• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How in the world is Romney going to defeat Santorum?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I want to reiterate my previous point. Let me know what standard of verification is to your liking and today will be my last day on this forum. I expect you to follow suit, and be honest enough not to re-register with a new account.

I'm excited to be a part of this, let's do it!
I still think you are having problems reading. The standard of verification is listed in the highlighted sentence.

I also trust you to not be honest enough to re-register with a new account.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,483
4,514
136
I believe cybrstooge is employing an ambiguous "he" in his challenge. While the natural assumption is that "he" refers to Senator Santorum, cybrstooge is actually referring to eskimospy instead, thereby agreeing to leave only if eskimospy also departs the board.
It fits with the petty semantic games that he so frequently substitutes for reasoning, and that he somehow imagines are cute and clever.
Thank you, I think I just figured out who cybersage was before he was banned, that Retired777Pilot guy. He always thought he was clever while playing stupid semantic games. And that guy posted like crazy, I wonder how he feels about his pension getting slashed massively through AMR's bankruptcy.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Thank you, I think I just figured out who cybersage was before he was banned, that Retired777Pilot guy.
ProJo? You are another ProJo account! BAN HIM NAO!!!!! ProJo has a lot of accounts, and they all go around claiming I am half a dozen different old posters. You are one of them and need to be banned.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,483
4,514
136
ProJo? You are another ProJo account! BAN HIM NAO!!!!! ProJo has a lot of accounts, and they all go around claiming I am half a dozen different old posters. You are one of them and need to be banned.
Look at my Join date, I've been here through 3 different forum software packages. October of 99 was on of the software switches. I was here when these forums were still called BBS. ProJohn joined much later than me (2006 IIRC). And he was gone before your join date, so how do you even know of him? Hmmm. ;)
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,550
14,154
136
Thank you, I think I just figured out who cybersage was before he was banned, that Retired777Pilot guy. He always thought he was clever while playing stupid semantic games. And that guy posted like crazy, I wonder how he feels about his pension getting slashed massively through AMR's bankruptcy.
The only thing that makes me think cybr != 777 is that 777 really came off as a genuine retard. Cybr is more of a deliberate retard. I suppose all things are possible though.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,483
4,514
136
The only thing that makes me think cybr != 777 is that 777 really came off as a genuine retard. Cybr is more of a deliberate retard. I suppose all things are possible though.
Yeah, I am pretty sure a777pilot was also partially insane, were I don't get that vibe from cybr.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,021
1,805
126
So which one os going to cut my tax rate to 15% ???
Or did we move past the nuts and bolts issues, and back to the nutz...
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
3:1 Romney gets the nod, I'll put 20$ down for that.

As for the op: Santorum is the lefts wet dream; he's nutty religious, has little appeal to moderate independent rights, is Mormon, has a track recore of saying stupid things.
Santorum is a Catholic, big difference.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,685
25,760
136
I still think you are having problems reading. The standard of verification is listed in the highlighted sentence.

I also trust you to not be honest enough to re-register with a new account.
So let's do it. Perhaps a mod will help me out here? I can already see you're trying to weasel out of it because you didnt think I would agree. Well I do agree. We both stop posting here.

Don't run away, embrace it! Think of all the extra time you will have.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Look at my Join date, I've been here through 3 different forum software packages. October of 99 was on of the software switches. I was here when these forums were still called BBS. ProJohn joined much later than me (2006 IIRC). And he was gone before your join date, so how do you even know of him? Hmmm. ;)
So you ARE ProJo!!!

Many people have called out his name here, this was explained in a sticky thread.

Are you going to self ban now that we know you are a ProJo alt?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So let's do it. Perhaps a mod will help me out here? I can already see you're trying to weasel out of it because you didnt think I would agree. Well I do agree. We both stop posting here.
Weasel out? I said the same thing you did. Does that mean you are weaseling out? Seriously, you have some kind of mental problem.

Don't run away, embrace it! Think of all the extra time you will have.
No one is running away. What is the requirement needed to fulfill the bet. I know you are not very bright, as evidenced by being unable to read the very sentences you quote, but I will give you another shot. What is the requirement needed to fulfill the bet?

Don't Stupid out on me now, answer the question.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,685
25,760
136
Weasel out? I said the same thing you did. Does that mean you are weaseling out? Seriously, you have some kind of mental problem.



No one is running away. What is the requirement needed to fulfill the bet. I know you are not very bright, as evidenced by being unable to read the very sentences you quote, but I will give you another shot. What is the requirement needed to fulfill the bet?

Don't Stupid out on me now, answer the question.
You said you would leave this board if I also do. I am offering to do so. That is the only requirement, and as soon as you accept I will stop posting permanently with the assumption that you will do the same. Your original bet was based around Santorum's nomination, but considering the outcome was the same both ways, why wait?

You agreed to this before. Do you need a little time to say goodbyes?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You said you would leave this board if I also do. I am offering to do so. That is the only requirement, and as soon as you accept I will stop posting permanently with the assumption that you will do the same. Your original bet was based around Santorum's nomination, but considering the outcome was the same both ways, why wait?

You agreed to this before. Do you need a little time to say goodbyes?

You really are this stupid. Lets try this again, but this time tatoo it onto your arm or somethign to help you remember for more than a day.

If Santorum wins, you can leave the forum. If he loses, I will leave.
What does this say is the requirement for both of us leaving? It is not hard, two small sentences. I know you are not bright, but if you concentrate hard, you can figure it out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,685
25,760
136
You really are this stupid. Lets try this again, but this time tatoo it onto your arm or somethign to help you remember for more than a day.



What does this say is the requirement for both of us leaving? It is not hard, two small sentences. I know you are not bright, but if you concentrate hard, you can figure it out.
We already discussed this, and somehow you stated before that my interpretation of what you wrote was wrong. What your quoted passage clearly states is that if Santorum wins, I leave and if Santorum loses, you leave. I am very comfortable with making this bet.

You claimed that you meant something else instead, the details of which no one is particularly clear on it seems. This is my last attempt so make your response good, please.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
We already discussed this, and somehow you stated before that my interpretation of what you wrote was wrong. What your quoted passage clearly states is that if Santorum wins, I leave and if Santorum loses, you leave. I am very comfortable with making this bet.
You are correct. You were a little off at the start, it appeared.

You claimed that you meant something else instead, the details of which no one is particularly clear on it seems. This is my last attempt so make your response good, please.
No, you are confused again. You keep saying you want this enforced now. I keep telling you to read the few, short sentences to find out when it is to be enforced. It is not hard, but apparently it is beyond you, so I will tell you directly instead of expecting you to read and comprehend.

Santorum has to lose/not win first.

Is that a sudden revelation? You said it yourself in the post I quoted, so I am not sure why you have so much problem understanding it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,685
25,760
136
You are correct. You were a little off at the start, it appeared.
Well if I understand you correctly (and it is possible I do not, as you continue to refuse to be clear), and the bet is that if Santorum wins I leave and if he does not win you leave, I accept.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Santorum could theoretically give Romney a run for it, but he doesn't have the funding. That is why he can't win. Romney has this in the bag. It's over already.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
136
106
How will he win: easy. Lie with the biggest smile, suck the most bankster schlong, stuff his head furthest up the ... You get the idea.

You think this has anything to do with electability? These guys all support the raping of our founding document via legislation such as the NDAA, yet we have people talking crap about who is or is not electable because of what they may or may not have written years ago. It is all about how you frame a debate. Electable? Hitler was electable. So what. And guess what? He was never elected to his final position of power, where he was when the war started. No, that took his legislature to give him that power. And they did it. But not one out of 20 americans even understands how any of that works. Just, duh. When you have a bunch of brainwashed braindead masses who never read a single book to save their lives, all you need to do is tell them someone isnt electable and they believe it. Doesnt matter, hell Romney could eat babies on national tv. If they said it was ok people would still vote for him.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Look at donation numbers. It looks like Romney is the chosen one. Both guys are horrible candidates and will both most likely lose to Obama.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Just b/c Romney has more money doesn't mean he's got it locked up. Money is an enabler of sorts. Newt had a ton of negatives and Romney's money made sure that people were made aware of his negatives.

Santorum, fundamentally, is not as vulnerable to money, which is basically tv ads. The worst dirt on Santorum is probably the anti-gay stuff, but that can be attacked from only from the left.

Fundamentally, Romney has a real problem with Santorum. Since Santorum does appear to not really have any negatives that can be amped up for the Republican electorate, Romney's money will not be as effective in tearing him down.

The only real thing Romney can do is make a positive message IMO, blanket the airwaves with stupid feel-good ads about himself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,685
25,760
136
Just b/c Romney has more money doesn't mean he's got it locked up. Money is an enabler of sorts. Newt had a ton of negatives and Romney's money made sure that people were made aware of his negatives.

Santorum, fundamentally, is not as vulnerable to money, which is basically tv ads. The worst dirt on Santorum is probably the anti-gay stuff, but that can be attacked from only from the left.

Fundamentally, Romney has a real problem with Santorum. Since Santorum does appear to not really have any negatives that can be amped up for the Republican electorate, Romney's money will not be as effective in tearing him down.

The only real thing Romney can do is make a positive message IMO, blanket the airwaves with stupid feel-good ads about himself.
Santorum was notoriously corrupt and one of the head guys on the K street project, which was basically an attempt to turn lawmakers into high powered lobbyists. Needless to say, it was pretty shady business that's just made for an attack ad.

If Santorum continues to do well, expect to hear a lot more about it.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
The k street project isn't as bad as Newt working for Fannie Mae. It is more complex and IMO is arguably alright since it was simply an effort to even the odds so to speak of lobbyists being Republican instead of Democrats.

I dunno, to me it sounds like his dirt is about on par with Obama's dirt as Senator, which didn't really sway anyone in the election.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY