Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2008, 08:55 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Like a Prayer

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-21-2008, 09:40 AM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: Like a Prayer

classic.
__________________
Full Disclosure: I work for BhTV.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2008, 09:50 AM
Michael Michael is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: I live in Boston
Posts: 81
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Oh no! Bob misjudged where Ann is on the political spectrum-I hope Bob doesn´t fire Ann! Captivating diavlog.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2008, 10:01 AM
JackLifton JackLifton is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Bob Wright's unending emphasis on ethical relativism and the question of 'whether Mccain cheated' is simply rediculous and casts a pall on my respect for him as a debater. Can we please get back to the substance of the debate rather than rhetorical tricks and nonsense to divert attention.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-22-2008, 02:45 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackLifton View Post
Bob Wright's unending emphasis on ethical relativism and the question of 'whether Mccain cheated' is simply rediculous and casts a pall on my respect for him as a debater. Can we please get back to the substance of the debate rather than rhetorical tricks and nonsense to divert attention.
You're right, better to expand on the "Obama's a racist because he criticized Clarence Thomas and they are both Black" thing. Now that was substantive!
I think Bob was just trying to draw Ann out of her "neutral" shell. A tactic which, I think, after just a few minutes, proved unnecessary.

Last edited by handle; 08-22-2008 at 03:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-21-2008, 10:23 AM
JIM3CH JIM3CH is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 157
Default Thank God for Virtual Energy

Bob Wright and the classic progressive misconception:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/138...9:42&out=69:56

One PC consumes conservatively at least 200 watts. The average solar flux on the surface of the earth is 200 watts per square meter. There are currently about 2000 members in the Bloggingheads forum community, each member of which has at least one computer. Bob clearly assumes that there is, somewhere, 2000 square meters of solar energy being collected exclusively to keep his BH empire in the green.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-21-2008, 11:17 AM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Thank God for Virtual Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by JIM3CH View Post
Bob Wright and the classic progressive misconception:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/138...9:42&out=69:56

One PC consumes conservatively at least 200 watts. The average solar flux on the surface of the earth is 200 watts per square meter. There are currently about 2000 members in the Bloggingheads forum community, each member of which has at least one computer. Bob clearly assumes that there is, somewhere, 2000 square meters of solar energy being collected exclusively to keep his BH empire in the green.
Cool, but why is it classically progressive not to know that computers use energy?

aside: Your roof's got 180 m2 on it if you're typical, so 2000 m2 isn't as much as it sounds. Solar energy advertisement.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-21-2008, 11:53 AM
JIM3CH JIM3CH is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 157
Default Re: Thank God for Virtual Energy

I am admittedly being provocative. But Bob’s off-hand comment sort of speaks for itself. It is so easy to forget just how much energy we require to keep on keeping on. I tend to believe that there is a gap between what progressives think we need, vs. what we really need.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:30 PM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Thank God for Virtual Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by JIM3CH View Post
I am admittedly being provocative. But Bob’s off-hand comment sort of speaks for itself. It is so easy to forget just how much energy we require to keep on keeping on. I tend to believe that there is a gap between what progressives think we need, vs. what we really need.
Sure, you have highlighted it: the rather casual knowledge of the layman regarding energy technology. But then imagine a "conservative" blogginghead saying that domestic oil drilling is going to significantly lower the price of oil. Also not a piece with reality when considering the energy needs of a world brought to the level of modernity. But pointing that out and saying "I tend to believe that there is a gap between what conservatives think we need, vs. what we really need," etc. ... I just think it's a distraction meant to score points completely unrelated to energy. Believe it or not, there are "liberals" who understand energy on a serious level, work in the field, all that.

You seem to have your shit together on the energy debate, JIM3CH, and know what you're talking about. So, I'm just calling you out for a lazy comment, which you probably just intended to be funny. But, Bob's comment wasn't really a seriously considered position either.

Ok? Just shooing you away from a straw man.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2008, 10:47 AM
eric eric is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Default Back in My Day

Ann: "Don't do the same old thing like chatboards in the 80's." I don't remember Ann on Arpanet.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-21-2008, 11:10 AM
DoctorMoney DoctorMoney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 305
Default Re: Like a Prayer

AA was weird and dishonest a good 3 times in the first 5 minutes of the vlog. No one can sit in the green room with McCain because he was a POW? I know even she doesn't actually believe that. (And I say that as someone who thinks the 'cheating' thing was a lot of nothing, more or less. Even if it were 100% true, I'm not sure anyone should change their vote based on it.)

I get that 'Mickey drives the liberal commenters crazy' is a funny line, but I think Bob does him a disservice. I can't think of any time off the top of my head, over the course of hours and hours of talk, that I've thought he was being intentionally dishonest to make a point. His contrarianism is pretty sincere!

Althouse, on the other hand, starts beaning the batter on the very first pitch and doesn't let up until she's called back to the dugout. There's really no comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:24 PM
mmacklem mmacklem is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 140
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorMoney View Post
I get that 'Mickey drives the liberal commenters crazy' is a funny line, but I think Bob does him a disservice. I can't think of any time off the top of my head, over the course of hours and hours of talk, that I've thought he was being intentionally dishonest to make a point. His contrarianism is pretty sincere!
This one is easy: the time when, in response to Bob describing the applause at the CPAC conference in response to Ann Coulter calling John Edwards the f-word, and Mickey suggested that half of the people at the conference were probably gay. I can't believe that he actually believed that.

Here, for your viewing pleasure, I present the documentary evidence:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/188...0&out=00:45:15
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/188...0&out=00:33:18

Last edited by mmacklem; 08-21-2008 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-21-2008, 03:35 PM
DoctorMoney DoctorMoney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 305
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmacklem View Post
This one is easy: the time when, in response to Bob describing the applause at the CPAC conference in response to Ann Coulter calling John Edwards the f-word, and Mickey suggested that half of the people at the conference were probably gay. I can't believe that he actually believed that.

Here, for your viewing pleasure, I present the documentary evidence:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/188...0&out=00:45:15
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/188...0&out=00:33:18
Calling half the CPAC audience gay isn't exactly the kind of 'stick to your zombie talking points' rhetoric I was bitching about. You get the feeling Mickey didn't get that line fed to him from the conservative hive mind -- but I wish he had! It would be a much better hive mind. If conservatives embrace gay rights positions out of spite so that they can continue to call Edwards a fairy, I guess I could get behind it
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-21-2008, 02:46 PM
sp3akthetruth sp3akthetruth is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 54
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorMoney View Post
Althouse, on the other hand, starts beaning the batter on the very first pitch and doesn't let up until she's called back to the dugout. There's really no comparison.
5 minutes? You're giving her a serious benefit of the doubt. Most of her comments lacked intellectual honesty. Obama has written 2 best selling books without a guest writer or much editing, if you believe his editor. He has his JD from Harvard and yet she believes he writes like a child when not giving a speech? How can he be both egg headed and yet still not intellectually sufficient?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-21-2008, 04:12 PM
p.e. p.e. is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9
Default Ahhh. That hits the spot.

To my satisfaction, Bob finally found a conversation partner as irritating as Mickey.

Bob's mode of argument tends to be:
Wouldn't you agree that A?
And you have a previously stated the principle B.
So therefore you agree with me.

See the discussion of Clarence Thomas. Bob's implicit argument is: Wouldn't you agree that Clarence Thomas is not sufficiently brilliant to be a jurist? And you believe that SCOTUS judges should be the best legal minds. So therefore you agree that Barack Obama was right to say he wouldn't have voted for Thomas.

The Jonah Goldbergs of the world would go after premise B and say it's not enough to have a brilliant legal mind, you also have to have the right opinions (or judicial philosophy). Ann and Mickey, however, see where the argument is going, and attack premise A. Since premise A tends to be something widely believed but which is difficult to prove, this leaves Bob sputtering.

It is that Coffee/Tequilla/Tabsco taste that has been missing from the previous Kaus replacements. Bravo Ann!

Last edited by p.e.; 08-21-2008 at 04:13 PM.. Reason: grammer
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-21-2008, 11:31 AM
Globalcop Globalcop is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Default Re: Like a Prayer

I'm sure we're all familiar with Bob's usual lack of preparation, in terms of ever taking the time to read books by his guests; and it appears to be a sensitive subject for him today. When Ann says she actually read the Purpose Driven life, in preparation for this discussion, Bob starts in on a loud detour bragging about having met the author.

I love coming here daily to see the newest non-pundit discussions, but when does Bob's lack of prep become just more uniformed drivel? I can get that overhearing conversations on the subway.

Last edited by Globalcop; 08-21-2008 at 04:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-21-2008, 08:02 PM
p.e. p.e. is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9
Default John McCain's Squadron Captain job, whatever it was

Ann did disappoint me with her lack of preparation in one area...

Last edited by p.e.; 08-21-2008 at 08:08 PM.. Reason: clairify
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-21-2008, 11:42 AM
southernphoenix southernphoenix is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5
Default Re: Like a Prayer

So, if I understand AA correctly, McCain might have cheated, but we're not allowed to say that? And we can't keep McCain from cheating because he was a POW?

Maybe she's just trying to stir us up...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-21-2008, 11:50 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Quote:
Originally Posted by southernphoenix View Post
So, if I understand AA correctly, McCain might have cheated, but we're not allowed to say that? And we can't keep McCain from cheating because he was a POW?

Maybe she's just trying to stir us up...
I think a closer version of what she was trying to float is that regardless of whether McCain cheated, to suggest he may have cheated would be a greater harm.

Because he was a POW.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:01 PM
southernphoenix southernphoenix is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Also, if AA doesn't understand "what was religious" about Rev. Wright's sermons, she is completely ignorant of the Christian prophetic tradition, especially as it has shaped the African-American church. You may disagree with Wright's perspectives, but anyone familiar with the idea of prophetic leadership knows that Wright was making an explicitly theological point. There's nothing more irritating than watching someone who knows next to nothing about Christianity opine on whether something or someone is Christian.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:07 PM
DoctorMoney DoctorMoney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 305
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Quote:
Originally Posted by southernphoenix View Post
Also, if AA doesn't understand "what was religious" about Rev. Wright's sermons, she is completely ignorant of the Christian prophetic tradition, especially as it has shaped the African-American church. You may disagree with Wright's perspectives, but anyone familiar with the idea of prophetic leadership knows that Wright was making an explicitly theological point. There's nothing more irritating than watching someone who knows next to nothing about Christianity opine on whether something or someone is Christian.
I was thinking the same thing: a follower of Jesus Christ criticizing government? We all know that Jesus says support your leaders and kiss the ring.

Of course, as an atheist, I tend to come down on the side of patriotism and supporting the troops -- but that's because I don't think anything supernatural is coming to bail me out of trouble. Why pray when I can join AAA?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:16 PM
Exeus99 Exeus99 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
Default Althouse's Disappointing Failure

For someone who prides herself on her pop culture acumen, Prof. Althouse's failure here to make the obvious "rags to Ritchies" pun must be disappointing.
__________________
Chauvinist troll.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:47 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default I never thought I'd say it.

As impressive and thoughtful as Mr. Wright's observations have been in the past, it is clear that his support for Obama has now altered his objectivity. To continue to spread the meme that McCain cheated at Sadddleback is not only unfair and baseless, it lacks his usual well thought collection and discussion of the facts. His argument essentially is this, it's possible that McCain cheated so we can't dismiss the allegation, OR we can't prove that he didn't cheat so the allegation is legitimate if not ultimately true. If Mr. Wright were truly fair, he might consider how many times he's defended Senator Obama from similarly constructed allegations where the inability to prove a charge incorrect legitimizes the allegation.

Pastor Rick Warren went on Larry King and said that he discussed the type of questions with both candidates prior to the forum. And, if you watch McCain on the stump in his town halls you'd recognize that all of his answers in the forum were stories he has told a thousand times by now. It's not so much he prepared his answers as he's been telling them at town halls for almost two years now. If you were really interested in getting to the truth of the matter about whether McCain "cheated" don't you think these facts should have been presented and discussed?

And of course it would be pretty simple to find out McCain told the cross in the dirt story to his P.O.W. friends when it happened while they were still in captivity. Feel free to Google it, just ignore the 50 pages of Obama supporter blogs claiming it's made up in the search results.

Honestly, I'm not sure I can continue to watch Mr. Wright's diavlogs without Mickey. Mickey would never let him get away with these thin, unreasoned comments without challenging him on them. When is his vacation going to end?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:58 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: I never thought I'd say it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
As impressive and thoughtful as Mr. Wright's observations have been in the past, it is clear that his support for Obama has now altered his objectivity. To continue to spread the meme that McCain cheated at Sadddleback is not only unfair and baseless, it lacks his usual well thought collection and discussion of the facts. His argument essentially is this, it's possible that McCain cheated so we can't dismiss the allegation, OR we can't prove that he didn't cheat so the allegation is legitimate if not ultimately true. If Mr. Wright were truly fair, he might consider how many times he's defended Senator Obama from similarly constructed allegations where the inability to prove a charge incorrect legitimizes the allegation.

Pastor Rick Warren went on Larry King and said that he discussed the type of questions with both candidates prior to the forum. And, if you watch McCain on the stump in his town halls you'd recognize that all of his answers in the forum were stories he has told a thousand times by now. It's not so much he prepared his answers as he's been telling them at town halls for almost two years now. If you were really interested in getting to the truth of the matter about whether McCain "cheated" don't you think these facts should have been presented and discussed?

And of course it would be pretty simple to find out McCain told the cross in the dirt story to his P.O.W. friends when it happened while they were still in captivity. Feel free to Google it, just ignore the 50 pages of Obama supporter blogs claiming it's made up in the search results.

Honestly, I'm not sure I can continue to watch Mr. Wright's diavlogs without Mickey. Mickey would never let him get away with these thin, unreasoned comments without challenging him on them. When is his vacation going to end?
I apparently didn't view the same diavlog as you. When exactly did you hear someone assert that McCain lied? What I heard was a refutation of the assertion that McCain didn't lie. There's a difference and, of course, the latter has the advantage of bing true.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-21-2008, 01:25 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: I never thought I'd say it.

Wow Aem Jeff, you are sooooooo clever. What a brilliant reply. You must have Ph.D. or something-- btw, it's "being" not bing.

My point is simple. Mr. Wright is spreading the meme that McCain might have cheated because it was "possible". A fair consideration of whether Mr. McCain cheated would include a thoughtful assessment of his answers and the other facts I've presented in my original post. Mr. Wright didn't even watch the forum.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-21-2008, 04:16 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: I never thought I'd say it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
Wow Aem Jeff, you are sooooooo clever. What a brilliant reply. You must have Ph.D. or something-- btw, it's "being" not bing.
Wow bookofdisquiet, you are sooooooo clever. What a brilliant reply. You must have Ph.D. or something-- a rebuttal based on a typo.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-21-2008, 04:18 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: Like a Prayer

Fair enough.. I acted childishly by pointing that out.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-21-2008, 02:33 PM
Exeus99 Exeus99 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
Default Confusion

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You're talking about assertions that McCain lied--which I think is referring to the discussion over whether Sen. McCain cheated in the debate. Ok so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff
I heard [...] a refutation of the assertion that McCain didn't lie.
I don't know exactly where you heard this, maybe a Dingalink would help; but I guess Prof. Althouse asserted that Sen. McCain did not lie. According to you Wright refuted this assertion. As I understand the term, to refute something is to show it to be false. So, Wright shows that the assertion that McCain did not lie to be false. Assuming McCain did something, and that something was either "lie" or "not lie," then refuting the assertion that his action fell into the "not lie" category would show that he had done something that fell into the "lie" category, wouldn't it? Or is there some other category?

As I heard it, Wright doesn't assert that McCain cheated--I think you agree. I heard Wright insist that there's no way of proving McCain didn't cheat, which as you want to say (I think) is probably true--defnitive proof one way or the other isn't likely, I'm not sure what it would even look like. I think, though, that bookofdisquiet's problem is that Wright doesn't give any reason to think that Sen. McCain cheated other than the fact that no one can PROVE that he didn't. That's true but somewhat trivial--I can't PROVE that a tiny alien being didn't create a believable McCain-suit to drive around and have fun running for President in--but the fact that I can't prove it doesn't give anyone any reason to think it might be true. Since this is so, if I brought the possibility of an alien McCain up, especially as a mark against him, you'd probably (rightly) demand a higher standard of evidence.

The fact that Wright adopts such a terribly low standard here is worth pointing out. I think that's what bookofdisquiet did in lamenting what he sees as Wright's slipping standards (in the service of promoting Sen. Obama), and I don't see how your response to book addresses this, again given that I'm not sure exactly what your response meant!
__________________
Chauvinist troll.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-21-2008, 03:22 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: Confusion

Thank you Chauvanist Troll for hashing out AemJeff's comment. I think he was trying to be clever but just ended up being confusing.

What Mr. Wright did was not trivial. He is perpetuating a meme that it's possible Mr. McCain cheated without examining the facts. Mr. Wright often points to the damaging and untrue memes about Obama i.e. ... he's a muslim, he's not patriotic, etc., by defending Obama with the facts. Mr. Wright would say that calling Obama a muslim or unpatriotic is a slander because it's not true as he applies the facts to those accusations (...and I would concur with him). There is no way for Obama to prove to us what is in his heart about being patriotic or a Christian. Ultimately, we must take him at his word. Would you ever hear Mr. Wright say it's possible that Senator Obama is unpatriotic or a muslim?-- I don't think so-- Mr. Wright would list off a thousand facts disputing the accusation. But instead of considering the facts about whether Mr. McCain "cheated", he just perpetuated the meme that it's possible. He helped perpetuate a slander without even judging the facts-- he didn't even watch the Saddleback forum.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-21-2008, 04:15 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Confusion

Correction of "bookofdisquiet"'s unhinged attack - That it is "possible" McCain could have been prepped by his handlers for the Saddleback forum because there was no "cone of silence" as asserted to TV viewers watching isn't a "meme" or a "slander", it's a fact.

It's also a quite reasonable judgement that a guy like Steve Schmidt would consider it malpractice if he didn't play any and every advantage at hand. (Schmidt, incidentally, wasn't a POW, but he is a vet. Don't know how that factors into the metaphysic of integrity that's routinely applied to the guy who got in deep shit during the Keating scandals or cheated on his wife because "she wasn't the same woman I married", having been seriously injured in an automobile accident.)

You're utterly shameless. Frankly, if there's any "slander" going on here, it's you sliming Bob. And one didn't have to watch the forum to know the facts about McCain traveling with his handlers a full 30 minutes into Obama's interview. Also, clearly the prepping of McCain could - and I believe would - have been done without making it clear to McCain precisely what was going on. Plausible deniability and all that. Steve Schmidt is no fool. (He's the guy responsible for the campaign that got one of Hollywood's biggest celebrities elected governor of California.)
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-21-2008, 06:12 PM
Exeus99 Exeus99 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
Default Re: Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruds
It's also a quite reasonable judgement that a guy like Steve Schmidt would consider it malpractice if he didn't play any and every advantage at hand.
I'm sure that's true, but I'm not really sure it's enough. I'll stipulate that I don't know anything about Schmidt, but let's say he's Karl Rove II (Electric Rovealoo); knowing that he's a black-hearted goblin willing to say and do anyting to win doesn't mean you can safely assume that when anything goes wrong he must have caused it/been behind it in some way. It's not illogical to think that, but it doesn't seem like a good way to live--besides which I don't think it's very convincing when used as an argument to people who don't already agree with you. What I mean is, you can say "well, those other guys are so evil and tricky that they'll do anything to win," and on that basis conclude that they HAVE in fact done any bad/evil thing you can think of, but without some further evidence I'm not sure this will be convincing, nor useful.

Wouldn't this type of thing balance out, roughly, anyway? I don't know much about the people running either campaign, but I assume they're all big money pros, all have large clever staffs and all want to exploit any and every opportunity to get ahead. I guess on that basis I could conclude that any dirty trick I can think up has already been used by both campaigns--probably they're all so good they don't leave any evidence!

I guess one can decide that the other guys are just so much more evil and so much worse that they're already guilty of anything that could possibly be true. I'm sure there's plenty of past evidence against each "side" to convict anyone in politics today of treachery. Concluding that specific sins were committed just based on the evilness of the other side (and the possibility that the sins could have been committed) while insisting that no similar sins were committed by one's own side seems like a slightly more sophisticated version of arguing that "it's different when we do it," and while viscerally satisfying I'm not sure it's very convincing to those who don't already consider themselves a member of the "we."
__________________
Chauvinist troll.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-21-2008, 06:15 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Confusion

The shorter Exeus99:

"I'm sure that's true, but..."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-21-2008, 06:27 PM
Exeus99 Exeus99 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
Default Re: Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucds
The shorter Exeus99:

"I'm sure that's true, but..."
Hey, you left out all that other stuff I said! I guess I could have just typed "Shorter brucds: McCain & his campaign are especially evil so they're automatically guilty of anything they're accused of--and if you disagree you must be one of them & ergo evil yourself and not worth engaging" but it felt a little childish and beside the point of a highbrow forum like this one.
Also I guess that's not very short. See, I'd make a crack about my inability to be short, but I've already been found guilty of being a chauvinist troll and so I have to stay away from anything even vaguely sexual even as a joke--damn the creativity-stifling effectiveness of reeducation camp!
__________________
Chauvinist troll.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-21-2008, 06:36 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Confusion

Shorter Exeus99:
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-23-2008, 12:54 AM
rubbernecking rubbernecking is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37
Default Re: Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce View Post
Correction of "bookofdisquiet"'s unhinged attack - That it is "possible" McCain could have been prepped by his handlers for the Saddleback forum because there was no "cone of silence" as asserted to TV viewers watching isn't a "meme" or a "slander", it's a fact. . . . Also, clearly the prepping of McCain could - and I believe would - have been done without making it clear to McCain precisely what was going on. Plausible deniability and all that. Steve Schmidt is no fool.
All spot on! Thanks for adding a voice of clear thinking. McCain's campaign and his handlers are very smart. They probably wouldn't say, sotto voce "here are the answers Senator, but don't let anyone know that you already know them, OK. Then wink and press their index finger to their lips.

Hell, they might not have even intended to 'insider'-prep him but simply -- as a good handler would -- they were listening to the forum with one ear and, thereby, the questions were in their minds as they gave their final advice.

The less than unethical possibilities are endless but, as Bob argued, what we do know for sure is that the forum had a responsibility to maintain the isolation that they promised. They failed to and that is something to question and probably condemn. It was something of great consequence.

Isn't this obvious?

Last edited by rubbernecking; 08-23-2008 at 07:40 AM.. Reason: length
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-21-2008, 04:04 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: Confusion

Thanks brucds for your level headed politely worded response and for the expletives-- your civility and decency should be an example to all the commenters in this forum. As to your conspiracy that McCain cheated and might not have even known it--- I'm sure 9/11 was an inside job and one world government is close at hand.

Of course, however much I disagree with your conclusion about McCain cheating, at least you perpetuate that meme with your interpretation of the facts which is more than I can say for Mr. Wright saying that it's "possible".

Thank you for making my point and don't worry-- when the one world government implants the universal chip in you it won't hurt and you'll be invited to the Bohemian Grove.

Last edited by bookofdisquiet; 08-21-2008 at 04:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-21-2008, 04:27 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Confusion

Why would anyone think McCain cheated? His answers were consistently stupid cliches, bromides and predictable panders to the right wing base.

Obama, as usual, sounded like a man who had actually thought, read and carefully reflected on issues. McCain sounded shallow and idiotic.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-21-2008, 05:22 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: Confusion

Wow. Thanks for adding to the discussion in such a relevant manner. Your thoughts are so unbiased that I'm awe-struck by their ability to enlighten.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-21-2008, 05:33 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
Wow. Thanks for adding to the discussion in such a relevant manner.
I'd say the same about you, books. Are you capable of anything besides sarcasm?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-21-2008, 05:44 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: Confusion

Are you capable of anything but sarcasm either BJ? It seemed appropriate given Wonderment's obviously biased and ugly comments. Sarcasm is certainly more useful than name calling. I hate posters on Bloggingheads that don't add to the discussion. If Wonderment wants to rant angrily then they should go post on the Cafferty File on CNN. They appreciate that there.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.