[quote=babbling looney]

In this case, "the market" is Newt's candidacy.

Are you saying we should short Newt? or short the market?

[/quote]

I think I'm saying short Newt's candidacy, but frankly, it's selling for close to zero now.  <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Sounds like you’re saying:  “take a short trip to the market for fig newtons”.  Is that correct?

"You brought up the issue of me disliking Newt, so I responded to it."

NO! I did NOT bring up the issue of you disliking Newt, I brought up the issue of not caring whether ANYONE liked or disliked Newt.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"You brought up the issue of me disliking Newt, so I responded to it."

NO! I did NOT bring up the issue of you disliking Newt, I brought up the issue of not caring whether ANYONE liked or disliked Newt.

[/quote]

Right, that’s it…and the point of you caring or not caring about something you weren't implying  someone else did or felt would be what, exactly?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Nah, you didn’t mean to leave “dislike” hanging in the air. In fact, you never raised the issue at all….

[quote=apprentice]Sounds like you're saying:  "take a short trip to the market for fig newtons".  Is that correct?[/quote]

Correct. In fact, I recommend a round-trip to the market for fig newtons. 

"That’s a funny way of trying to refute the evidence I’ve brought about Newt, his standings in the polls, his past missteps with the press and public. "

In typical "the grass is greener than 9" logic mikebutler222 ducks the question again.

"Well, I guess I’m just no match for the political strategy genius who sees Newt wowing liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers…."

And again he's afraid to answer the question.

"Yep, and the best indicators of this market are the polls.  Just what do the polls say about Newt? How about Newt and liberals?"

First, it's always amusing to see how polls are the be all and end all when you want them to be and yet when they go against your opinion it's 'Yeah, right, polls like they mean anything!'

Second, I appologize, I thought you were a person who had the brain power to conceptualize. My bad.

I'd try to dumb it down enough for you but I learned long ago that when there is no capacity to comprehend, there is no ability to comprehend, regardless of the simplicity. And then there is the question of "why bother?" if you can't conceptualize, then why would I care about what "insights" you're able to generate?

'Yawn'itmayconcern - chill.  Life is good - don't stress us all out with the rants. 

Other than global warming - there's nothing to worry about.

I'm sorry, grasshopper, I just find it annoying when someone lies as Mikebutler222 does.

I find it especially distasteful in a profession based chat room such as this one. If Mikebutler222 is so very dishonest in his conversations, how can he expect to be respected? The only way he knows how, by lying some more and hoping that folks like you will believe him.

[quote=apprentice]

'Yawn'itmayconcern - chill.  Life is good - don't stress us all out with the rants. 

Other than global warming - there's nothing to worry about.

[/quote]

Well there is this: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010907.html

or this: http://www.neatorama.com/2007/04/04/tiger-fish-another-reaso n-not-to-swim-in-the-congo-river/

"That’s a funny way of trying to refute the evidence I’ve brought about Newt, his standings in the polls, his past missteps with the press and public. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In typical "the grass is greener than 9" logic mikebutler222 ducks the question again.

I ducked nothing, your comment was pointless, unsupported and didn't address the facts (those would be the things I provided, polls, his history of missteps, etc..).

"Well, I guess I’m just no match for the political strategy genius who sees Newt wowing liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers…."

And again he's afraid to answer the question.

There was no question, but since you brought up the subject of dodging, how's 'bout you answer some of mine that you've been dancing around? I asked you before for poll numbers on Newt, about specific "neo-lib" positions he's taken, etc.. All simple things, things you could provide, instead you dance around them.

Failing that, I had a post earlier that had 11-12 questions, you could take a shot at those, if they didn't put you too far into deep REM...

 "Yep, and the best indicators of this market are the polls.  Just what do the polls say about Newt? How about Newt and liberals?"

First, it's always amusing to see how polls are the be all and end all when you want them to be and yet when they go against your opinion it's 'Yeah, right, polls like they mean anything!'

Nice dance, and strawman, but what about those polls?

Second, I appologize, I thought you were a person who had the brain power to conceptualize. My bad.

LOL, so if I agree with your laughable, wholly unsupported assertions, about Newt and his appeal to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers I can "conceptualize". I think by “conceptualize” you really mean to say “share in the delusion”.

BTW, what about those polls?

I'd try to dumb it down enough for you ..

You know, you really should put down your condescension applicator, you’re not qualified to use it. You’re not wiser than anyone here, sonny. You’re spouting gibberish and having a melt-down anytime anyone asks a question about your grand theory.

 I’ve tried to be gentle with you on this subject, but your refusal to provide any real support for your claims accompanied by your over-the-top asininities have killed any chance of that going forward. From now on you’re just a source of amusement, the guy yammering to himself at the bus stop about nonsensical things.

I’ve seen you make a fool of yourself here before on a number of issues, but you’ve set a new standard of lunacy coupled with arrogance that may well go unmatched in the annuls of internet bulletin board buffoonery. You've offered up perhaps the most bizarre bit of political theorizing ever produced, and anyone who disagrees comes in for the wrath of the loon. Pretty funny stuff.

Newt and his appeals to liberals will make him the GOP nominee. Right, and Frances the talking mule will be the next Speaker of the House…..

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I'm sorry, grasshopper, I just find it annoying when someone lies as Mikebutler222 does.

[/quote]

"Lies"? Me?

You're engaging in projection, pal.

There you go again.

A person who tells lies is a liar. You tell lies and therefore, you are a liar.

"LOL, so if I agree with your laughable, wholly unsupported assertions, about Newt and his appeal to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers I can "conceptualize"

Here's one now.

No the "conceptualization" that I refer to is the idea that maybe Newt knows what he's doing. This has nothing to do with what I think other than the very rational thought that over the ten years that Newt has been thinking of this run, that he has worked out a strategy. I. me and my ideas are out of this conceptualization. I ask you to accept nothing of what I say. I only aksed that you think for a moment that Newt has a plan.

You can't even do that. Why? Because you are too busy trying to keep your web of lies together. Why? Because you are a pathological liar. I have seen your work here before and I know your MO. You lie and then you repeat the lie again and again and again until the person you are lying about bores with trying to set the record straight. And then you assume that, since he's not denying it, it must be true!

Perhaps you are so deluded that you believe your own lies. It makes them no more true.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

There you go again.

A person who tells lies is a liar. You tell lies and therefore, you are a liar.

[/quote]

The internet board comment of "seek professional help" is often a cliché, but in your case, it's genuinely applicable.

Here's another one, and an example of the "assume that since he's not denying it it must be true" BS to boot.

"I asked you before for poll numbers on Newt, about specific "neo-lib" positions he's taken, etc.. All simple things, things you could provide, instead you dance around them."

I'm not dancing around them. I have repeatedly said that I agree that newt is nowhere in the poll numbers yet. I have repeatedly said that Newt is running his own campaign in his own way, and I have repeatedly said the idea here is to keep an eye on Newt because his plan will become clearer as his strategy unfolds. I have also said that I could be wrong, and that Newt may be running as the rabbit to distract the attention from the other candidates so that they may have a primary season without much public bashing.

I don't go doing your homework for you in re Newt's positions. I know that Newt has been on traditionally Liberal meia outlets and that he has been generally well received in those appearances. I showed you counterintuitive praise for Newt from people who you claim hate him.

Meanwhile, I don't disagree with you that Newt is a piraha(?) among liberals, but as he unveils his strategem it is probable (given that he has gone out of his way to build a cornerstone of a foundation among Liberals) that (given the low expectations most lafties have of him) he will be seen by a significant number of people as someone who can "bridge the gap".

That's all the evidence I choose to give you here and now. Why? Firstly because I don't want to get into a "he's better because...." discussion. As I said from the beginning of this forum, the idea was to observe the process. That's what I am doing. You (as in you mikebutler222) want (to decide who wins and why) (no, that's too deep for you to grasp the meaning of) want to discuss the most probable outcome and why all other outcomes are invalid.

I'm looking at the process (although I do admit that I have taken the bait sometimes)  you are only interested in the result.

Guy's like you are the reason we have so many laws in this country. You're the kind of "thinker" that thinks 'This is the problem? Pass a law against doing that! Problem solved!'  It's very "Hunter Gatherer" in it's lower function hardwiring.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"LOL, so if I agree with your laughable, wholly unsupported assertions, about Newt and his appeal to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers I can "conceptualize"

Here's one now.

No the "conceptualization" that I refer to is the idea that maybe Newt knows what he's doing. [/quote]

That's a "lie" on your planet? The fact that I find your wholly unsupported theory that Newt is no longer the anti-Christ to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers laughable? The fact that you’ve yet to provide evidence that he’s anything more than he’s always been, a Southern conservative Senior Fellow at the AEI, the guy who gets props from James Dobson and is the embodiment to liberals of the nightmare that was the Clinton impeachment?

That makes me a liar?

Pal, you’re certifiable….

So he has a plan. So what, everyone in the race has a plan. Newt had a plan when he was House Speaker, it didn’t stop him from allowing Clinton to make the shutdown of the Federal government all about him and some alleged snub he felt at being asked to leave AF 1 via the backdoor. It didn’t stop him from misjudging how the press and the public would react to his comments about bringing back orphanages or stop him from recently losing the message that all immigrants should learn English by foolishly using the word “ghetto”.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] This has nothing to do with what I think other than the very rational thought that over the ten years that Newt has been thinking of this run, that he has worked out a strategy. I. me and my ideas are out of this conceptualization. I ask you to accept nothing of what I say. I only aksed that you think for a moment that Newt has a plan. [/quote]

You and your ideas have done nothing to support your claims about Newt and his liberal appeal.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] You can't even do that. Why? Because you are too busy trying to keep your web of lies together. Why? Because you are a pathological liar. [/quote]

Here we go again. I point out there’s no “there” there in your claims, that nothing quantifiable supports them and that every available shred of evidence refutes them, and that makes me a liar.

Wow…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] I have seen your work here before and I know your MO. You lie and then you repeat the lie again and again and again until the person you are lying about bores with trying to set the record straight. And then you assume that, since he's not denying it, it must be true!

Perhaps you are so deluded that you believe your own lies. It makes them no more true.

[/quote]

You’re one twisted little fella….that’s just clinical insanity being displayed there….

There you go again.

A person who tells lies is a liar. You tell lies and therefore, you are a liar.

The internet board comment of "seek professional help" is often a cliché, but in your case, it's genuinely applicable.

There goes another one! Taking something that is obvious correct and claim that it is obviously incoorect is another one of your pervaricatious lies.

You lie mikebutler222, it's a shame, you should be ashamed, but it's true. You tell lies, and people who tell lies are liars.

There you go some more!

"That's a "lie" on your planet? The fact that I find your wholly unsupported theory that Newt is no longer the anti-Christ to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers laughable? The fact that you’ve yet to provide evidence that he’s anything more than he’s always been, a Southern conservative Senior Fellow at the AEI, the guy who gets props from James Dobson and is the embodiment to liberals of the nightmare that was the Clinton impeachment?"

When some one says "x" and you say that he said "p", that's a misunderstanding (maybe).

When the person then says "No, I said 'x'!" and you say 'he said 'p'!"

That's a mistatement of fact. A deliberate mistatement of fact is a lie. Period end of post! 

You and your ideas have done nothing to support your claims about Newt and his liberal appeal.

This is a mistatement of the facts, and that is a lie.

My quote clearly states that I am not asking you to accept anything I said.  Your reply only deals with what you think of what I have said.

Further it's a lie because I have shown where Newt's positions have been accepted by some Liberals.

Face it! You are an inveterate, incorrigable liar, who lies and lies and then lies some more!

Have a nice holiday.

I'm out.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Here's another one, and an example of the "assume that since he's not denying it it must be true" BS to boot.

"I asked you before for poll numbers on Newt, about specific "neo-lib" positions he's taken, etc.. All simple things, things you could provide, instead you dance around them."

I'm not dancing around them. I have repeatedly said that I agree that newt is nowhere in the poll numbers yet. [/quote]

Is that so? Perhaps I missed it. Repeatedly, eh?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] I don't go doing your homework for you in re Newt's positions. [/quote]

So you claim he’s become a neo-lib but it’s my homework to figure out just what positions he’s taken that support that claim? Yeah, that’s how it should work…

And those two things make me a liar? LOL…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Meanwhile, I don't disagree with you that Newt is a piraha(?) among liberals, but as he unveils his strategem it is probable (given that he has gone out of his way to build a cornerstone of a foundation among Liberals) that (given the low expectations most lafties have of him) he will be seen by a significant number of people as someone who can "bridge the gap".[/quote]

I don’t have a problem with you having a theory I (and most every other observer) finds highly improbably. It’s the accompanying lunacy and condescension that makes it unpalatable.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

That's all the evidence I choose to give you here and now. Why? Firstly because I don't want to get into a "he's better because...." discussion. [/quote]

Yeah, that’s the reason. It isn’t because you’ve made a completely unsupportable claim that’s getting you laughed out of the forum and caused you to go into a “liar, liar!!!” fit of hysteria…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Guy's like you are the reason we have so many laws in this country. You're the kind of "thinker" that thinks 'This is the problem? Pass a law against doing that! Problem solved!'

[/quote]

Another unique little non-sequitar from Whomit…..

Here’s one for you. Guys like you are why we don’t see more orange Chevy Vegas on the highway.