49% "Yes," 49% "No," 0% "Not Sure"?
Dear little things, but hopeless at math. D'ya think maybe a blonde designed the poll? (Easy, armed female pals--I'm just having fun with the humorless rape-enabling NOW harridans.)
In the spirit of inflaming the ember of seething resentment into a full-blown shrieking bipolar inferno of rage, may I suggest voting in Palin's favor (click on title link) even if you don't mean it? You know, just for cheap and immature male yucks and in the spirit of CUM ULLA SELLA IN PUGNO TABERNA...?
[Via M. Terry]
Linky no worky.
ReplyDeleteTry it now.
ReplyDeleteDavid, are you saying that us armed females can't also "vote" for "cheap and immature" female yucks and in the spirit of... whatever it is that says. I'm too lazy to go translate... LOL
ReplyDeleteI will to go "vote." If it hasn't been taken down, of course. :)
Loosely: "Any chair in a bar fight."
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, of course femyucks are encouraged. You'll have to forgive the oversight--my sisterhood sensitivity skills need major work. Last time I got in touch with my feminine side, I told her to get me a beer...;)
well sure, sarah palin is qualified to serve in any federal office, nevermind VP. in fact, pretty much anyone, at this point in the game, is fully qualified to serve in any federal office.
ReplyDeleteevery ostrich a tsar!
What national disasters have been caused by "inexperience" as opposed to "corruption"?
ReplyDeleteWorth pointing out, the difference is rounding error, probably a result of the programming language, not anyone's fault. Most computers recognize whole integers and decimals as different things. 5/2 to a computer is 2, unless it's been told to manage the floating point. So don't get down on the guy who runs the poll :)
ReplyDelete(Or did I just totally miss the joke?)
David, David... I was just pulling your leg. :) Not too many armed females posting here, of course.
ReplyDeleteVoted NO. They never have an answer that really fits what I want to say, darn it. [big grin]
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
ReplyDeleteIn the sense of "in compliance" with the requirements specified in the "job description", she appears to fully qualified.
In the sense of "is there anything in her documented history that would lead one to believe she would actually comply with the requirements of the job description", _absolutely_ NOT.
Of all the people who have put their hat in the ring, Ron Paul is the only "maybe" I'm aware of. Kent appears to be the only "probably".
In spite of their "blonde" math, what I don't buy is a dead even 49%to 49% split. I'll betcha it's a lot more "Yes" than "No", but they can't face being embarassed, so they lie about the poll numbers.
ReplyDeleteThe graph hasn't changed since David first posted it. It is quite b0rken.
ReplyDelete