A presidential candidate doesn't concede unless they already know with 100% certainty they can't win. That was the case here. He just saved everyone the strain of waiting to hear the already decided outcome.
Must I suffer this much longer? Ok, define obvious please, becuase obviously you don't know what it means. And speaking of obvious, is it also obvious to you that perhaps no one knew how many provisional ballots there were? And still dont?
Seems obvious. Read the newspaper. Listen to the news. It's really simple.
Oh yeah, and can you tell me when the last presidential candidate that conceded did so? (I know the answer to this one but I am just wondering if you know because it isn't obvious to me that I am responding to an informed person).
Re: angry americanangry_americanNovember 8 2004, 12:54:47 UTC
Incorrect.
Obvious: Easily perceived or understood
If it was so easy to percieve, then why is it debatable? You seemed to feel the need to defend your position, so it cannot be obvious by virtue of your own actions.
And I really could care less if Kerry is a wuss or not, I care about the process of selecting a leader - as prescribed by law, not as prescribed by him.
And you still haven't answered my question, oh informed one - so how about it?
Re: angry americanironic_chaos8November 8 2004, 13:33:17 UTC
RE:the definition of obvious LOL. You're making this too easy for me kid. Copy/Pasting from Dictionary.com doesn't make you right.
**Directly from Dictionary.com:**
Obvious: Easily perceived or understood;.
The fact that I knew to check Dictionary.com for that exact definition shows how predictable your logic is. If you don't think that definition is synonymous with "Readily apparent" you're dumber than I thought. While you're on that site, look up the textbook definition of dumbass too.
RE:Defending my position I'm not defending any position. I'm assaulting yours. Your argument that something obvious doesn't need to be debated is moronic. There's people out there that still think the earth is flat. Should we not debate with them either?
Re: angry americanangry_americanNovember 8 2004, 14:21:03 UTC
The obvious (and even readily appearant) difference between your defintion and mind was the inclusion of the clause "except for you" which is so far from the actual definition as to appear to be its antithesis.
And obvious is a subset of things that are readily appearant. Its a subtle difference, I concede but that wasn't what I was addressing anyway.
A presidential candidate doesn't concede unless they already know with 100% certainty they can't win. That was the case here. He just saved everyone the strain of waiting to hear the already decided outcome.
Reply
Must I suffer this much longer? Ok, define obvious please, becuase obviously you don't know what it means. And speaking of obvious, is it also obvious to you that perhaps no one knew how many provisional ballots there were? And still dont?
Seems obvious. Read the newspaper. Listen to the news. It's really simple.
Oh yeah, and can you tell me when the last presidential candidate that conceded did so? (I know the answer to this one but I am just wondering if you know because it isn't obvious to me that I am responding to an informed person).
-FW
Reply
Reply
Obvious: Easily perceived or understood
If it was so easy to percieve, then why is it debatable? You seemed to feel the need to defend your position, so it cannot be obvious by virtue of your own actions.
And I really could care less if Kerry is a wuss or not, I care about the process of selecting a leader - as prescribed by law, not as prescribed by him.
And you still haven't answered my question, oh informed one - so how about it?
-FW
Reply
LOL. You're making this too easy for me kid. Copy/Pasting from Dictionary.com doesn't make you right.
**Directly from Dictionary.com:**
Obvious: Easily perceived or understood;.
The fact that I knew to check Dictionary.com for that exact definition shows how predictable your logic is. If you don't think that definition is synonymous with "Readily apparent" you're dumber than I thought. While you're on that site, look up the textbook definition of dumbass too.
RE:Defending my position
I'm not defending any position. I'm assaulting yours. Your argument that something obvious doesn't need to be debated is moronic. There's people out there that still think the earth is flat. Should we not debate with them either?
Reply
-FW
Reply
And obvious is a subset of things that are readily appearant. Its a subtle difference, I concede but that wasn't what I was addressing anyway.
-FW
Reply
Leave a comment