A third of all conservatives & Democrats are morons

[DiveCon]

Do the math dumb ass. Less than half of the alleged people who were polled actually responded to the rediculous questions. Push polls are as old as ...well... polls. Select the demographics and tailor the questions to likely response and you can get any result you want.

It's true that over half the people did not answer, but that means the confidence interval will widen to +/- 6-7%. The poll was consistent with other findings at the time, such as the President's popularity numbers, the unpopularity of healthcare reform, etc., so there is no reason to think that the poll was inaccurate.

And I do not believe this is a push poll in the sense that random people clicked online, i.e. ESPN's poll on who is going to win the Monday Night Football game. I believe the people were selected in the same way that they are selected for phone polls.

Track Us - What they're saying about Public Policy Polling

if half the people that were polled refused to respond, wouldnt that pretty much invalidate the whole thing?

 

[GStarz]

I'm just curious by what criteria the original poster determined that Obama is not the antichrist. I'm not saying obama is the antichrist, just wondering by what objective measure and fact the poster came to this conclusion. It seems to me that in the absolute reality is unknowable if you happen to believe in God or even a God.

The reason some believe Obama is the antichrist is that Jesus in Luke describes Satan as lighting from a height, and lightning and height in old Hebrew (very similar to the original Aramaic) is baraq (transliterated conjuctive of U or O) bama. This is no joke and not conspiracy theory. i challenge you to use any text to speech Hebrew to English translator, and you will get baraq bama. Absolutely. there is no discussion on that matter. I did it and it really makes you wonder when you see it for yourself. Do it in the middle of the night to heighten the effect.

Certainly it seems unlikely Obama is anything other than a smarmy, inexperienced street punk propped up by the socialist dems to be their Mr Smith in Washington. But the fact remains that, if you want to get technical, conservative Christians have more circumstantial evidence to believe that obama is some version of Satan than leftist have to prove that Obama simply isn't a complete **** up ignoramus.

So it's safe to chalk you up into that third then?

I have no opinion because it's impossible to know. Literally. Obviously, the poster is pro-obama, and is citing the poll as a way to make it appear that anyone who dislikes Obama is crazy, unfair, racist, etc. So since he brought it up and obviously concluded that Obama was not the antichrist, I was just curious as to what criteria he used to come to his opinion. Of all things to elicit an opinion based on fact, he chooses a topic about which the facts cannot ever be known. If any evidence whatsoever exists on the issue, it is circumstantial - his name, in Luke in Hebrew - and it weighs against Obama. Just curious.

 

[xotoxi]

First the conservatives

Public Policy Polling asked another of their rather bizarre questions, this time to New Jersey residents, and the results show extremism and looniness on both sides of the aisle.

Examples:

* 8% of all voters think Barack Obama is the AntiChrist
* 13% are unsure
* Of conservatives, 14% think Barack Obama is the AntiChrist
* Of conservatives, 15% are unsure

Next the Democrats

Another interesting facet of this poll are the rising numbers of "truthers" - those who believe there was some sort of US Government conspiracy that coordinated the 9/11 attacks.*

Ah, but it's not isolated to the right. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, the so-called "truther" belief.

Obama Antichrist?: Many New Jersey voters believe Obama is the antichrist
Nearly 30% of NJ GOP Voters Believe Obama Could Be the AntiChrist | HULIQ

Here is the poll

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NJ_916.pdf

Well that's just facinatin'... another thread to project the "centrist" as the arbiter of sound reason.

When in truth, Centrists are merely Leftists, without the balls to commit. The purest essence of political truth rests with American Conservativism... and its just no more complex, than that.

I didn't look at the date of this thread and I thought it was from today.

So when I saw Pubes name, I thought...DAMN! He's come back and got banned before I could say "hi!"

 

[Trajan]

First the conservatives

Public Policy Polling asked another of their rather bizarre questions, this time to New Jersey residents, and the results show extremism and looniness on both sides of the aisle.

Examples:

* 8% of all voters think Barack Obama is the AntiChrist
* 13% are unsure
* Of conservatives, 14% think Barack Obama is the AntiChrist
* Of conservatives, 15% are unsure

Next the Democrats

Another interesting facet of this poll are the rising numbers of "truthers" - those who believe there was some sort of US Government conspiracy that coordinated the 9/11 attacks.*

Ah, but it's not isolated to the right. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, the so-called "truther" belief.

Obama Antichrist?: Many New Jersey voters believe Obama is the antichrist
Nearly 30% of NJ GOP Voters Believe Obama Could Be the AntiChrist | HULIQ

Here is the poll

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NJ_916.pdf

do they ever do a poll where in they ID the sampling pool and provide other information? ...at all?

 

[McDowell's]

If you were taking time out of your day to participate in a poll and they asked you an off-the-wall, waste of time question like that, would you not answer yes just to give them a **** you?

I'd probably answer yes just because that thought is funny as hell.

 

[DiveCon]

If you were taking time out of your day to participate in a poll and they asked you an off-the-wall, waste of time question like that, would you not answer yes just to give them a **** you?

I'd probably answer yes just because that thought is funny as hell.

i'd probably say "are you ******* serious?" and then hang up

 

[Toro]

I'm just curious by what criteria the original poster determined that Obama is not the antichrist. I'm not saying obama is the antichrist, just wondering by what objective measure and fact the poster came to this conclusion. It seems to me that in the absolute reality is unknowable if you happen to believe in God or even a God.

The reason some believe Obama is the antichrist is that Jesus in Luke describes Satan as lighting from a height, and lightning and height in old Hebrew (very similar to the original Aramaic) is baraq (transliterated conjuctive of U or O) bama. This is no joke and not conspiracy theory. i challenge you to use any text to speech Hebrew to English translator, and you will get baraq bama. Absolutely. there is no discussion on that matter. I did it and it really makes you wonder when you see it for yourself. Do it in the middle of the night to heighten the effect.

Certainly it seems unlikely Obama is anything other than a smarmy, inexperienced street punk propped up by the socialist dems to be their Mr Smith in Washington. But the fact remains that, if you want to get technical, conservative Christians have more circumstantial evidence to believe that obama is some version of Satan than leftist have to prove that Obama simply isn't a complete **** up ignoramus.

So it's safe to chalk you up into that third then?

I have no opinion because it's impossible to know. Literally. Obviously, the poster is pro-obama, and is citing the poll as a way to make it appear that anyone who dislikes Obama is crazy, unfair, racist, etc. So since he brought it up and obviously concluded that Obama was not the antichrist, I was just curious as to what criteria he used to come to his opinion. Of all things to elicit an opinion based on fact, he chooses a topic about which the facts cannot ever be known. If any evidence whatsoever exists on the issue, it is circumstantial - his name, in Luke in Hebrew - and it weighs against Obama. Just curious.

How do we know you're not Satan? Just curious. Literally, its impossible to know. It's just someone's opinion that you are not. Facts can never be known.

One cannot possibly be serious when equivocating the President not being Satan as implying critics are being crazy, unfair, racist, etc. OK, crazy, that's true. It's also silly given that the OP criticizes Democrats as much as conservatives. But given the Persecuted Conservative Syndrome drummed into the denizens of the far right, one shouldn't be too surprised that this small matter gets overlooked.

 

[Toro]

do they ever do a poll where in they ID the sampling pool and provide other information? ...at all?

I don't know. I haven't read all their polls.

Here's Rasmussen's latest poll.

Half of Americans are Pro-Choice, But 53% Say Abortion's Usually Morally Wrong - Rasmussen Reports™

I couldn't find the breakdown either. But then again, I didn't look very hard. However, when I clicked on the link methodology, this came up, which didn't give much information. I think this is pretty common.

 

[GStarz]

So it's safe to chalk you up into that third then?

I have no opinion because it's impossible to know. Literally. Obviously, the poster is pro-obama, and is citing the poll as a way to make it appear that anyone who dislikes Obama is crazy, unfair, racist, etc. So since he brought it up and obviously concluded that Obama was not the antichrist, I was just curious as to what criteria he used to come to his opinion. Of all things to elicit an opinion based on fact, he chooses a topic about which the facts cannot ever be known. If any evidence whatsoever exists on the issue, it is circumstantial - his name, in Luke in Hebrew - and it weighs against Obama. Just curious.

How do we know you're not Satan? Just curious. Literally, its impossible to know. It's just someone's opinion that you are not. Facts can never be known.

One cannot possibly be serious when equivocating the President not being Satan as implying critics are being crazy, unfair, racist, etc. OK, crazy, that's true. It's also silly given that the OP criticizes Democrats as much as conservatives. But given the Persecuted Conservative Syndrome drummed into the denizens of the far right, one shouldn't be too surprised that this small matter gets overlooked.

You don't know. that's my whole point. Why start such an inane, stupid thread, really, except to give Obama cover under the guise of being nonpartisan.

As far as serious comparisons, most Christians, who are the overwhelming religious majority in America, take the concept of Satan being true and actual as very serious indeed. And who is to know one way or the other? A certain segment bred with a cynical, pop-culture mentality about traditional religion? Any sensible person would think not. So when a guy arrives on the scene from political nowheresville and reaches the highest office in the land, and whose name just happens to be the same as the Hebrew words that Jesus is quoted as describing Satan in the bible, Christians get understandably concerned. It's perfectly legitimate reaction for anyone who does not simply dismiss Christianity as a fairy tale or a myth. If the media had reported on Obama's Hebrew name translation during the election, just to be "fair and balanced" by taking Christian views into account - which would have been fair, really - in this country he never would have been elected in a million years.

It seems intellectual honesty as defined by liberals is agreeing with them, and this includes dismissing any notions of aspects of the Bible of the largest faith in the United states as ever being actual and true manifestly.

If history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

 

[Toro]

I have no opinion because it's impossible to know. Literally. Obviously, the poster is pro-obama, and is citing the poll as a way to make it appear that anyone who dislikes Obama is crazy, unfair, racist, etc. So since he brought it up and obviously concluded that Obama was not the antichrist, I was just curious as to what criteria he used to come to his opinion. Of all things to elicit an opinion based on fact, he chooses a topic about which the facts cannot ever be known. If any evidence whatsoever exists on the issue, it is circumstantial - his name, in Luke in Hebrew - and it weighs against Obama. Just curious.

How do we know you're not Satan? Just curious. Literally, its impossible to know. It's just someone's opinion that you are not. Facts can never be known.

One cannot possibly be serious when equivocating the President not being Satan as implying critics are being crazy, unfair, racist, etc. OK, crazy, that's true. It's also silly given that the OP criticizes Democrats as much as conservatives. But given the Persecuted Conservative Syndrome drummed into the denizens of the far right, one shouldn't be too surprised that this small matter gets overlooked.

You don't know. that's my whole point. Why start such an inane, stupid thread, really, except to give Obama cover under the guise of being nonpartisan.

As far as serious comparisons, most Christians, who are the overwhelming religious majority in America, take the concept of Satan being true and actual as very serious indeed. And who is to know one way or the other? A certain segment bred with a cynical, pop-culture mentality about traditional religion? Any sensible person would think not. So when a guy arrives on the scene from political nowheresville and reaches the highest office in the land, and whose name just happens to be the same as the Hebrew words that Jesus is quoted as describing Satan in the bible, Christians get understandably concerned. It's perfectly legitimate reaction for anyone who does not simply dismiss Christianity as a fairy tale or a myth. If the media had reported on Obama's Hebrew name translation during the election, just to be "fair and balanced" by taking Christian views into account - which would have been fair, really - in this country he never would have been elected in a million years.

It seems intellectual honesty as defined by liberals is agreeing with them, and this includes dismissing any notions of aspects of the Bible of the largest faith in the United states as ever being actual and true manifestly.

If history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

Are you a twoofer too?

It wouldn't surprise me.

After all, if history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

Ergo, Bush may have been behind 9/11!

Look! It's a picture of Bush with Satan!

 

[Toro]

Oh, and why start this thread?

Because there are a lot of morons in this world. It helps if you point them out.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm just curious by what criteria the original poster determined that Obama is not the antichrist. I'm not saying obama is the antichrist, just wondering by what objective measure and fact the poster came to this conclusion. It seems to me that in the absolute reality is unknowable if you happen to believe in God or even a God.

The reason some believe Obama is the antichrist is that Jesus in Luke describes Satan as lighting from a height, and lightning and height in old Hebrew (very similar to the original Aramaic) is baraq (transliterated conjuctive of U or O) bama. This is no joke and not conspiracy theory. i challenge you to use any text to speech Hebrew to English translator, and you will get baraq bama. Absolutely. there is no discussion on that matter. I did it and it really makes you wonder when you see it for yourself. Do it in the middle of the night to heighten the effect.

Certainly it seems unlikely Obama is anything other than a smarmy, inexperienced street punk propped up by the socialist dems to be their Mr Smith in Washington. But the fact remains that, if you want to get technical, conservative Christians have more circumstantial evidence to believe that obama is some version of Satan than leftist have to prove that Obama simply isn't a complete **** up ignoramus.

So it's safe to chalk you up into that third then?

I have no opinion because it's impossible to know. Literally. Obviously, the poster is pro-obama, and is citing the poll as a way to make it appear that anyone who dislikes Obama is crazy, unfair, racist, etc. So since he brought it up and obviously concluded that Obama was not the antichrist, I was just curious as to what criteria he used to come to his opinion. Of all things to elicit an opinion based on fact, he chooses a topic about which the facts cannot ever be known. If any evidence whatsoever exists on the issue, it is circumstantial - his name, in Luke in Hebrew - and it weighs against Obama. Just curious.

Your post just shows your ignorance about the person who started the OP. That's Ok, you're a Newby. Then again, if I was a Newby I wouldn't go around spouting shit without first getting to know a poster. But that's just me...

 

[Toro]

Your post just shows your ignorance about the person who started the OP. That's Ok, you're a Newby. Then again, if I was a Newby I wouldn't go around spouting shit without first getting to know a poster. But that's just me...

I'm not pro-Obama. I'm anti-stupidity.

I'm happy to make twoofers objects of ridicule, and have done so many times, but the fringetard right who bask in the Conservative Persecution Complex fed to them by the Right Wing Media would rather wallow in the pitying Woe-Is-Me meme.

 

[Dr Grump]

Your post just shows your ignorance about the person who started the OP. That's Ok, you're a Newby. Then again, if I was a Newby I wouldn't go around spouting shit without first getting to know a poster. But that's just me...

I'm not pro-Obama. I'm anti-stupidity.

I'm happy to make twoofers objects of ridicule, and have done so many times, but the fringetard right who bask in the Conservative Persecution Complex fed to them by the Right Wing Media would rather wallow in the pitying Woe-Is-Me meme.

I've always seen you as a neutral on this board, which is why I posted what I did. The moron - because he certainly fits in that category - seemed to only notice one part of your post as only a true-blue Obama-hating moron can...

 

[GStarz]

Oh, and why start this thread?

Because there are a lot of morons in this world. It helps if you point them out.

Ever try looking in the mirror? Who placed you so highly in the world? ( and wipe the jelly stains off your keyboard before your mom yells at you. )

 

[GStarz]

So it's safe to chalk you up into that third then?

I have no opinion because it's impossible to know. Literally. Obviously, the poster is pro-obama, and is citing the poll as a way to make it appear that anyone who dislikes Obama is crazy, unfair, racist, etc. So since he brought it up and obviously concluded that Obama was not the antichrist, I was just curious as to what criteria he used to come to his opinion. Of all things to elicit an opinion based on fact, he chooses a topic about which the facts cannot ever be known. If any evidence whatsoever exists on the issue, it is circumstantial - his name, in Luke in Hebrew - and it weighs against Obama. Just curious.

Your post just shows your ignorance about the person who started the OP. That's Ok, you're a Newby. Then again, if I was a Newby I wouldn't go around spouting shit without first getting to know a poster. But that's just me...

Then the poster should try to learn to communicate more clearly. Anyone who needs the audience to keep a score card to understand them should keep their mouths shut until they learn to express their thoughts with greater clarity.

 

[GStarz]

How do we know you're not Satan? Just curious. Literally, its impossible to know. It's just someone's opinion that you are not. Facts can never be known.

One cannot possibly be serious when equivocating the President not being Satan as implying critics are being crazy, unfair, racist, etc. OK, crazy, that's true. It's also silly given that the OP criticizes Democrats as much as conservatives. But given the Persecuted Conservative Syndrome drummed into the denizens of the far right, one shouldn't be too surprised that this small matter gets overlooked.

You don't know. that's my whole point. Why start such an inane, stupid thread, really, except to give Obama cover under the guise of being nonpartisan.

As far as serious comparisons, most Christians, who are the overwhelming religious majority in America, take the concept of Satan being true and actual as very serious indeed. And who is to know one way or the other? A certain segment bred with a cynical, pop-culture mentality about traditional religion? Any sensible person would think not. So when a guy arrives on the scene from political nowheresville and reaches the highest office in the land, and whose name just happens to be the same as the Hebrew words that Jesus is quoted as describing Satan in the bible, Christians get understandably concerned. It's perfectly legitimate reaction for anyone who does not simply dismiss Christianity as a fairy tale or a myth. If the media had reported on Obama's Hebrew name translation during the election, just to be "fair and balanced" by taking Christian views into account - which would have been fair, really - in this country he never would have been elected in a million years.

It seems intellectual honesty as defined by liberals is agreeing with them, and this includes dismissing any notions of aspects of the Bible of the largest faith in the United states as ever being actual and true manifestly.

If history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

Are you a twoofer too?

It wouldn't surprise me.

After all, if history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

Ergo, Bush may have been behind 9/11!

Look! It's a picture of Bush with Satan!

Pictures, pop culture references, childish word play. I get it. You're 'clever". You want to be thought of as "clever'. Okay. I'll be nice. Wow are you ever clever. Those pictures you found online made by yet other clever people, who took the legitimate photographic and makeup/motion picture work of others, in violation of copyright, and put them together so clever people like you could use them are very clever and it was clever of you to use them instead of presenting an intellectually honest rebuttal. That was even more clever than hoping that animated smiley faces can gloss over your shallow lack of understanding and inability to communicate effectively. Boy, are you ever clever.

 

[Charles_Main]

thats just in NJ though
not nation wide

I know but I'd bet it isn't that much different elsewhere.

LOL I assure you New Jersey is not an accurate sample of the US.

Ever been there? LOL

 

[Charles_Main]

You don't know. that's my whole point. Why start such an inane, stupid thread, really, except to give Obama cover under the guise of being nonpartisan.

As far as serious comparisons, most Christians, who are the overwhelming religious majority in America, take the concept of Satan being true and actual as very serious indeed. And who is to know one way or the other? A certain segment bred with a cynical, pop-culture mentality about traditional religion? Any sensible person would think not. So when a guy arrives on the scene from political nowheresville and reaches the highest office in the land, and whose name just happens to be the same as the Hebrew words that Jesus is quoted as describing Satan in the bible, Christians get understandably concerned. It's perfectly legitimate reaction for anyone who does not simply dismiss Christianity as a fairy tale or a myth. If the media had reported on Obama's Hebrew name translation during the election, just to be "fair and balanced" by taking Christian views into account - which would have been fair, really - in this country he never would have been elected in a million years.

It seems intellectual honesty as defined by liberals is agreeing with them, and this includes dismissing any notions of aspects of the Bible of the largest faith in the United states as ever being actual and true manifestly.

If history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

Are you a twoofer too?

It wouldn't surprise me.

After all, if history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

Ergo, Bush may have been behind 9/11!

Look! It's a picture of Bush with Satan!

Pictures. pop culture references, childish word play. I get it. You're 'clever". You want to be thought of as "clever'. Okay. I'll be nice. Wow are you ever clever. Those pictures you found online made by yet other clever people, who took the legitimate photographic and makeup/motion picture work of others, in violation of copyright, and put them together so clever people like you could use them are very clever and it was clever of you to use them instead of presenting an intellectually honest rebuttal. That was even more clever than hoping that animated smiley faces can gloss over your shallow lack of understanding and inability to communicate effectively. Boy, are you ever clever.

Someone gets off on the word Clever.

 

[Dr Grump]

You don't know. that's my whole point. Why start such an inane, stupid thread, really, except to give Obama cover under the guise of being nonpartisan.

As far as serious comparisons, most Christians, who are the overwhelming religious majority in America, take the concept of Satan being true and actual as very serious indeed. And who is to know one way or the other? A certain segment bred with a cynical, pop-culture mentality about traditional religion? Any sensible person would think not. So when a guy arrives on the scene from political nowheresville and reaches the highest office in the land, and whose name just happens to be the same as the Hebrew words that Jesus is quoted as describing Satan in the bible, Christians get understandably concerned. It's perfectly legitimate reaction for anyone who does not simply dismiss Christianity as a fairy tale or a myth. If the media had reported on Obama's Hebrew name translation during the election, just to be "fair and balanced" by taking Christian views into account - which would have been fair, really - in this country he never would have been elected in a million years.

It seems intellectual honesty as defined by liberals is agreeing with them, and this includes dismissing any notions of aspects of the Bible of the largest faith in the United states as ever being actual and true manifestly.

If history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

Are you a twoofer too?

It wouldn't surprise me.

After all, if history teaches us anything, from Nazi Germany's mass furnaces - where millions died - to Bill Clinton's sexual liaison in the White house on company time while his dumb-as-a jackass/blindly ambitious wife defended him, it's that just because something is utterly unthinkable doesn't mean it isn't 100% entirely possible. Not learning that particular historical lesson is a game plan for disaster.

Ergo, Bush may have been behind 9/11!

Look! It's a picture of Bush with Satan!

Pictures, pop culture references, childish word play. I get it. You're 'clever". You want to be thought of as "clever'. Okay. I'll be nice. Wow are you ever clever. Those pictures you found online made by yet other clever people, who took the legitimate photographic and makeup/motion picture work of others, in violation of copyright, and put them together so clever people like you could use them are very clever and it was clever of you to use them instead of presenting an intellectually honest rebuttal. That was even more clever than hoping that animated smiley faces can gloss over your shallow lack of understanding and inability to communicate effectively. Boy, are you ever clever.

Maybe you're the one with the communication problem...


...or maybe you're just not clever...