Hey mr. lifelong democrat, which of obama's heads do you think supported the islamofascist anti-semitic jew-hating florida strategy that the democrats have so artfully dispatched? was it his "white head" or his "black head?" oh, wait hold on, dont tell me, let me guess!

(i'm guessing it was his black head)

you know, i heard that when obama becomes president he is going to force all internet trolls to have gay marriages, which will be presided over by radical al qaeda clerics! and the disembodied voice of karl marx will be his secretary of labor! and HAL from 2001 is going to be the new head of NASA, and NASAs new mission will be spreading the good news of Allah to interested space aliens!

(for those looking to make some sense out of this post, its probably a waste of time, but search worf's previous letters, specifically the one on the "i was assaulted by an obama supporter who carved a backwards b on my face" thread)

(and yes, i am aware that president obama will punish those who respond to internet trolls by forcing us to teach sex ed to unborn fetuses right before we partial-birth abort them, but sometimes i just have to blow off some steam)

"I'd say it's a little bit of bad form for the Democrats to gain victory and then crush everyone who's not with the Borg Collective AFTER the election. I'm not sure that's what Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and co had in mind."

Maybe you should conjure up the spirit of Aaron Burr so he can regale you with tales of pistols at dawn. Politics has always been a dirty business. And like the previous LWs said, why would they give a committee chair to a person who hasn't been with them? Do you think for a second that the Repubs would allow a senator who campaigned for Obama to keep a leadership position?

This Janis Jack guy sounds like a real genius! He's a judge AND he's good enough to debunk false scientific claims! That I gotta see to believe!

90% of lawyers don't know a damn thing about science (which is why they / future me went into law in the first place), and the 10% that do are in IP resolving patent claims. I find it really hard to believe that a federal judge could personally debunk anything more sophisticated than phrenology as non-scientific without relying on...you guessed it, opinions of actual scientists. So what you're basically saying is that a federal judge got presented with a bunch of bs science from one side, got presented with better science from the other side, and was, by a stroke of luck, able to figure out which was which. And I'm sure the judge and the better science was all republican, and all trial lawyers are democrats, except for the ones who used the better science. You know what, now that I think about it, I really have no clue what you're saying at all. But I'm gonna try, damnit:

John Edwards = trial lawyer. John Edwards = democrat. All trial lawyers = democrats (which makes perfect sense since they make a fortune and we know all rich people are democrats) All trial lawyers = anti-science, as long as it helps them win trials. Democrats = trial lawyers = anti-science. That's quite a house of cards you got there. If I can find one scrupulous trial lawyer or one Republican trial lawyer, its all coming down. And I bet there's at least one of each (although I'll concede probably not much more).

Oh, and just so we're clear: Asbestos didn't cause cancer? Good to know.

I had an amazing, profanity-laced letter written to ReaderReader that got lost in the tubes, which is just as well because I'm trying not to look like a total jerk. Here's the essence:

You are a racist for that "affirmative action" crap about Obama's academic career. Also, your understanding of the admissions process for graduate studies is clearly on par with your understanding of Obama's tax plan, i.e. you don't understand shit about it. Nobody who doesn't deserve to be at Harvard gets on the Law Review, let alone becomes president. It is the equivilent of the honors program, and being president is similar to graduating top of your class.

Please cease coming into message boards and putting on your "reasonable guy" mask in order to spread ignorance and idiocy around, as somee of us fear it might be contagious. I shudder to think that when Obama gets elected and I finish school, his evil socialist tax scheme will force me to subsidize your stupidity. Please consider figuring out how things work before you pretend to understand them, and if overcoming your ignorance is too much trouble for you, please just consider shutting up.

Signed,

A damn good student in a law school far less presigous than Harvard who is on the law review but will never be president, of the law review or the U.S.

I am going to make a prediction which will undoubtedly prove my extreme ignorance, but its the one thing that I think hasn't been addressed in enough detail.

Obama will win by a wider margin than (almost) anyone expects. The reason: Non-landline users (people who only have cell phones, i.e. a lot of people under 30), who I would estimate are overwhelmingly for Obama and underrepresented in the polls. Over at 538, the polls that include cell phones almost all show Obama with a bigger lead than the ones that do not include cells. I'm not sure if I am enthusiastic enough about my prediction to claim it'll get Obama to 400 electoral votes, but I think most of us can agree that would be pretty awesome.

(28 myself, most of my peers have no landline and are voting for Obama)