so I was listening to the latest libral drivel on msnbc, when I heard them mention a new statistic that the president has a 34% approval rating, and how his credability was at an "all time low." what they didn't mention was that vice-president cheaney has a 18% approval rating, and last time I went to math class, 34%+18%=52%, meaning that if the election were held today, president Bush would win with a bigger mandate then he did in 2004. or do the pc-police not like math either?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 0:32
Oh wow, hahaha.
You're such an idiot thinking that the PRESIDENT's all-time low is president+VP ratings.
If you wanna play the fagdick adding game then let's add the ratings of past presidents with their VPs. Hey! Bush's still has the all-time low.
>>2 >>3
Fail for being humorless assholes with no life who can't see a joke coming from three inches in front of their faces and probably suck a ton of dick.
Name:
James St James2006-03-02 10:06
if you add the VP's 18% you also have to add the toatal possabilty which is 100%. SO it is correct Bush would have a toatl of 52% but that is out of 200%! So that means he actually has a aprobal rating of about 26%, Which is lower than the "liberal lies"
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 10:34 (sage)
Republicans like Bush and Cheney are promoted by schoolyard bully culture. That's why assholes like >>6 and >>1 are so supportive of them. Now that most of the country think they suck, they say things like "librals need better lies" and "fail for being humorless assholes." Classic bully mentality. LOL. I can laugh just fine, at you, which is the true joke.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 11:25
Suppose that we take these numbers and pit them against Democrat Candidate X. By your logic, DCX would probably have close to the 66% approval rating to counter Bush's 34%. Factoring in his running mate's whopping 82% approval rating, you have a candidate who will wind up recieving 148% of this country's votes. So not only will we have our first unanymously elected president since George Washington, but we'll actually have to start cloning massive numbers of people so that we'll be able to keep up with the projected numbers. GO BLUE!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 17:30
Wait, I just had a brilliant idea!
If you want to win an election, all you need to have are a large number of vice-whatevers! If you have enough of them, eventually you'll approach 100%!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 17:57
Just have a Vice Vice President, a Vice Vice Vice president, and so on until you have over 100 Vice presidents in a nevernding heirarchy. That way, even if they're positively horrid, you're guaranteed a win.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 18:11
>>10
Peopel are selfish and can be fooled, so you won't get 100% votes unless the vote thingy says something like
Tick one of the following and put in ballot box or watch your family burned alive in the streets then get thrown into a concentration camp.
[]Vote Hitler lol
[]Watch your family burned alive in the streets then get thrown into a concentration camp.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 18:39
Hay guys, i have great idea. how about we add all the IQs of the ppl in the white house, we get UBER IQ! so smrt!
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
Liberals are full of ADIS
I'd rather be risking my life in a woman's arms than every time I wander out into some shit-hot desert dump.
getting back clawed > covered in some raghead's guts
Name:
libral2006-03-09 1:16
I am the king of this board and everyone else is dumb.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 1:20
The original poster can't really be dumb enough to think that statistics work that way right? It's just some of that ol' 4chan friendly BSing right?
Name:
Goremanlololol!/ADGbxcP1Q2006-03-10 17:44
>>24
if your going to decide that every person who disagrees with you is a liar maybe you should just go live in a cave and lie about the world. instead of a logical argument all the librals on this board do is make up hypothetical questions that you ansewr YOURSELF? I've never seen any questions like that before
if you can't disprov me then you should GTFO
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-10 22:09 (sage)
>>25 is a troll. Not bad, actually; almost convincing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-12 2:25
I'm just surprised so many posters thought it wasn't a troll. I mean, come on, just click on the "rest of the thread" thingy. And the MSNBC comment.. that gave it away right there. That was the HINT, folks!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-12 6:52
>>26 >>27
Liberals trying to avoid the issue by trolling, again.
Name:
Anon2006-03-12 14:56
What's the issue here exactly? Try to demonize another political part because someone got a statistic wrong? And somehow that make an entire political party incredible? You need to get your priorities straight, sir. How about how certain republicans call out the ever so popular trump card "liberal hate speech" and then what the opposition says turns out later to be true? There is no point to this thread. Just look how menial the first post is. Noone cares; it holds little relevance. Let's talk about something more important, and stop mudslinging shall we?
>>13
Yeah, theoretically, but you have to remember who you're talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-20 18:38
>>1
Tell me, is utter stupidity your excuse for why you haven't joined the Army by now to fight in Iraq?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-20 18:54
I believe that who you voted for in the 2004 elections should go on your permanent record, so employers can reference it when they evaluate potential employees. I know that you're not supposed to discriminate based on political views when hiring, but who you voted for in this case is truly an indication of one's general intelligence.
It'll obviously be up to the employers to decide which one of the options indicates at least some form of human-like intelligence, but I'll leave that up to you to decide which one fits that profile.