Romney was Better than Obama

[Symmetry]

I already provided other possibilities which you overlooked and continue to ignore (which constitutes as faulty intelligence or trolling).

Furthermore, there's no need to get Dramatic when someone points out that you're burying your intellect in conspiracy theories. Instead, you should be embarrassed.

It is evident that you're in no capacity or are unwilling to rationally address the many problems of your shifting positions; therefore, thanks for trying. Better luck next time with the trolling conspiracy theories, Sym.

Seems a bit harsh there, BBS. Indeed, your whole post seems to be a screed against me. You forgot to even talk about my points, and those provided by TGD and Saxi.

Hmm 2012:

Reason's editorial staff have released who they will be voting for on Tuesday -

Gary Johnson - 17
Refuse to Vote - 9
Won't Disclose - 1
Mitt Romney - 0
Barack Obama - 0
Jill Stein - 0
Virgil Goode - 0
Rocky Anderson - 0

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/24/w ... singlepage

And Saxi's post on 2008:

2008 Reason staff votes (http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/w ... -your-vote):

Obama (Democrat): 12
Barr (Libertarian) 11
Refuse to Vote: 6
McCain (Republican): 4
Did Not Disclose: 3
Nader (unaffiliated): 1
McKinney (Green): 0
Baldwin (Constitution): 0

Nothing seems off about the post 2008 change? Did all the Dem voters and Republicans get fired? What happened to the Nader guy? They all shifted to the Libertarian Party the new editor wrote a book about?

Please.

In other words,

"A conspiracy! These people cannot change their minds. Obviously, there is no other possibility other than the fact that the new editor either eliminated the non-LP'ers or forced the staff to either vote LP or not vote at all!

In no way were the 2008 Obama-voters at all dismayed about Obama's past 4 years. There's no way they could've concluded that Obama sucks; therefore, they would not vote for him again. No way! <dons tinfoil hat> And the Libertarian Party with their $3 million is funding such places to make their workers vote LP or not at all"


You can stop digging your intellectual grave, Sym. 20 feet should be more than enough.

Stay classy dude, you don't need to be discussing my grave in any theoretical or intellectual capacity.

I simply give you the stats given to me, by TGD and Saxi. It looks odd, that difference, no? I understand what you're saying, but all the Obama folk, all the McCain folk, and the Nader weirdo, they all flipped to the Libertarians? Or told their editor they weren't gonna vote?

You'd think that if was just a problem they had with the Obama presidency those Repubs would still be voting Republican.

I'll just park that here.

[thegreekdog]

Why does it look odd? There needs to be some more analysis here between "People voted differently in 2012 than in 2008" (which is what the data shows) and your attempt at trolling - "The editor is making people vote a certain way or admit to voting a certain way in 2012."

[Symmetry]

Why does it look odd? There needs to be some more analysis here between "People voted differently in 2012 than in 2008" (which is what the data shows) and your attempt at trolling - "The editor is making people vote a certain way or admit to voting a certain way in 2012."

They hadn't voted- the polls were about what the magazine said its staff intended. You even posted one of those polls. How they actually vote is something neither you nor I can say. What we can say is that the figures for the magazine post 2008 (kudos to Saxi for digging that up) are very different from the figures you posted.

[thegreekdog]

Why does it look odd? There needs to be some more analysis here between "People voted differently in 2012 than in 2008" (which is what the data shows) and your attempt at trolling - "The editor is making people vote a certain way or admit to voting a certain way in 2012."

They hadn't voted- the polls were about what the magazine said its staff intended. You even posted one of those polls. How they actually vote is something neither you nor I can say. What we can say is that the figures for the magazine post 2008 (kudos to Saxi for digging that up) are very different from the figures you posted.

Okay.

[saxitoxin]

So anyway, now that we've got Symmetry's UFO and Bigfoot sightings out of the way, I like this street art -

[thegreekdog]

So anyway, now that we've got Symmetry's UFO and Bigfoot sightings out of the way, I like this street art -

I can only assume the editor of Reason magazine intimidated you into posting that.

[Symmetry]

So anyway, now that we've got Symmetry's UFO and Bigfoot sightings out of the way, I like this street art -

I can only assume the editor of Reason magazine intimidated you into posting that.

While you're both being kind of dickish about discussing stuff you both posted for discussion, it's still the spelling mistake that I find annoying in that picture.

[saxitoxin]

So anyway, now that we've got Symmetry's UFO and Bigfoot sightings out of the way, I like this street art -

I can only assume the editor of Reason magazine intimidated you into posting that.

While you're both being kind of dickish about discussing stuff you both posted for discussion, it's still the spelling mistake that I find annoying in that picture.

I acknowledge you just made a post.

[Symmetry]

So anyway, now that we've got Symmetry's UFO and Bigfoot sightings out of the way, I like this street art -

I can only assume the editor of Reason magazine intimidated you into posting that.

While you're both being kind of dickish about discussing stuff you both posted for discussion, it's still the spelling mistake that I find annoying in that picture.

I acknowledge you just made a post.

Thank you for making a decent try at civility. I think we need to get TGD in on this.

[thegreekdog]

I thought I was perfectly civil with my "Okay." While I disagree with your analysis, there is no value in responding because you are convinced that you are correct and will not be budged or you are trolling.

In fact, if civility is defined as a response or acknowledgement of a post, then I was more civil than Saxi because I actually responded.

[Symmetry]

I thought I was perfectly civil with my "Okay." While I disagree with your analysis, there is no value in responding because you are convinced that you are correct and will not be budged or you are trolling.

In fact, if civility is defined as a response or acknowledgement of a post, then I was more civil than Saxi because I actually responded.

By accusing me of trolling repeatedly. If you didn't want to discuss the stuff you posted, what were your intentions in posting them? Were you convinced that you were correct and couldn't be budged?

[thegreekdog]

I thought I was perfectly civil with my "Okay." While I disagree with your analysis, there is no value in responding because you are convinced that you are correct and will not be budged or you are trolling.

In fact, if civility is defined as a response or acknowledgement of a post, then I was more civil than Saxi because I actually responded.

By accusing me of trolling repeatedly. If you didn't want to discuss the stuff you posted, what were your intentions in posting them? Were you convinced that you were correct and couldn't be budged?

Based on your recent posting history, I can only make two assumptions. Either you are a moron or you are a troll. I think it's more civil for me to accuse you of trolling me repeatedly, which implies some intelligence, than to accuse you of being a moron, which explicitly states a lack of intelligence. Saxi is accusing you of being a moron; I'm accusing you of being a troll.

[saxitoxin]

I thought I was perfectly civil with my "Okay." While I disagree with your analysis, there is no value in responding because you are convinced that you are correct and will not be budged or you are trolling.

In fact, if civility is defined as a response or acknowledgement of a post, then I was more civil than Saxi because I actually responded.

By accusing me of trolling repeatedly. If you didn't want to discuss the stuff you posted, what were your intentions in posting them? Were you convinced that you were correct and couldn't be budged?

I assume there was an implication of desire for a rational exchange of ideas, not the monopolization of the exchange with a conspiracy theory. When the Port Authority has a public forum, they are interested to hear a variety of views on agenda issues. That doesn't mean they want this guy showing up to spend an hour talking about how he's the reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe -

[Symmetry]

I thought I was perfectly civil with my "Okay." While I disagree with your analysis, there is no value in responding because you are convinced that you are correct and will not be budged or you are trolling.

In fact, if civility is defined as a response or acknowledgement of a post, then I was more civil than Saxi because I actually responded.

By accusing me of trolling repeatedly. If you didn't want to discuss the stuff you posted, what were your intentions in posting them? Were you convinced that you were correct and couldn't be budged?

Based on your recent posting history, I can only make two assumptions. Either you are a moron or you are a troll. I think it's more civil for me to accuse you of trolling me repeatedly, which implies some intelligence, than to accuse you of being a moron, which explicitly states a lack of intelligence. Saxi is accusing you of being a moron; I'm accusing you of being a troll.

This does seem to be your default response to criticism of late. Did you expect nobody to raise a question about the odd data? Or did you think it was some kind of period point on the discussion?

[thegreekdog]

I thought I was perfectly civil with my "Okay." While I disagree with your analysis, there is no value in responding because you are convinced that you are correct and will not be budged or you are trolling.

In fact, if civility is defined as a response or acknowledgement of a post, then I was more civil than Saxi because I actually responded.

By accusing me of trolling repeatedly. If you didn't want to discuss the stuff you posted, what were your intentions in posting them? Were you convinced that you were correct and couldn't be budged?

Based on your recent posting history, I can only make two assumptions. Either you are a moron or you are a troll. I think it's more civil for me to accuse you of trolling me repeatedly, which implies some intelligence, than to accuse you of being a moron, which explicitly states a lack of intelligence. Saxi is accusing you of being a moron; I'm accusing you of being a troll.

This does seem to be your default response to criticism of late. Did you expect nobody to raise a question about the odd data? Or did you think it was some kind of period point on the discussion?

Period point on the discussion because it is not odd data. The only person that thinks it's odd is you.