Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=1777)

Bloggingheads 04-25-2008 03:45 AM

The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 

Eastwest 04-25-2008 04:18 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Oh Gad! Every Week?!

Please, can we go back to the old schedule?

EW

bjkeefe 04-25-2008 04:51 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
EW:

I know what you mean, in general, but I thought this one was pretty good. Amanda came across as a lot more of a reporter, which let Bill do the same. Also, it seemed like more topics were addressed, compared to recent episodes of TWIB, particularly in presenting some of the variance of right-wing perspectives.

One thing that disturbed me: the notion, mostly implied by both, that using biofuels has anything to do with cutting C02 emissions. The real argument for biofuels (not that I much buy it, particularly when it comes to corn) is that they're supposed to cut dependence on foreign oil. As I understand it, the global warming impact of burning biofuels is about the same as burning petroleum.

One thing that made me laugh: the news that Newt Gingrich and Arlen Spector are the latest to be exiled for apostasy.

Eastwest 04-25-2008 05:37 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Actually, I should clarify my "Gad, please go back to the old schedule" comment.

It's more that I think, if we're going to be getting this every week, Bill Scher should find some really first rate Progressive to alternate hosting with.

Both participants were fine this week. I just can't shake the bad taste of the gruesome performance last week where Conn Carroll just completely crushed Scher, batting him around like a tomcat high on catnip would whack around a mortally-wounded mouse. Makes me shudder.

Anyway, just a suggestion coming from the "variety is the spice of life" camp.

EW

Joel_Cairo 04-25-2008 07:42 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest (Post 74984)
I just can't shake the bad taste of the gruesome performance last week where Conn Carroll just completely crushed Scher, batting him around like a tomcat high on catnip would whack around a mortally-wounded mouse. Makes me shudder.

This has long been a problem. Scher is often far too eager to take on the burden of maintaining civility, frequently at the expense of the progressive argument. He resorts to changing the subject with lines like "well, I don't want to get into the whole Capital Gains debate with you..." The result being that his interlocutor gets in a solid talking point, which Scher leaves unanswered, appearing to dodge and implying that there isn't a persuasive retort (it doesn't help that Conn is a genuinely very effective partisan mouthpiece nowadays; maybe it's the suits). I still have nightmares about the dreaded "Scher/Goldberg Massacre", remembered for all time as the most brutal drubbing in the history of BhTV.

Bill- you need to get on steroids or something. Do a bunch of push-ups before taping, blast some speed-metal, whatever. You gotta get your heart-rate going and pump yourself up so you can snap back with some pithy, devastating Pwnage. Check out the recent "no he didn't" moment in Perlstein/Frum (oh snap!) for inspiration.

Incompetence Dodger 04-25-2008 07:55 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 74978)
EW:

Amanda came across as a lot more of a reporter, which let Bill do the same. Also, it seemed like more topics were addressed, compared to recent episodes of TWIB, particularly in presenting some of the variance of right-wing perspectives.

In the spirit of bipartisan comity (non-Broder division), I just want to say that Amanda was fantastic. More Amanda please. No hackery, no baiting, no insisting that 2+2=5 just because the other side says that 2+2=4, just explication of what was going on this week in Right Blogistan. What a concept. (Am I by inference throwing Conn Carroll under the bus? Who can say...?)

Looking at the list of topics and given the fact that it was TWIB, I was expecting (dreading) Kleiman-Jerrett Round Two, so maybe Amanda impressed me so much because of low expectations, but still. It must be hard, particularly in an election year, to be partisan and still avoid descending into either hackery on the one hand or Chicken-Little-esque reflexive contrarianism on the other (false equivalence alert: note that I consider the former a graver sin than the latter).

While I'm on the subject of hackery and the lack thereof, I also want to say that Eli Lake was surprisingly good earlier this week, and that Mark Kleiman was disappointing (in retrospect, I think we all would have been better off if he and Merritt had gone with their first impulse and discussed the criminal justice system).

breadcrust 04-25-2008 08:28 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

As I understand it, the global warming impact of burning biofuels is about the same as burning petroleum.
Bio-fuels don't increase average CO2 because they're part of this cycle: grow plants (which sequesters CO2), turn plants into fuel, burn fuel (which releases CO2), repeat. No CO2, etc. is added to the atmosphere. Burning petrol, etc. increases CO2 because it releases already sequestered carbon.

Joel_Cairo 04-25-2008 08:40 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
It took me a little while, but I have hunted down my very favorite Devastating Rejoinder in the archives:

Behold, as Ezra Klein makes short work of Will Wilkson's classic Libertarian "holier than petty, partisan special interest pandering" self congratulation. If Bill Scher could bust out one of these, he'd forever have my respect.

Bloggin' Noggin 04-25-2008 08:46 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs...9&out=00:00:22

Maybe not such a bad idea after all -- now that he's just a particularly irascible Heritage attack dog -- and given that Amanda was able to be pleasant and discuss what's going on in the blogosphere without turning it all into furious overplayed attacks.

For once I agree with EastWest: I think I prefer the every-other-week schedule.

However, my guess is that they're planning to alternate Scher and Carroll, pairing them with a blogger on the other side? That might improve things quite a bit. Scher's approach and Conn's new approach don't seem to match very well (Scher was all right in this more reportorial role, but he's not a good counter-attack-dog.) And maybe Conn will be able to suppress his bitterness a bit better when he talks to other bloggers -- he managed to suppress his rage/contempt.
It's still not going to be my favorite feature, I expect.

bjkeefe 04-25-2008 08:52 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
I don't think there's anything particularly devastating about rebutting a point by saying, literally, "blah, blah, blah, blah."

What did I miss?

bjkeefe 04-25-2008 08:59 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by breadcrust (Post 74989)
Bio-fuels don't increase average CO2 because they're part of this cycle: grow plants (which sequesters CO2), turn plants into fuel, burn fuel (which releases CO2), repeat. No CO2, etc. is added to the atmosphere. Burning petrol, etc. increases CO2 because it releases already sequestered carbon.

I completely forgot about that aspect, breadcrust. Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't think it's quite that cleanly closed a system, once you start adding up all the steps required to grow, harvest, and refine the fuels. Also, since the net yield of energy is so small, I would think these steps add a lot. But as a first approximation, your point is well-taken, and I'll have to look at some numbers before I could say how much these add.

It's also fair to point out that getting crude oil from deep underground to the gas tank has its own processing penalties, of course.

Joel_Cairo 04-25-2008 09:30 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 74993)
I don't think there's anything particularly devastating about rebutting a point by saying, literally, "blah, blah, blah, blah."

What did I miss?

Well, it's kind of in Erza's delivery, and his snappiness. Will is on this big high horse about how Liberals and Conservatives are all cravenly in hock to special interests, and Ezra throws it right back at him (replicating the condescending tone even). He points out that Libertarians are hardly some Enlightened Supermen, impervious to being bought off, but in truth do the bidding of those who pay their bills (Earlier in the vlog there had been a long debate about Wal-Mart, with Will defending the wage suppression policy of the company which, incidentally, happens to donate Will's salary to Cato).

The "blah blah blah" signifies, IMO, "need I really go on, Will? Two can play at this specious argumentation game."

Whatfur 04-25-2008 09:38 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
A couple things...

First, I can agree the Scher does do better with someone he doesn't have to back up his skewed view against. In that way he can throw out the bull manure that liberals have grown to believe without being made to step into it later. Yeah...good for him. Don't get me wrong, I thought Amanda did fine... and smart, polite,and beautiful works well for her.

Second, I find it funny that some of the regular commentors here continue to characterize Conn Carroll as some raging, contempuous, attack-dog. I am new here, but I have to say that in the couple times I have seen him, he comes across as pretty even-keeled while pleasingly, unwilling to let his opposite get by with the bull. So, I can only say that the regulars here are reacting as poor losers who don't handle being told they are not wearing any clothes when they are obviously naked. So, attack-dog? hardly. Lap-dog? You wish. Sorry, if disagreement makes you feel uncomfortable or/and immediately has you characterizing anyone with a contrary point of view as some angry hack well then I will have to be free to characterize you as someone who when a child stood in the grocery store line screaming and crying for some candy and generally getting it.

Third, Bill Bill Bill, no matter how many times you wish to equaliLze the associations you have brought up of McCain with Obama's...well...sorry its not close nor even the same kind of relationships. I had a little brother whose nickname was Yahbut and he also was generally grasping at straws. Trying to make a point over and over again does not make it true. Even your article where McCain makes some strong and correct points about associations you twist. You see Bill, its not about who befriends you but who you befriend. Get it? No! Yabut!!!! Get it?

Lastly, there is not a global warming concensus that blames the human component.

Bill Scher 04-25-2008 09:46 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
True, I don't always come to bhtv with my game face on, gearing up for the smackdown. This Week In Blog is not supposed to be Crossfire. Sometimes when right-wing canards come up, I beg off so we don't get off track.

If you care to waste another hour of your life listen to me blather, I did a debate with a local McCain campaign chair on the Pacifica radio show Midweek Politics where my approach is far different than it is here. The audio is here: http://www.midweekpolitics.com/shows...2008-04-02.mp3

graz 04-25-2008 10:14 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 74998)


Second, I find it funny that some of the regular commentors here continue to characterize Conn Carroll as some raging, contempuous, attack-dog. I am new here, but I have to say that in the couple times I have seen him, he comes across as pretty even-keeled while pleasingly, unwilling to let his opposite get by with the bull. So, I can only say that the regulars here are reacting as poor losers who don't handle being told they are not wearing any clothes when they are obviously naked. So, attack-dog? hardly. Lap-dog? You wish. Sorry, if confrontation makes you feel uncomfortable or/and immediately has you characterizing anyone with a contrary point of view as some angry hack well then I will have to be free to characterize you as someone who when a child stood in the grocery store line screaming and crying for some candy and generally getting it.

Well, you discredit the basis of your objectivity by conceding that you have had a limited sample of Conn Carroll. Granting your clear bias, even you might accept the general complaint against Conn's new approach as opposed to his old fair and balanced explication of the right blogosphere, if you took a further step?
So as a community service, I offer you the suggestion of sampling the archives for a self-rebuttal.
But that wouldn't be as satisfying as characterizing your ideological opponents as petulant whiners.
It's okay for you irregulars to allow fact to color your opinions now and again. No pain no gain.

Joel_Cairo 04-25-2008 10:32 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Scher (Post 74999)
If you care to waste another hour of your life listen to me blather, I did a debate with a local McCain campaign chair on the Pacifica radio show Midweek Politics where my approach is far different than it is here. The audio is here: http://www.midweekpolitics.com/shows...2008-04-02.mp3

Thanks Bill, I'll check that out. I've seen you defty dismantle some of these canards before, so I know you have it in you, but I often feel like you make a conscious attempt not to be contentious and "spinny", while the favor is not fully returned.

harkin 04-25-2008 11:30 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 74998)

..............Second, I find it funny that some of the regular commentors here continue to characterize Conn Carroll as some raging, contempuous, attack-dog. I am new here, but I have to say that in the couple times I have seen him, he comes across as pretty even-keeled while pleasingly, unwilling to let his opposite get by with the bull. So, I can only say that the regulars here are reacting as poor losers who don't handle being told they are not wearing any clothes when they are obviously naked. So, attack-dog? hardly. Lap-dog? You wish. Sorry, if disagreement makes you feel uncomfortable or/and immediately has you characterizing anyone with a contrary point of view as some angry hack well then I will have to be free to characterize you as someone who when a child stood in the grocery store line screaming and crying for some candy and generally getting it....................

Your commentary here has been refreshing W. The reason that so many here use name-calling and ad hominen instead of fact and fairness is because they have nothing to come back with of any substance.

One of the most hilarious aspects of the conservative/liberal dynamic here (and on just about every political discussion board) is how the libs try to characterize cons as the nastiest, meanest, most racist people there are, when if you read the comments the exact opposite is almost always exhibited. The classic example is the absolute nastiness between the HRC and BO people being characterized as 'republican-style'. They have been unwilling to recognize the hatefulness they have been showing for years. Added to that is the emptiness they exhibit when any point of fact is dismissed as a 'republican talking point' and the speaker a 'lapdog'.

Keep up the good work Whatfur, a more balanced viewpoint is always welcome here by those who want serious discussion.

And you're dead-on on the 'association' game being played by Scher. As I've said on other threads, if an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber had hosted an event introducing a conservative candidate and had continued to associate with him, the MSM would be all over it.

I certainly hope that Scher, Olbermann and the others who whine that Rev Wright, Ayers and Rezko must not be discussed anymore ("show's over folks, keep walking") are severely disappointed. This says as much about Obama's true character as his 'bitter' comments did in SF.

Whatfur 04-25-2008 11:55 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Actually graz, you discredit YOUR response by even bringing up the supposedly kinder, gentler Conn of the past. My sampling IS purely his last 3 episodes and it was response to these that people like you were heavy into the castigation and characterization of him. I don't need past history, as like I said what I have seen is a calm, rational explainer of a contrary point of view where people like you see a foaming at the mouth conservative. I guess I will just have to live with YOU having the mental picture you have conjured up (maybe in comparison) and me living with the one I actually saw in the last 3 diavlogs.

We can move on. I don't need to defend Conn...he does ok for himself.

graz 04-25-2008 12:08 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 75010)
Actually graz, you discredit YOUR response by even bringing up the supposedly kinder, gentler Conn of the past. My sampling IS purely his last 3 episodes and it was response to these that people like you were heavy into the castigation and characterization of him. I don't need past history, as like I said what I have seen is a calm, rational explainer of a contrary point of view where people like you see a foaming at the mouth conservative. I guess I will just have to live with YOU having the mental picture you have conjured up (maybe in comparison) and me living with the one I actually saw in the last 3 diavlogs.

We can move on. I don't need to defend Conn...he does ok for himself.

Feel free to move on...
As I was a participant and the gist of commentors complaint was not with his kinder, gentler self vs. his attack dog mode. It was in his parroting of talking points as opposed to reasoned, albeit prejudiced assessment of and critique of the blogosphere. That was his assigned role and stated mission. If you choose not to see his unhinged moments and talking points acid reflux, so be it.

AemJeff 04-25-2008 12:25 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Incompetence Dodger (Post 74988)
I just want to say that Amanda was fantastic. More Amanda please. No hackery, no baiting, no insisting that 2+2=5 just because the other side says that 2+2=4, just explication of what was going on this week in Right Blogistan.

I liked this conversation and ID seems to have nailed the reason. I'm afraid Amanda might seem a little too "crunchy," in the Rod Dreher sense, and might not be pure enough to qualify as a spokesperson for the red meat types on her side; but I hope she comes back.

Whatfur 04-25-2008 01:02 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
You know graz....the dingalink thingy is a neat little tool for backing up ones points with reality when it comes to your type of castigations. Maybe so I am clear as to degree, you can provide a little snippet of an "unhinged" moment.

piscivorous 04-25-2008 01:36 PM

On the Other Hand
 
There is this important factor to consider New Poll Shows McCain Trails Only Hugh Hefner As Luckiest Senior

graz 04-25-2008 05:27 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 75017)
You know graz....the dingalink thingy is a neat little tool for backing up ones points with reality when it comes to your type of castigations. Maybe so I am clear as to degree, you can provide a little snippet of an "unhinged" moment.

As I am relegated to wmv downloads it ain't gonna happen. As much as enjoy trading insults, my basic premise was to defend the just criticism of Conn vis a vis his substitution of talking points for illuminating blog recaps.
But in the spirit of your request my recollection has it that the example(s) would be exemplified by 3/21 - This week in blog: Obama's Speech.
Both the comments and Conn's performance might temper your original complaint. But due consideration would have to be given to the time frame and its relation to your three week cut-off. Anyway, it probably amounts to less than the effort we are putting in to this back and forth.

Baltimoron 04-25-2008 05:54 PM

Ethanol
 
From http://www.cecarf.org/Programs/Fuels...s%20Facts.html

Quote:

Ethanol

Q: What is ethanol?

A: Ethanol, also called grain alcohol or ethyl alcohol, can be made from any starch- or sugar-based feedstock. Corn is the most common feedstock used in the United States, whereas sugar cane is the preferred feedstock in Latin America. The energy content of ethanol is approximately two-thirds that of gasoline by volume. For that reason, and because of its higher cost, ethanol is typically used as a gasoline additive. Approximately one out of every eight gallons of gasoline sold in the U.S. contains 8% to 10% ethanol. All reciprocating engine vehicles can use ethanol blends in small quantities (up to 20%, or denoted as E20), and with slight alterations can accommodate ethanol blends as high as 85% (E85). It is also possible to run engines on pure ethanol.

Q: How is ethanol produced?

A: There are two different methods for producing ethanol, both based on breaking down plant matter into simple sugars and starches and then fermenting them to produce alcohol. Ethanol is primarily made through a distilled ethanol process whereby the sugars and starches from the feedstock are boiled and concentrated into grain alcohol (basically "moonshine," although ethanol is denatured to prevent the fuel from being consumed). The process can also use microbe fermentation (with a byproduct of CO2) or a wet-milling procedure that also yields high-fructose corn sweetener. The fermentation process can easily break down simple sugars in the fruits or edible portions of plants; examples of commonly-used feedstocks include corn kernels, sugar cane, milo, cheese whey, and potato waste. New technologies are emerging that can break down the more complex sugars that compose other parts of plants, such as the fibrous stalks, husks, grasses, and wood. Converting these sources of cellulosic and hemicellulosic biomass into ethanol opens up a new avenue for fuel supplies, since this waste biomass is readily available and renewable in large quantities. What are essentially agricultural wastes will soon commonly be converted into a usable energy source.

Q: Pros and cons of ethanol:

Pros: Ethanol reduces levels of carbon monoxide and other toxic air pollutants. The biomass used for ethanol absorbs carbon dioxide (CO2) when it is grown, so it adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere. It can be used to boost the octane in gasoline to prevent engine knocking, and it increases gasoline's lubricity. It also takes only six months to harvest a substantial crop of fuel. Ethanol is an oxygenate that reduces ground-level ozone. Since ethanol can be produced locally, it has the potential to add to the local economy, particularly in the agricultural sector, and help reduce the importation of oil.

Cons: Depending on the ethanol/gasoline blend, ethanol may raise levels of nitrogen oxides produced as gasoline emissions. Because of its lower energy content relative to gasoline, ethanol also reduces mileage per gallon. Corn-based ethanol production is energy intensive, and in some instances uses nearly as much energy to produce (including the energy needed for farming and making fertilizers) than it supplies, although new technologies are improving the efficiency of production.
Also, corn production is driving corn prices higher, setting up the possible future question, which is more important, people eating corn, or corn for fuel?

Baltimoron 04-25-2008 05:59 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Please, Bill, don't go Rambo!

Conn's work on the Blogometer was a good deed. I can't speak for others, but I wanted a similar format for this feature. The 'heads have so many outlets besides bhTV, so I just like summaries, like a blog Utne Reader, with commentary, and some crossfire.

Dialogue comes in many forms. It doesn't have to be Buckley-esque or Matthews-esque conflict. Don't become like the MSM, i.e., Gibson and Stephanopoulos, and turn dialogs into Gladiator! I'd like bhTV to save us from that monotony.

bjkeefe 04-25-2008 06:04 PM

Re: Ethanol
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baltimoron (Post 75043)
... corn production is driving corn prices higher, setting up the possible future question, which is more important, people eating corn, or corn for fuel?

Obviously, that's a no-brainer. That's one of the many reasons I'm against the view that biofuels are a panacea, especially as it manifests as politicians pandering to Iowans and ADM.

Whatfur 04-25-2008 07:05 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
graz,

Well, of course, me going and watching it certainly does not answer the question of degree, does it? As already pointed out, I have seen comments from people like yourself concerning the last couple that also paint Conn in the "unhinged" light...yet NOTHING I have seen comes close. So I continue to be left with the impression that unless the discussion is one favorable to YOU and yours then the perpetrator of that which you don't favor is an "attack dog". Tell you what graz, we will wait for the next Bill and Conn show and I want you, pen in hand, writing down the point in the discussion where Conn becomes Mr. Hyde. Until then...

...side note to Balitimoron...sorry I don't have experience with the other programming entity either but have to say that I have watched pretty much every discussion in the last couple of weeks here and few are as entertaining as Bill and Conn. (Bob and Mickey excluded) It does not surprise me that many of you here prefer left vs. left. while trying to cover your ears yelling la la la la la when someone like Conn is painting reality.

bjkeefe 04-25-2008 07:24 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Whatfur:

I think you're missing the point. Since so many people have already touched on this, I doubt I'm going to convince you, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

As much as you would like to believe that most of us liberals here would prefer that BH.tv be a cocoon of a leftist echo chamber, that is really not true. We like to hear different points of view. That's why we're here rather than listening to Air America or reading The Nation. Many liberals on this board have reacted favorably to many conservative diavloggers and have been doing so consistently since the site first launched.

What we don't like is mindless recitation of talking points, rehashing of attacks that have already been beaten to death everywhere else in the media and/or blogosphere, and the magnification of trivialities in a manner that mirrors cable TV news and talk shows.

On the specific point about Bill and Conn's regular gig, you keep asserting that your liking for Conn's recent behavior is a fact that the rest of us will be forced to admit if you just keep repeating yourself. It's really not. You may prefer watching Conn act like Sean Hannity, and delight in your perception that he "wins" when he does this, but it's purely a subjective matter.

Conn's behavior, and change therein, is a matter of perception. Most of us long-time fans of the site think he used to do a better job at what this diavlog purports to do: report on the blogosphere, with the strong implication that the reports will contain something more than Conn pushing one view of the hot-button issue of the day. In the end, Conn's new behavior is just plain boring. At least, for most of us.

piscivorous 04-25-2008 07:57 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
From the perspective of a more independent point of view I think that both sides in this argument are actually correct. The left preferred Mr Carroll when he was more natural and let Mr Scher express his partisan opinions with little if an kick back. Now that Mr Carroll is in a position to actually challenge Mr. Scher's partisan rantings, which he does a rather well, by countering with the view from the right he is no longer looked upon as favorably. Mr Carroll has not really changed just the perception of who he is and his acceptability ranking has.

Sgt Schultz 04-25-2008 08:46 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
On a lighter note - I can't have been alone in thinking... http://tinyurl.com/29wwcq

bjkeefe 04-25-2008 08:48 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Schultz (Post 75066)
On a lighter note - I can't have been alone in thinking... http://tinyurl.com/29wwcq

I dunno. I don't think that picture looks that much like Amanda.

;^)

Whatfur 04-25-2008 09:48 PM

Sorry no shorter whatfur
 
Thanks piscivorous, I believe you pretty much nailed it but for Brendan's benefit I need to add a couple things.

Brendan, let me start with the same challenge to you that graz conveniently was unable to meet. Produce a dingalink that shows Mr. Carroll in "attack-dog" mode. You have argued points here in the recent past with me that were not solely about content but also style. Show me that style that is so "unhinged" as to get "so many people" speaking of it. At graz's suggestion I actually DID go back to the 3/21 meeting of Conn and Bill and saw Bill a little more animated than the last one but also again Conn's approach was pretty even-keeled. Sorry...I just don't see the angry personae you and yours purport. Maybe I need to set the degree...you know that North Carolina ad... you know the one..."NOT GOD BLESS AMERICA, GOD DAMN AMERICA". This is "unhinged" (in both content and style). Show me something like that (or even half of that) outta Mr. Carroll.

But sure, lets talk content...pretty sure you or "so many people" like you... out of one side of your mouth want to berate Conn's responses/points while I have also heard it here that the nature of their meetings is to inform all of us on what is being said on the left side and right side of the blogosphere. Are you not really saying that he is doing his job too well? Sorry Brenden, but when Bill says something like "Obama answered the questions about bussing and Affirmative Action"; Is it not Conn's responsibility to point out that he really didn't but that he left them obviously unanswered with Music Man lack of clarity? I sure think so...

Bottom line is, as piscivorous alluded, you only see him as spouting talking points because they are not YOUR talking points nor the talking points of "so many people" here.

p.s. (oops more bottom lines) to compare him to Sean Hannitty also shows a bit of ignorance in analyzing people, their styles, and ability. They do not remind me of eachother at all and I am willing to bet I see more of Sean than you do. I suggest you stick to those things you actually have experience with and stop being so obviously swayed by the talking points of "so many people" here.

Until next time...I will just continue to wait for that nasty dingalink.

uncle ebeneezer 04-25-2008 10:20 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: It's All Crazy
 
Yeah Sarge, if Gary Oldman prompts the same response in you that Amanda causes for me, my only advice to a millitary man is don't ask, don't tell.

She's very easy on the eyes, and pretty good as a BHTV guest.

Bill, I think you're fine the way you are. Though sometimes I wish you'd call BS on Conn when he starts using GOP talking points, overall I like you're kinda easy-going style, and you always make some interesting points and ask good questions, even when I might prefer a little more "fight" from the liberal side.

Whatfur 04-25-2008 10:39 PM

Side Note
 
Where is all the outrage and reverting to exponential math because of Amanda saying the PA win for Hillary was 8%? Amanda, that was brilliant. You gave up absolutely nothing while immediately creating a dirth of human putty here in oBHamaland.

Related...I believe one of Kleimann's talking points was the much repeated Obama excuse/positive spin of "But, but, but Hillary had a 20% lead in PA a month ago so this is like like like a WIN!!!" Well one advantage of going back to the 3/21 Conn/Bill discussion was to hear Mr. Carroll predict a 10% win over a month ago. Thanks for that graz and Mickey...eat your heart out.

bjkeefe 04-25-2008 10:44 PM

Re: Sorry no shorter whatfur
 
Whatfur:

I am not going to offer you dingalinks for two reasons: One, what bothers me about Conn lately is less specific, easily quoted things that he said than it is his overall tone. The dingalinks I'd be inclined to offer would be pretty much his entire last few diavlogs. Second, I am not about to listen to him again, especially as I'm certain that no matter what I offer as examples, you'll just disagree with my characterization of them.

It's a matter of perception, and I'm not sure why you find it so hard to accept that I, and others, find Conn's current attitude and approach different from the way he used to be. It's to your credit that you have strong convictions, but it's too bad that you are so locked into them that you can't recognize that they're as subjective as anyone else's.

I also fail to understand why you are unable to post comments without speaking in such an insulting tone. However, this habit does illustrate why you think there is nothing particularly objectionable about Conn's change in manner. He's tossing you red meat, and you're lapping it up. That's fine -- we all have our different tastes. But it doesn't make others who dislike what he's serving up wrong.

As for my view that he's just spouting talking points, and is not doing a good job lately on reporting on the blogosphere, I refer you to the praise that I and others had for Amanda, for her presentation of items other than the two or three things that everyone in the country had been gnawing over for the previous few days. I also refer you to Conn's diavlogs, recorded when he was still at Blogometer, and the comments posted in response. Again, your taste is different from mine, but the fact that I and others perceive differences ought to mean something to you.

I also would say that I have no interest in hearing a lefty doing nothing but spouting talking points. There are other places to get this, if I wanted it, and I spend no time at those places. I spend time on BH.tv because it's usually something other than this.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't think Conn is like Sean Hannity. I'm doubly sorry that you are unable to understand, once again, why your perceptions are not facts. I've seen enough of Hannity to feel justified in my opinion. I can respect that you do not equate the two, and all I ask in return is that you respect that I do.

I should add that the thing that really saddens me about your behavior is that you seem like a fairly smart person. Hard as it might be for you to believe, most of the liberals on this board, myself included, want to hear the conservative points of view. I'm not sure if what drives you is loneliness or , defensiveness or what, but I hope that you will find it within yourself to resist the temptation to obliterate the useful things you might have to say by acting like such a little kid.

piscivorous 04-25-2008 11:18 PM

Re: Sorry no shorter whatfur
 
If you can't dazzle em with your BS and your argument is week; lay a guilt trip on them I guess. I can assure you as one of he conservative commenters here my point of view has been less than welcome or or well received by many commenters here on numerous occasions. I'll be looking for your new sprouted wings from here on out.

Whatfur 04-25-2008 11:19 PM

Re: Sorry no shorter whatfur
 
Whatever Brendan...maybe check your patronizing tone that you started in on me with and you may see something different from me.

Until then, sorry, you will just continue to be Keefe.

As to the rest of your response...well...if you now are just backpeddling to "tone" then why would you respond to my post at all. I was responding to graz and others who have tried to characterize Conn as "unhinged", "angry", "attack dog", "bitter", unable to suppress his "bitterness", "rage","contempt" and simply asked for an example which...surprise...surprise all I continue to get are excuses as to why they cannot be supplied. Still waiting.

graz 04-25-2008 11:40 PM

Re: Sorry no shorter whatfur
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 75088)
Whatever Brendan...maybe check your patronizing tone that you started in on me with and you may see something different from me.

Until then, sorry, you will just continue to be Keefe.

As to the rest of your response...well...if you now are just backpeddling to "tone" then why would you respond to my post at all. I was responding to graz and others who have tried to characterize Conn as "unhinged", "angry", "attack dog", "bitter", unable to suppress his "bitterness", "rage","contempt" and simply asked for an example which...surprise...surprise all I continue to get are excuses as to why they cannot be supplied. Still waiting.

Hey ass gas. Can you scroll through my last three posts which clarify and address, what Brendan has twice spelled out for the aurally challenged - it is a difference of opinion and taste supported by examples not grasped or willfully ignored by you.

bjkeefe 04-25-2008 11:41 PM

Re: Sorry no shorter whatfur
 
pisc:

Quote:

I can assure you as one of he conservative commenters here my point of view has been less than welcome or or well received by many commenters here on numerous occasions.
It's not your point of view that has provoked ire. It's how you have expressed it. Like whatfur, you often come across as unnecessarily rude, self-righteous, or with an attitude that only your opinion is "right."

Except for one occasion where someone told you to "go back to LGF," I cannot think of any other instances in which anyone wished you weren't participating in these forums. Do you get mocked, criticized, or dismissed on occasion? Yes, and probably once in a while, too harshly. But invariably, this happens in response to a specific post that you've made, and not to your presence in general.

Whatfur 04-25-2008 11:50 PM

Re: Sorry no shorter whatfur
 
Pretty funny stuff. Settle down graz, you might burst something. And Kweefe has anyone ever suggested you might be a bit full of yourself? No? Let me be the first then.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.