama in WV!
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not really
()
Date: February 08, 2012 04:38PM
Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he just
> got swept yesterday,,,
>
> Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your rear
> view mirror, you have no chance of beating
> Obama,,,
Not really. Minn is a very conservative state now its not a big shock. Missouri doesnt even matter its a non binding primary and their caucus can vote for who ever they want at the convention so Santorum isnt assured those delegates.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he just
> got swept yesterday,,,
>
> Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your rear
> view mirror, you have no chance of beating
> Obama,,,
Not really. Minn is a very conservative state now its not a big shock. Missouri doesnt even matter its a non binding primary and their caucus can vote for who ever they want at the convention so Santorum isnt assured those delegates.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Sorry, Slappy
()
Date: February 08, 2012 05:05PM
not that good of news Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link. You
> didn't want people to see that the post was inside
> the margin of error making it a virtual toss up.
> For a state the President won by more than 6
> points in 2008, being within the margin of error
> must sting a bit.
Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the margin of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but a lead. Sorry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link. You
> didn't want people to see that the post was inside
> the margin of error making it a virtual toss up.
> For a state the President won by more than 6
> points in 2008, being within the margin of error
> must sting a bit.
Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the margin of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but a lead. Sorry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not that good of news
()
Date: February 08, 2012 05:17PM
Sorry, Slappy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not that good of news Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link. You
> > didn't want people to see that the post was
> inside
> > the margin of error making it a virtual toss up.
>
> > For a state the President won by more than 6
> > points in 2008, being within the margin of
> error
> > must sting a bit.
>
> Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the margin
> of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but a
> lead. Sorry.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-polit
> ics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-
> virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
Holy shit. They even listed the margin of error right there for you and you think that the poll is outside the margin of error?????? Seriously, you can't be this stupid. Can you???? I mean nobody is this fucking stupid.
Can you just not do VERY basic math, or do you not know how the margin of error works? Or, you are just full of shit. Those are the only options.
-------------------------------------------------------
> not that good of news Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link. You
> > didn't want people to see that the post was
> inside
> > the margin of error making it a virtual toss up.
>
> > For a state the President won by more than 6
> > points in 2008, being within the margin of
> error
> > must sting a bit.
>
> Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the margin
> of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but a
> lead. Sorry.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-polit
> ics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-
> virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
Holy shit. They even listed the margin of error right there for you and you think that the poll is outside the margin of error?????? Seriously, you can't be this stupid. Can you???? I mean nobody is this fucking stupid.
Can you just not do VERY basic math, or do you not know how the margin of error works? Or, you are just full of shit. Those are the only options.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
You fucking idiot
()
Date: February 09, 2012 09:56AM
not that good of news Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, Slappy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > not that good of news Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link.
> You
> > > didn't want people to see that the post was
> > inside
> > > the margin of error making it a virtual toss
> up.
> >
> > > For a state the President won by more than 6
> > > points in 2008, being within the margin of
> > error
> > > must sting a bit.
> >
> > Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the
> margin
> > of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but a
> > lead. Sorry.
> >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-polit
>
> >
> ics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-
>
> > virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
>
> Holy shit. They even listed the margin of error
> right there for you and you think that the poll is
> outside the margin of error?????? Seriously, you
> can't be this stupid. Can you???? I mean nobody
> is this fucking stupid.
>
> Can you just not do VERY basic math, or do you not
> know how the margin of error works? Or, you are
> just full of shit. Those are the only options.
Not only can't you do basic math, shit-for-brains, but you can't read either. The article states that the margin of error for THIS poll is 2.5 percent. Your little brain obviously saw the margin of error for ANOTHER poll mentioned in the story and was incapable of seeing the difference.
And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than 2.5. Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, Slappy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > not that good of news Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link.
> You
> > > didn't want people to see that the post was
> > inside
> > > the margin of error making it a virtual toss
> up.
> >
> > > For a state the President won by more than 6
> > > points in 2008, being within the margin of
> > error
> > > must sting a bit.
> >
> > Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the
> margin
> > of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but a
> > lead. Sorry.
> >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-polit
>
> >
> ics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-
>
> > virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
>
> Holy shit. They even listed the margin of error
> right there for you and you think that the poll is
> outside the margin of error?????? Seriously, you
> can't be this stupid. Can you???? I mean nobody
> is this fucking stupid.
>
> Can you just not do VERY basic math, or do you not
> know how the margin of error works? Or, you are
> just full of shit. Those are the only options.
Not only can't you do basic math, shit-for-brains, but you can't read either. The article states that the margin of error for THIS poll is 2.5 percent. Your little brain obviously saw the margin of error for ANOTHER poll mentioned in the story and was incapable of seeing the difference.
And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than 2.5. Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
4 more years, II
()
Date: February 09, 2012 10:01AM
You fucking idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than 2.5.
> Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
He's saying that's the margin of error for EACH percentage - thus 5% total.
That's okay, what REALLY matters is the trend, not the absolutes.
4 more years...bet on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than 2.5.
> Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
He's saying that's the margin of error for EACH percentage - thus 5% total.
That's okay, what REALLY matters is the trend, not the absolutes.
4 more years...bet on it.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Anoka
()
Date: February 09, 2012 10:02AM
not really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hatemotor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he
> just
> > got swept yesterday,,,
> >
> > Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your
> rear
> > view mirror, you have no chance of beating
> > Obama,,,
>
>
> Not really. Minn is a very conservative state now
> its not a big shock. Missouri doesnt even matter
> its a non binding primary and their caucus can
> vote for who ever they want at the convention so
> Santorum isnt assured those delegates.
Minnesota a "conservative" state? Hardly.
Senators:
Franken, Al - (D - MN)
Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN)
Are you telling us "conservatives" elected these two clowns?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hatemotor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Romney has his hands full with Santorum,,,he
> just
> > got swept yesterday,,,
> >
> > Seriously, if you can't put Santorum in your
> rear
> > view mirror, you have no chance of beating
> > Obama,,,
>
>
> Not really. Minn is a very conservative state now
> its not a big shock. Missouri doesnt even matter
> its a non binding primary and their caucus can
> vote for who ever they want at the convention so
> Santorum isnt assured those delegates.
Minnesota a "conservative" state? Hardly.
Senators:
Franken, Al - (D - MN)
Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN)
Are you telling us "conservatives" elected these two clowns?
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Republicans blow
()
Date: February 09, 2012 10:10AM
4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You fucking idiot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than
> 2.5.
> > Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
>
> He's saying that's the margin of error for EACH
> percentage - thus 5% total.
>
> That's okay, what REALLY matters is the trend, not
> the absolutes.
>
> 4 more years...bet on it.
Yep, it's clear that the more people see Romney, hear from Romney, and learn about Romney, the less they like him.
Now we're learning that Romney's job-creation record while governor of Mass -- the better comparison to Obama's job-creation record as prez -- was mediocre at best.
Willard is just a pathetic loser. And he's the best the GOOP has to offer this year!
-------------------------------------------------------
> You fucking idiot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than
> 2.5.
> > Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
>
> He's saying that's the margin of error for EACH
> percentage - thus 5% total.
>
> That's okay, what REALLY matters is the trend, not
> the absolutes.
>
> 4 more years...bet on it.
Yep, it's clear that the more people see Romney, hear from Romney, and learn about Romney, the less they like him.
Now we're learning that Romney's job-creation record while governor of Mass -- the better comparison to Obama's job-creation record as prez -- was mediocre at best.
Willard is just a pathetic loser. And he's the best the GOOP has to offer this year!
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
4 more years, II
()
Date: February 09, 2012 10:11AM
Republicans blow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Willard is just a pathetic loser. And he's the
> best the GOOP has to offer this year!
WAITAMINUTE!
Now it's Santorum!
Forget Romney!
=========
So, ya think Jeb Bush will ultimately get the nod?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Willard is just a pathetic loser. And he's the
> best the GOOP has to offer this year!
WAITAMINUTE!
Now it's Santorum!
Forget Romney!
=========
So, ya think Jeb Bush will ultimately get the nod?
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not that good of news
()
Date: February 09, 2012 10:17AM
You fucking idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not that good of news Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sorry, Slappy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > not that good of news Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link.
> > You
> > > > didn't want people to see that the post was
> > > inside
> > > > the margin of error making it a virtual
> toss
> > up.
> > >
> > > > For a state the President won by more than
> 6
> > > > points in 2008, being within the margin of
> > > error
> > > > must sting a bit.
> > >
> > > Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the
> > margin
> > > of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but a
> > > lead. Sorry.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-polit
>
> >
> > >
> >
> ics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-
>
> >
> > > virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
> >
> > Holy shit. They even listed the margin of
> error
> > right there for you and you think that the poll
> is
> > outside the margin of error?????? Seriously,
> you
> > can't be this stupid. Can you???? I mean
> nobody
> > is this fucking stupid.
> >
> > Can you just not do VERY basic math, or do you
> not
> > know how the margin of error works? Or, you
> are
> > just full of shit. Those are the only options.
>
> Not only can't you do basic math, shit-for-brains,
> but you can't read either. The article states that
> the margin of error for THIS poll is 2.5 percent.
> Your little brain obviously saw the margin of
> error for ANOTHER poll mentioned in the story and
> was incapable of seeing the difference.
>
> And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than 2.5.
> Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
So, in conclusion, you don't know how the margin of error works. Yes, you really are that stupid. Because you are a Democrat, I am not surprised.
What makes this so hilarious is how outraged you are. Not only are you dead wrong, you are stubbornly stupid.
Do you have the balls to report back and admit you are a complete fucking retard? I doubt it, pussy.
Learn how margins of error work and get back to us. OK?
Seeing how pissed you were when you thought you were right leads me to assume you must be livid now that you have been proven wrong (again).
I actually do hope that you come back and explain to us how the +/-2.5% margin of error means that Obama's 4 point lead in the poll is outside the margin. It is sort of funny watching a retard explain his nonsensical ramblings.
-------------------------------------------------------
> not that good of news Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sorry, Slappy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > not that good of news Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link.
> > You
> > > > didn't want people to see that the post was
> > > inside
> > > > the margin of error making it a virtual
> toss
> > up.
> > >
> > > > For a state the President won by more than
> 6
> > > > points in 2008, being within the margin of
> > > error
> > > > must sting a bit.
> > >
> > > Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the
> > margin
> > > of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but a
> > > lead. Sorry.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-polit
>
> >
> > >
> >
> ics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-
>
> >
> > > virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
> >
> > Holy shit. They even listed the margin of
> error
> > right there for you and you think that the poll
> is
> > outside the margin of error?????? Seriously,
> you
> > can't be this stupid. Can you???? I mean
> nobody
> > is this fucking stupid.
> >
> > Can you just not do VERY basic math, or do you
> not
> > know how the margin of error works? Or, you
> are
> > just full of shit. Those are the only options.
>
> Not only can't you do basic math, shit-for-brains,
> but you can't read either. The article states that
> the margin of error for THIS poll is 2.5 percent.
> Your little brain obviously saw the margin of
> error for ANOTHER poll mentioned in the story and
> was incapable of seeing the difference.
>
> And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than 2.5.
> Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
So, in conclusion, you don't know how the margin of error works. Yes, you really are that stupid. Because you are a Democrat, I am not surprised.
What makes this so hilarious is how outraged you are. Not only are you dead wrong, you are stubbornly stupid.
Do you have the balls to report back and admit you are a complete fucking retard? I doubt it, pussy.
Learn how margins of error work and get back to us. OK?
Seeing how pissed you were when you thought you were right leads me to assume you must be livid now that you have been proven wrong (again).
I actually do hope that you come back and explain to us how the +/-2.5% margin of error means that Obama's 4 point lead in the poll is outside the margin. It is sort of funny watching a retard explain his nonsensical ramblings.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
LOL shit-for-brains just can't help himself
()
Date: February 09, 2012 10:54AM
not that good of news Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You fucking idiot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > not that good of news Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sorry, Slappy Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > not that good of news Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link.
>
> > > You
> > > > > didn't want people to see that the post
> was
> > > > inside
> > > > > the margin of error making it a virtual
> > toss
> > > up.
> > > >
> > > > > For a state the President won by more
> than
> > 6
> > > > > points in 2008, being within the margin
> of
> > > > error
> > > > > must sting a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the
> > > margin
> > > > of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but
> a
> > > > lead. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-polit
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
> > >
> > > Holy shit. They even listed the margin of
> > error
> > > right there for you and you think that the
> poll
> > is
> > > outside the margin of error?????? Seriously,
> > you
> > > can't be this stupid. Can you???? I mean
> > nobody
> > > is this fucking stupid.
> > >
> > > Can you just not do VERY basic math, or do
> you
> > not
> > > know how the margin of error works? Or, you
> > are
> > > just full of shit. Those are the only
> options.
> >
> > Not only can't you do basic math,
> shit-for-brains,
> > but you can't read either. The article states
> that
> > the margin of error for THIS poll is 2.5
> percent.
> > Your little brain obviously saw the margin of
> > error for ANOTHER poll mentioned in the story
> and
> > was incapable of seeing the difference.
> >
> > And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than
> 2.5.
> > Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
>
>
> So, in conclusion, you don't know how the margin
> of error works. Yes, you really are that stupid.
> Because you are a Democrat, I am not surprised.
>
> What makes this so hilarious is how outraged you
> are. Not only are you dead wrong, you are
> stubbornly stupid.
>
> Do you have the balls to report back and admit you
> are a complete fucking retard? I doubt it,
> pussy.
>
> Learn how margins of error work and get back to
> us. OK?
>
> Seeing how pissed you were when you thought you
> were right leads me to assume you must be livid
> now that you have been proven wrong (again).
>
> I actually do hope that you come back and explain
> to us how the +/-2.5% margin of error means that
> Obama's 4 point lead in the poll is outside the
> margin. It is sort of funny watching a retard
> explain his nonsensical ramblings.
Right, which is why we enjoy your posts, drooler.
Keep up the good work, inbred! Perhaps you can have your next-of-kin send us a video of you slitting your wrists after Obama carries Virginia and cruises to reelection.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You fucking idiot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > not that good of news Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sorry, Slappy Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > not that good of news Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Ouch. No wonder you didn't post the link.
>
> > > You
> > > > > didn't want people to see that the post
> was
> > > > inside
> > > > > the margin of error making it a virtual
> > toss
> > > up.
> > > >
> > > > > For a state the President won by more
> than
> > 6
> > > > > points in 2008, being within the margin
> of
> > > > error
> > > > > must sting a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Nice try, but Obama's lead is outside the
> > > margin
> > > > of error of this poll. Not a huge lead, but
> a
> > > > lead. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-polit
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ics/post/obama-has-slight-edge-over-romney-in-new-
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> virginia-poll/2012/02/07/gIQALdSbyQ_blog.html
> > >
> > > Holy shit. They even listed the margin of
> > error
> > > right there for you and you think that the
> poll
> > is
> > > outside the margin of error?????? Seriously,
> > you
> > > can't be this stupid. Can you???? I mean
> > nobody
> > > is this fucking stupid.
> > >
> > > Can you just not do VERY basic math, or do
> you
> > not
> > > know how the margin of error works? Or, you
> > are
> > > just full of shit. Those are the only
> options.
> >
> > Not only can't you do basic math,
> shit-for-brains,
> > but you can't read either. The article states
> that
> > the margin of error for THIS poll is 2.5
> percent.
> > Your little brain obviously saw the margin of
> > error for ANOTHER poll mentioned in the story
> and
> > was incapable of seeing the difference.
> >
> > And yes, douchebag. 4 points is GREATER than
> 2.5.
> > Basic math. Kindly eat shit.
>
>
> So, in conclusion, you don't know how the margin
> of error works. Yes, you really are that stupid.
> Because you are a Democrat, I am not surprised.
>
> What makes this so hilarious is how outraged you
> are. Not only are you dead wrong, you are
> stubbornly stupid.
>
> Do you have the balls to report back and admit you
> are a complete fucking retard? I doubt it,
> pussy.
>
> Learn how margins of error work and get back to
> us. OK?
>
> Seeing how pissed you were when you thought you
> were right leads me to assume you must be livid
> now that you have been proven wrong (again).
>
> I actually do hope that you come back and explain
> to us how the +/-2.5% margin of error means that
> Obama's 4 point lead in the poll is outside the
> margin. It is sort of funny watching a retard
> explain his nonsensical ramblings.
Right, which is why we enjoy your posts, drooler.
Keep up the good work, inbred! Perhaps you can have your next-of-kin send us a video of you slitting your wrists after Obama carries Virginia and cruises to reelection.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Hey little Republotard
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:05AM
This is for the benefit of anyone who wants another reason to laugh at the little Republotard.
Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this poll. The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That means that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5 percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even if his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5 percent, he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is what "outside the margin of error" means.
Thanks for giving me another reason to point out what a moron you are!
Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this poll. The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That means that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5 percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even if his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5 percent, he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is what "outside the margin of error" means.
Thanks for giving me another reason to point out what a moron you are!
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
DONTLETVAGOBLUE
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:11AM
4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Though he may be "peaking early" (*), Obama is now
> favored over Romney in Virginia per Yet Another
> Nonpartisan Poll. This should also help Kaine.
>
> -----------
>
> (*) Also not surprisingly, I do not think Obama is
> "peaking" at all; he's on his way up with a long
> way up to go before he peaks. We'll see if THAT
> happens early (meaning he'll decline again).
NO NO NO NO NO ! how can Virginia be turning into a communist state? What happened?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Though he may be "peaking early" (*), Obama is now
> favored over Romney in Virginia per Yet Another
> Nonpartisan Poll. This should also help Kaine.
>
> -----------
>
> (*) Also not surprisingly, I do not think Obama is
> "peaking" at all; he's on his way up with a long
> way up to go before he peaks. We'll see if THAT
> happens early (meaning he'll decline again).
NO NO NO NO NO ! how can Virginia be turning into a communist state? What happened?
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
4 more years, II
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:14AM
Hey little Republotard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this poll.
> The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That means
> that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even if
> his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5 percent,
> he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is what
> "outside the margin of error" means.
Perhaps not.
However, as with all such "margins", the margins are NOT absolute numbers but instead probabilities with "curves" associated with them, making the outlier values MUCH less likely. So if Obama is leading by 4% with a margin of error of 2.5% then one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and Romney at 2.5% higher but that would VERY unlikely.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this poll.
> The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That means
> that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even if
> his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5 percent,
> he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is what
> "outside the margin of error" means.
Perhaps not.
However, as with all such "margins", the margins are NOT absolute numbers but instead probabilities with "curves" associated with them, making the outlier values MUCH less likely. So if Obama is leading by 4% with a margin of error of 2.5% then one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and Romney at 2.5% higher but that would VERY unlikely.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
You've just comforted the Republotard
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:25AM
4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey little Republotard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this
> poll.
> > The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That
> means
> > that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> > percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even if
> > his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5
> percent,
> > he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is
> what
> > "outside the margin of error" means.
>
> Perhaps not.
>
> However, as with all such "margins", the margins
> are NOT absolute numbers but instead probabilities
> with "curves" associated with them, making the
> outlier values MUCH less likely. So if Obama is
> leading by 4% with a margin of error of 2.5% then
> one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and Romney
> at 2.5% higher but that would VERY unlikely.
Hey, if there's a 0.0001 percent chance of Romney actually being ahead, maybe that will help the Republotard sleep better at night.
Of course, as you pointed out in an earlier post, the trend clearly favors Obama, which is the most important thing, not the snapshot from the day this poll was taken.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey little Republotard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this
> poll.
> > The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That
> means
> > that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> > percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even if
> > his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5
> percent,
> > he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is
> what
> > "outside the margin of error" means.
>
> Perhaps not.
>
> However, as with all such "margins", the margins
> are NOT absolute numbers but instead probabilities
> with "curves" associated with them, making the
> outlier values MUCH less likely. So if Obama is
> leading by 4% with a margin of error of 2.5% then
> one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and Romney
> at 2.5% higher but that would VERY unlikely.
Hey, if there's a 0.0001 percent chance of Romney actually being ahead, maybe that will help the Republotard sleep better at night.
Of course, as you pointed out in an earlier post, the trend clearly favors Obama, which is the most important thing, not the snapshot from the day this poll was taken.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not that good of news
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:26AM
Hey little Republotard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is for the benefit of anyone who wants
> another reason to laugh at the little
> Republotard.
>
> Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this poll.
> The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That means
> that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even if
> his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5 percent,
> he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is what
> "outside the margin of error" means.
>
> Thanks for giving me another reason to point out
> what a moron you are!
You need a course in basic statistics. I feel pity towards you due to your stupidity.
With a margin of error of +/-2.5%, if Romney is at 43 in the poll, it means that his number could be as low as 40.5 and as high as 45.5. Obama is at 47 which means he could be as low as 44.5 and as high as 49.5. Because 45.5 is greater than 44.5, it means that the results are WITHIN the margin of error. That is how EVERY poll works.
Once again, thank you for proving your stupidity.
Do you want to come back and prove to us once again that your math skills are seriously lacking?
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is for the benefit of anyone who wants
> another reason to laugh at the little
> Republotard.
>
> Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this poll.
> The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That means
> that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even if
> his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5 percent,
> he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is what
> "outside the margin of error" means.
>
> Thanks for giving me another reason to point out
> what a moron you are!
You need a course in basic statistics. I feel pity towards you due to your stupidity.
With a margin of error of +/-2.5%, if Romney is at 43 in the poll, it means that his number could be as low as 40.5 and as high as 45.5. Obama is at 47 which means he could be as low as 44.5 and as high as 49.5. Because 45.5 is greater than 44.5, it means that the results are WITHIN the margin of error. That is how EVERY poll works.
Once again, thank you for proving your stupidity.
Do you want to come back and prove to us once again that your math skills are seriously lacking?
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not that good of news
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:27AM
You've just comforted the Republotard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 more years, II Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey little Republotard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this
> > poll.
> > > The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That
> > means
> > > that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> > > percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even
> if
> > > his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5
> > percent,
> > > he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is
> > what
> > > "outside the margin of error" means.
> >
> > Perhaps not.
> >
> > However, as with all such "margins", the
> margins
> > are NOT absolute numbers but instead
> probabilities
> > with "curves" associated with them, making the
> > outlier values MUCH less likely. So if Obama is
> > leading by 4% with a margin of error of 2.5%
> then
> > one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and
> Romney
> > at 2.5% higher but that would VERY unlikely.
>
> Hey, if there's a 0.0001 percent chance of Romney
> actually being ahead, maybe that will help the
> Republotard sleep better at night.
>
> Of course, as you pointed out in an earlier post,
> the trend clearly favors Obama, which is the most
> important thing, not the snapshot from the day
> this poll was taken.
Hey look, the retard is backpedalling after getting lesson in basic statistics. If you are a typical Obama supporter, it is a shame he has to rely on the retard vote!
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 more years, II Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey little Republotard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this
> > poll.
> > > The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That
> > means
> > > that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> > > percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So, even
> if
> > > his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5
> > percent,
> > > he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is
> > what
> > > "outside the margin of error" means.
> >
> > Perhaps not.
> >
> > However, as with all such "margins", the
> margins
> > are NOT absolute numbers but instead
> probabilities
> > with "curves" associated with them, making the
> > outlier values MUCH less likely. So if Obama is
> > leading by 4% with a margin of error of 2.5%
> then
> > one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and
> Romney
> > at 2.5% higher but that would VERY unlikely.
>
> Hey, if there's a 0.0001 percent chance of Romney
> actually being ahead, maybe that will help the
> Republotard sleep better at night.
>
> Of course, as you pointed out in an earlier post,
> the trend clearly favors Obama, which is the most
> important thing, not the snapshot from the day
> this poll was taken.
Hey look, the retard is backpedalling after getting lesson in basic statistics. If you are a typical Obama supporter, it is a shame he has to rely on the retard vote!
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
If you think I'm backpedaling, then I retract that post
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:32AM
not that good of news Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've just comforted the Republotard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4 more years, II Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hey little Republotard Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this
> > > poll.
> > > > The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That
> > > means
> > > > that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> > > > percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So,
> even
> > if
> > > > his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5
> > > percent,
> > > > he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is
> > > what
> > > > "outside the margin of error" means.
> > >
> > > Perhaps not.
> > >
> > > However, as with all such "margins", the
> > margins
> > > are NOT absolute numbers but instead
> > probabilities
> > > with "curves" associated with them, making
> the
> > > outlier values MUCH less likely. So if Obama
> is
> > > leading by 4% with a margin of error of 2.5%
> > then
> > > one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and
> > Romney
> > > at 2.5% higher but that would VERY unlikely.
> >
> > Hey, if there's a 0.0001 percent chance of
> Romney
> > actually being ahead, maybe that will help the
> > Republotard sleep better at night.
> >
> > Of course, as you pointed out in an earlier
> post,
> > the trend clearly favors Obama, which is the
> most
> > important thing, not the snapshot from the day
> > this poll was taken.
>
>
> Hey look, the retard is backpedalling after
> getting lesson in basic statistics. If you are a
> typical Obama supporter, it is a shame he has to
> rely on the retard vote!
I certainly wouldn't want to give this drooling Republotard any more comfort. Now run along, Republotard.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've just comforted the Republotard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4 more years, II Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hey little Republotard Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Obama's lead is 4 percent according to this
> > > poll.
> > > > The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. That
> > > means
> > > > that Obama's lead could be as little as 1.5
> > > > percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So,
> even
> > if
> > > > his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5
> > > percent,
> > > > he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That is
> > > what
> > > > "outside the margin of error" means.
> > >
> > > Perhaps not.
> > >
> > > However, as with all such "margins", the
> > margins
> > > are NOT absolute numbers but instead
> > probabilities
> > > with "curves" associated with them, making
> the
> > > outlier values MUCH less likely. So if Obama
> is
> > > leading by 4% with a margin of error of 2.5%
> > then
> > > one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and
> > Romney
> > > at 2.5% higher but that would VERY unlikely.
> >
> > Hey, if there's a 0.0001 percent chance of
> Romney
> > actually being ahead, maybe that will help the
> > Republotard sleep better at night.
> >
> > Of course, as you pointed out in an earlier
> post,
> > the trend clearly favors Obama, which is the
> most
> > important thing, not the snapshot from the day
> > this poll was taken.
>
>
> Hey look, the retard is backpedalling after
> getting lesson in basic statistics. If you are a
> typical Obama supporter, it is a shame he has to
> rely on the retard vote!
I certainly wouldn't want to give this drooling Republotard any more comfort. Now run along, Republotard.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not that good of news
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:40AM
If you think I'm backpedaling, then I retract that post Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not that good of news Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You've just comforted the Republotard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 4 more years, II Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hey little Republotard Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Obama's lead is 4 percent according to
> this
> > > > poll.
> > > > > The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent.
> That
> > > > means
> > > > > that Obama's lead could be as little as
> 1.5
> > > > > percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So,
> > even
> > > if
> > > > > his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5
> > > > percent,
> > > > > he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That
> is
> > > > what
> > > > > "outside the margin of error" means.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps not.
> > > >
> > > > However, as with all such "margins", the
> > > margins
> > > > are NOT absolute numbers but instead
> > > probabilities
> > > > with "curves" associated with them, making
> > the
> > > > outlier values MUCH less likely. So if
> Obama
> > is
> > > > leading by 4% with a margin of error of
> 2.5%
> > > then
> > > > one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and
> > > Romney
> > > > at 2.5% higher but that would VERY
> unlikely.
> > >
> > > Hey, if there's a 0.0001 percent chance of
> > Romney
> > > actually being ahead, maybe that will help
> the
> > > Republotard sleep better at night.
> > >
> > > Of course, as you pointed out in an earlier
> > post,
> > > the trend clearly favors Obama, which is the
> > most
> > > important thing, not the snapshot from the
> day
> > > this poll was taken.
> >
> >
> > Hey look, the retard is backpedalling after
> > getting lesson in basic statistics. If you are
> a
> > typical Obama supporter, it is a shame he has
> to
> > rely on the retard vote!
>
> I certainly wouldn't want to give this drooling
> Republotard any more comfort. Now run along,
> Republotard.
Retract it all you want. If you are doing that, then you are confirming your lack of basic math skills. I wouldn't expect anything less from a moron like you. I am happy to see you are embracing your mental deficiencies!
-------------------------------------------------------
> not that good of news Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You've just comforted the Republotard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 4 more years, II Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hey little Republotard Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Obama's lead is 4 percent according to
> this
> > > > poll.
> > > > > The margin of error is +/-2.5 percent.
> That
> > > > means
> > > > > that Obama's lead could be as little as
> 1.5
> > > > > percent, or as much as 6.5 percent. So,
> > even
> > > if
> > > > > his lead is overstated by the maximum 2.5
> > > > percent,
> > > > > he is still leading by 1.5 percent. That
> is
> > > > what
> > > > > "outside the margin of error" means.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps not.
> > > >
> > > > However, as with all such "margins", the
> > > margins
> > > > are NOT absolute numbers but instead
> > > probabilities
> > > > with "curves" associated with them, making
> > the
> > > > outlier values MUCH less likely. So if
> Obama
> > is
> > > > leading by 4% with a margin of error of
> 2.5%
> > > then
> > > > one COULD think of Obama at 2.5% less and
> > > Romney
> > > > at 2.5% higher but that would VERY
> unlikely.
> > >
> > > Hey, if there's a 0.0001 percent chance of
> > Romney
> > > actually being ahead, maybe that will help
> the
> > > Republotard sleep better at night.
> > >
> > > Of course, as you pointed out in an earlier
> > post,
> > > the trend clearly favors Obama, which is the
> > most
> > > important thing, not the snapshot from the
> day
> > > this poll was taken.
> >
> >
> > Hey look, the retard is backpedalling after
> > getting lesson in basic statistics. If you are
> a
> > typical Obama supporter, it is a shame he has
> to
> > rely on the retard vote!
>
> I certainly wouldn't want to give this drooling
> Republotard any more comfort. Now run along,
> Republotard.
Retract it all you want. If you are doing that, then you are confirming your lack of basic math skills. I wouldn't expect anything less from a moron like you. I am happy to see you are embracing your mental deficiencies!
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Glad you're happy, Republotard
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:47AM
Given that the same pollsters in December had Romney 44-Obama 42, it's nice that you can find some good news in Obama 47-Romney 43.
But I guess when your Republotard world is collapsing around your ears -- unemployment down, stock markets up, etc -- you grasp onto anything.
Poor little Republotard.
But I guess when your Republotard world is collapsing around your ears -- unemployment down, stock markets up, etc -- you grasp onto anything.
Poor little Republotard.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not that good of news
()
Date: February 09, 2012 11:55AM
Glad you're happy, Republotard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given that the same pollsters in December had
> Romney 44-Obama 42, it's nice that you can find
> some good news in Obama 47-Romney 43.
>
> But I guess when your Republotard world is
> collapsing around your ears -- unemployment down,
> stock markets up, etc -- you grasp onto anything.
>
> Poor little Republotard.
LOL. The moron who lacks 4th grade math skills uses the term tard. You just don't know how stupid you are!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given that the same pollsters in December had
> Romney 44-Obama 42, it's nice that you can find
> some good news in Obama 47-Romney 43.
>
> But I guess when your Republotard world is
> collapsing around your ears -- unemployment down,
> stock markets up, etc -- you grasp onto anything.
>
> Poor little Republotard.
LOL. The moron who lacks 4th grade math skills uses the term tard. You just don't know how stupid you are!
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
Mr. Gallup
()
Date: February 09, 2012 12:13PM
Simply put, this chart shows the bar Obama has to clear in November. If he does he's re-elected. If not it won't matter who's running against him he will lose.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
4 more years, II
()
Date: February 09, 2012 12:18PM
> ...If not it won't matter who's running against him he will lose...
Lol!
Uh...no.
Lol!
Uh...no.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
But I do know...
()
Date: February 09, 2012 12:49PM
not that good of news Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glad you're happy, Republotard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Given that the same pollsters in December had
> > Romney 44-Obama 42, it's nice that you can find
> > some good news in Obama 47-Romney 43.
> >
> > But I guess when your Republotard world is
> > collapsing around your ears -- unemployment
> down,
> > stock markets up, etc -- you grasp onto
> anything.
> >
> > Poor little Republotard.
>
>
> LOL. The moron who lacks 4th grade math skills
> uses the term tard. You just don't know how
> stupid you are!
..how stupid you are! Thanks for the display, shit-for-brains.
Four more years, indeed! Suck on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glad you're happy, Republotard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Given that the same pollsters in December had
> > Romney 44-Obama 42, it's nice that you can find
> > some good news in Obama 47-Romney 43.
> >
> > But I guess when your Republotard world is
> > collapsing around your ears -- unemployment
> down,
> > stock markets up, etc -- you grasp onto
> anything.
> >
> > Poor little Republotard.
>
>
> LOL. The moron who lacks 4th grade math skills
> uses the term tard. You just don't know how
> stupid you are!
..how stupid you are! Thanks for the display, shit-for-brains.
Four more years, indeed! Suck on it.
Re: Not surprisingly, Obama leads Romney in Virginia
Posted by:
not that good of news
()
Date: February 09, 2012 12:53PM
But I do know... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not that good of news Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Glad you're happy, Republotard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Given that the same pollsters in December had
> > > Romney 44-Obama 42, it's nice that you can
> find
> > > some good news in Obama 47-Romney 43.
> > >
> > > But I guess when your Republotard world is
> > > collapsing around your ears -- unemployment
> > down,
> > > stock markets up, etc -- you grasp onto
> > anything.
> > >
> > > Poor little Republotard.
> >
> >
> > LOL. The moron who lacks 4th grade math skills
> > uses the term tard. You just don't know how
> > stupid you are!
>
> ..how stupid you are! Thanks for the display,
> shit-for-brains.
>
> Four more years, indeed! Suck on it.
Great comeback! It is right up there with your understanding of math and statistics!
Whether or not Obama wins in Nov., you got OWNED hard here. If he wins, I am sure you will be pleased, but being as stupid as you are is a tough row to hoe in life. No matter who is in the White House, you will always be stupid and I will always be successful. Sucks to be you.
I doubt you can sit down now after being so butt hurt.
-------------------------------------------------------
> not that good of news Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Glad you're happy, Republotard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Given that the same pollsters in December had
> > > Romney 44-Obama 42, it's nice that you can
> find
> > > some good news in Obama 47-Romney 43.
> > >
> > > But I guess when your Republotard world is
> > > collapsing around your ears -- unemployment
> > down,
> > > stock markets up, etc -- you grasp onto
> > anything.
> > >
> > > Poor little Republotard.
> >
> >
> > LOL. The moron who lacks 4th grade math skills
> > uses the term tard. You just don't know how
> > stupid you are!
>
> ..how stupid you are! Thanks for the display,
> shit-for-brains.
>
> Four more years, indeed! Suck on it.
Great comeback! It is right up there with your understanding of math and statistics!
Whether or not Obama wins in Nov., you got OWNED hard here. If he wins, I am sure you will be pleased, but being as stupid as you are is a tough row to hoe in life. No matter who is in the White House, you will always be stupid and I will always be successful. Sucks to be you.
I doubt you can sit down now after being so butt hurt.