SuperJerk

I seem to remember Ann Coulter acting like the Pope died when Jerry "9/11 was Americans' Own Fault" Falwell kicked the bucket a couple of years ago, and even went so far as to say she "ALWAYS" agreed with him. Using the logic of the conservatives (i.e. "anyone who criticizes America must hate America"), Coulter must also hate America, and by extention Marney. It also seems that Glenn Beck hates America, and I suppose so does Marvin.

Or maybe...JUST MAYBE...the Prius costs more than the Civic Hybrid because it gets better mileage (PROBABLY A BIG SELLING POINT FOR HYBRID BUYERS) and has more standard features on it? Also, maybe...JUST MAYBE...there's a certain economics to being able to drive 400 miles on $35 worth of gas in a car you get a $2100 tax rebate for buying?

UGLY! And also not a Civic. The Honda Civic. Which, coincidentally, looks more like a $30,000 Acura CSX than a $20,000 Honda Insight. Don't believe me? Compare for yourself... $20,000 Honda Civic $23,000 Honda Civic Hybrid $26,000 Honda Civic SI $30,000 Acura CSX

Thank you for explaining to me that car price is determined by the all-important relative attractiveness of the vehicle, and not based on arbitrary things like size, reliability, demand, horsepower, features, or type of engine and transmission.

Michigan? Florida? Ohio? Missouri? Arkansas? Not only that, but if these groups help Obama in states that Democrats usually don't do well in, doesn't that potentially make states that were consider safely Republican into battleground states?

Is there NO topic that you're not willing to say something completely ignorant about? What? The insights are horrible looking and didnt sell at all. If you could find one I bet you could get a better deal on it than the Civic and the Inisght gets like 60 mpg. I looked it up, you can get a 2001 for $5,000 and Honda still is obligated to pay battery replacement up to 150,000 miles, and new battery packs cost $300 So...Civics are cheap because Insights are ugly? HUH? Because I was talking about Civics. I never mentioned Insights. Are you even aware you suddenly switched from talking about Civics to talking about Insights? Hey, I looked into it...Civics are some of the best selling vehicles in America (7th best in 2006, 10th best in 2007), and look EXACTLY like the Civic Hybrid.

Polling leads me to conclude that your assertion is incorrect. Truth is now based on number of believers. Gotcha. No, you misunderstand me. I did not even attempt to establish what Wright's beliefs were in the past. However, you said that the "burden of proof" is on me to prove that Wright has been a "crackpot" for 20 years. That is an essentially subjective assessment, and it seems that the overwhelming majority of people who have responded to recent surveys on this question do in fact concur with the impression that Wright has always been a "crackpot," not to mention a racist, an anti-Semite, and an anti-American hate-monger. Therefore, if any "burden of proof" exists, it is on Wright's supporters to prove the opposite - at least in the court of public opinion. And say whatever you please, decry the unfairness as much as you like, but that is what will count in the upcoming primaries. Citing "the overwhelming majority of people who have responded to recent surveys on this question do in fact concur" is not evidence of anything. That's still truth based on number of believers, rather than facts. You cannot determine facts or even the worthiness of a "subjective assessment" by counting heads. Now...here's the real question...what is the relevance of Wright's beliefs? Are we now going to start judging candidates on what people say at their church? Even when they've said repeatedly and publicly that they do not agree with those statements? That is a new wrinkle to the process that is not only unfair, but also disqualifies almost anyone who has ever been to church. Now, Obama has said he doesn't agree with Wright. Why isn't that good enough? What are you afraid of? He might get elected and appoint Louis Farrakhan the Secretary of State? Might offer Al Quaeda an unconditional surrender? God will come down from heaven and smite us for electing him? I want to know...what is unspeakable act conservatives are afraid he'll do because he isn't "patriotic" enough? And if I accept that, where does it end? Hillary isn't patriotic enough because of her association with certain 60s radicals? McCain might have been brainwashed in Hanoi? Where do we draw the line between unproven innuendo and actual issues that really matter to the American public?

Is there NO topic that you're not willing to say something completely ignorant about?

Polling leads me to conclude that your assertion is incorrect. Truth is now based on number of believers. Gotcha.

If the people in a church are all guilty by association, what does that say about Tom Haggard's congregation?

1) I didn't realize my endorsement would create such a wave of people running out and buying hybrids that the tax write-off would get eliminated. 2) Even with an extended warranty, the Civic Hybrid still costs less than the gas-guzzlers Americans are in love with. Plus, since it's a Honda, it'll breakdown and last longer than your average car. But, hey, I can't argue with IF YOU DRIVE A HYBRID YOU ARE GOING TO DIE argument.

You can't really be this naive. If you want to claim Wright has been a crackpot for the entire time Obama has known him, the burden is on YOU to prove it. And don't tell me people's views can't change over time. You're talking to someone who has voted for both John Ashcroft and Ralph Nader.

Everyone go out and buy Civic Hybrids, already. Not only will you get an excellent vehicle, save some money by getting 40 mpg, but you'll also get a $2100 credit on your taxes. (The tax write-off for the Toyota Prius is lower.) I bought one last November and it is simply the finest car I've ever owned.

Um, in case you missed it...Obama and Wright are feuding now. Obama finds Wright's speech tour self-serving and divisive, and Wright thinks Obama sold out and is just another politician for distancing himself from him. But go ahead and keep trying to link them together, and see how much mileage that gets you. (Spoiler Warning: Not much.)

Probably because she's going to say that Indiana is more representative of the voting populace. And it would be awesomely dumb of her to claim the state that is 90% white is more representative of a nation that is 74% white than the state that is 75% white. Because North Carolina is all but unwinnable. She has a shot of taking Indiana. Play up your strengths. Hide your weaknesses. It's Politics 101. Its Politics 101 to lie your ass off. Its Insanity 101 to expect the superdelegates to buy such a ridiculous argument.

Noteworthy, but long... http://www.slate.com/id/2190129/

Monkeys aside (!!!), I'm not going to defend Wright and I'm certainly not going to defend Farrakhan (as fondly as the Million Man March is remembered, the keynote speech by Farrakhan was the insane ramblings of a deluded mind). Obama said he didn't agree with Wright's crackpot ideas, and I beleive him. Not much larger, and not much has changed, I'm afraid. Gore and Kerry hardly set the college campuses on fire, y'know. Funny how she's pinning all her hopes and dreams on winning Indiana, and playing off the BIGGER state that is having its primary the exact same day as an acceptable loss. How does her strategy make anything close to sense anymore? She's gone off the fucking deep end.

The Matarazzo chart, having been published in 1972, is horribly out of date. Modern educational psychology doesn't divide scores into to such narrow ranges. Particularly inaccurate considering the margin of error most I.Q. tests possess. The labels on the third chart don't seem particularly in keeping with the consensus of modern opinion, either. So you're saying you don't teach any profound retards? Only on message boards.

http://www.eac.gov/clearinghouse/voter-tur...and-statistics/ http://www.eac.gov/clearinghouse/docs/vote...t_download/file Only about a third of people 18-20 vote in presidential elections, down from almost half in 1972.

I think I'm more tired of the press coverage of the campaign than the campaign itself. Hillary got good press last year because she was seen as the heir apparent to the White House, because they were too busy beating up on the Republicans. Then the press turned and started fellating Obama when he started winning, because now there was a new story:Hillary is vulnerable! They got called on it, and blew the Wright/"bitter" stuff out of proportion so as to not look to pro-Obama. Right now, the story is Hillary's comeback against her superiorly financed opponent. Also ridicules is how they are treating this like its a three-way race instead of a battle between two people over who gets to take on the third. For example, I think the most ridicules poll I've seen was one that asked which candidate would do the best job of handling the economy...and the choices were all three. The story wasn't that this was bad news for the GOP, since McCain was the only Republican and he only got a third of the responses. The story was how this was bad news for Obama. McCain is currently getting a free ride from the press. Once the Democratic nomination is determined, the press will probably turn on him as well. It's just that right now, beating up on him won't have as much impact as it will 4 months from now. Maybe instead of this game of "who are we going to fuck-over this month," the press should play a game of "let's treat all the candidates equally and let the public decide for itself"?

The Matarazzo chart, having been published in 1972, is horribly out of date. Modern educational psychology doesn't divide scores into to such narrow ranges. Particularly inaccurate considering the margin of error most I.Q. tests possess. The labels on the third chart don't seem particularly in keeping with the consensus of modern opinion, either.

Since Hillary Clinton apparently beleives all of her husband's experiences and abilities are also her own, this offer makes sense to me now.

That might be going a little too far. Having an IQ in the 130s would make him in the top 2.1%.

**Eagerly waits for Marney to remember she agrees with Mrs. Clinton on less than 10% of the issues.**

And she'll alienate all the people she'll need in order to govern effectively in the process.