Brooks, it seems to me, is still holding out hope for the possibility that if we "let Obama be Obama" he'll tack to the center because he really is that bipartisan, moderate, Niebuhr-grocking 21st century man that caused so many otherwise sensible conservatives to go off their feed. That seems highly implausible to me.
Mais non, mais non. The probability is still >0. So is the probability that wine will flow back in the bottle after being poured. Nothing (or almost nothing) is cut-and-dry, like knuckledraggers think: events simply have probabilities attached to them. So, even if p=0.0000000001, that's still >0. Hah!
Knuckledraggers being right again while Cantabrigian sophisticates predicted doom, Tecs?
Really now... Brooks maligning Palin like that... What was that? Did Brooks really think she could be worse than the silver-tongued (with Teleprompter, on his feet he's an idiot loquax) Ivy that we have?
3 comments:
I told you Peters is good when he wants to.
Brooks, it seems to me, is still holding out hope for the possibility that if we "let Obama be Obama" he'll tack to the center because he really is that bipartisan, moderate, Niebuhr-grocking 21st century man that caused so many otherwise sensible conservatives to go off their feed. That seems highly implausible to me.
Mais non, mais non. The probability is still >0. So is the probability that wine will flow back in the bottle after being poured. Nothing (or almost nothing) is cut-and-dry, like knuckledraggers think: events simply have probabilities attached to them. So, even if p=0.0000000001, that's still >0. Hah!
Knuckledraggers being right again while Cantabrigian sophisticates predicted doom, Tecs?
Really now... Brooks maligning Palin like that... What was that? Did Brooks really think she could be worse than the silver-tongued (with Teleprompter, on his feet he's an idiot loquax) Ivy that we have?
Post a Comment