I wonder how this will go over on CB... - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 02-06-2008, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The jury is still out on your Giuliani prediction.

I never said Giuliani would win. I did say, however, that I thought Edwards might win.

Cali Coug · 02-06-2008, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I never said Giuliani would win. I did say, however, that I thought Edwards might win.

Clearly I have you confused with the other SU (the one who suggested Edwards would win).

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...32&postcount=1

SeattleUte · 02-06-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Clearly I have you confused with the other SU (the one who suggested Edwards would win).

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...32&postcount=1

I read this as saying the GOP will win in November, not necessarily that it will be Giuliani. As I noted, it's a weak prediction. You, on the other hand, are full of guarantees about such things.

Cali Coug · 02-06-2008, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I read this as saying the GOP will win in November, not necessarily that it will be Giuliani. As I noted, it's a weak prediction. You, on the other hand, are full of guarantees about such things.

"Remember, you heard this prediction from SeattleUte first... I say Giuliani is the next president, upsetting Hillary Clinton."

The title of your post: "Why I think the Republicans (Giulani) will pull off a stunning upset."

Sounds like you were only predicting Republicans to win. I can see how you would get that.

Giuliani v. Clinton.

Like I said, I am happy to compare notes with you on predictions/guarantees.

Tex · 02-06-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

NOW you are saying Romney is finished? He is still in 2nd place, and McCain is only half way to the nomination. Romney has the most money and the best organization. To say he is finished is premature, IMO.

And why are you criticizing the south for voting for Huckabee because he "has zero chance of capturing the nomination?" You seem to be clearly indicating you think Romney has zero chance, and yet you voted for Romney. Does that make you a blind religious zealot too?

What is this babble?

After Florida I said Romney moved firmly into the "longshot" category. No big change there. Huckabee has been in the "zero chance" category since he won Iowa.

Cali Coug · 02-06-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

What is this babble?

After Florida I said Romney moved firmly into the "longshot" category. No big change there. Huckabee has been in the "zero chance" category since he won Iowa.

Perhaps still pointing out the obvious- for the 2nd time. You said you couldn't understand why southerners voted for a person with no chance. You think Romney has zero chance (and as of a few weeks ago thought he was a longshot at best), yet you voted for Romney.

Seems contradictory to me.

Could it be that they voted for Huckabee for the same reason you voted for Romney? You just can't stomach the thought of voting for one of the other candidates from your party.

Tex · 02-06-2008, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Perhaps still pointing out the obvious- for the 2nd time. You said you couldn't understand why southerners voted for a person with no chance. You think Romney has zero chance (and as of a few weeks ago thought he was a longshot at best), yet you voted for Romney.

Seems contradictory to me.

That's because you're a lawyer. You obviously can't comprehend the difference between "long shot" and "no shot." PS. I would've supported Thompson or Guiliani.

I suppose you're just supporting Obama out of white guilt. Makes sense.

Cali Coug · 02-06-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

That's because you're a lawyer. You obviously can't comprehend the difference between "long shot" and "no shot." PS. I would've supported Thompson or Guiliani.

I suppose you're just supporting Obama out of white guilt. Makes sense.

I get it. So you are like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber. 1 in a million... So you are saying there's a chance! Good foundation for you to build on there.

Cali Coug · 02-06-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

That's because you're a lawyer. You obviously can't comprehend the difference between "long shot" and "no shot." PS. I would've supported Thompson or Guiliani.

I suppose you're just supporting Obama out of white guilt. Makes sense.

It appears you don't entirely understand the difference either, as you say on CB Huck has "virtually no chance" (which sounds a lot closer to "longshot" than "no chance").

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=3454141

Tex · 02-06-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I get it. So you are like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber. 1 in a million... So you are saying there's a chance! Good foundation for you to build on there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It appears you don't entirely understand the difference either, as you say on CB Huck has "virtually no chance" (which sounds a lot closer to "longshot" than "no chance").

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=3454141

"Virtually no chance" = 1 in a million. Romney's odds were better than that, although after last night, not by much.

Cali, why do you always do this? Why do you always have to tell me I'm saying something different than I'm saying? Are you so insecure in your position that you can NEVER address my actual points, instead of drawing obtuse, warped observations? Must you always distort EVERYTHING?