November 30, 2007

Two Cents
— LauraW.

On the whole debate kerfuffle, if you're not sick of it all yet.
For me the whole thing boils down to not whose ox is getting gored, but what the elemental purpose of these exercises is.

The purpose of these debates is for the candidates to identify themselves to the public. Not just to showcase their bullshit parrying skills, but also to articulate their platforms and plans.

The purpose of these debates is to assist VOTERS- partisans and leaners- in accurately choosing a favorite to represent themselves in the general election.

The Democrat candidates and voters are being afforded the full substantive benefit of this process.

The Republican candidates and voters are being denied the benefits of the debate process.

Utterly denied. How can a candidate distinguish himself among his competitors when outside people are deliberately subverting the debate process until it is a sideshow conveying nothing but irrelevant information?

He can't. FY, NQ.
Thanks to Sharkman for the new battle cry.

UPDATE: Found this little nugget from fulldroolcup among the scorching comments in Gabe's last post on the subject.

Here is exactly what Bohrman said on topic in the story, just a few days ago:
"This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates,"said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. [emphasis fulldroolcup's]"We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates."
Bohrman also told "The Caucus (ht: ProteinWisdom)," the blogger for the New York Times that they would weed out any "gotcha" questions."

(As an aside, the correct answer to the Confederate Flag question is "Sir, I am not running for Governor of Georgia. Fly the flag, don't fly the flag, honestly, most Americans see this as a regional controversy best left to individuals and States. Fuck You, Next Question.")

Posted by: LauraW. at 08:03 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

1 With all due respect to Sharkman...didn't Dick Cheney pen that line first?

Posted by: coleman at November 30, 2007 08:09 AM (4zjxp)

2 There really is no "kerfuffle." It's just one poster who would be much more comfortable at Daily Kos. He's the only one who thinks that "average Americans" want to know about the Confederate flag and gays in the military. The other 99% know the truth.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 30, 2007 08:11 AM (Lgw9b)

3 Laura, FWIW, the Flag "issue" has been pretty much dead here in GA for the last 5 years.  And that was about the STATE Flag.


CNN is in Atlanta.  Yes, they are THAT out of touch with their surroundings.

Posted by: Techie at November 30, 2007 08:14 AM (AV8Z6)

4
And I don't think republicans really give a shit about what we can do to make muslims like us. Fk 'em. We bend over backwards to please those fkers in this country already. The better question is what would a candidate do to let the muslims understand that there will be no sharia law in the US. Not now. Not ever.

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at November 30, 2007 08:20 AM (ibiEO)

5 I thought it was more South Carolina that was all het up about the flag.

Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2007 08:21 AM (EchQe)

6

How do I email Gabriel?  I think he would do a great job with the Trent Lott/Dickie Scruggs/Katrina insurance story.  I think the Scruggs indictment is why Lott is scrambling out of the senate.  I also think the "more time with his family" that Lott said he wanted may get to be spent in the penitentiary.


Sorry, LauraW, to go OT.  I kinda liked sharkman's original answer more too.  It was something along the lines of "if it wasn't for Republicans, that flag might still be flying over a separate country that still had slavery" or something like that.


Posted by: funky chicken at November 30, 2007 08:24 AM (I+jPP)

7

As I posted on JackM's lovenote post to Gabe, this is not the first time the confederate flag question was asked at a debate.  It raised at the FOX debate.


MR. HUME: We'll -- Wendell, go ahead.


MR. GOLER: I think I want to turn to Senator McCain and change the subject, if I will. (Laughter.) I don't think we're going to solve this tonight, gentlemen.


An Internet question for you, Senator. Royce from Philadelphia asks if South Carolina should be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings. (Groans from the audience.)


SEN. MCCAIN: That's --


MR. GOLER: In 2000, sir, you said yes. You have since called that one of your worst examples of political cowardice. That flag is still flying in front of the Statehouse. Should it come down?


SEN. MCCAIN: It is not flying on top of capitol. It is flying at the --


MR. GOLER: It is flying in front of the Statehouse, sir.


SEN. MCCAIN: It is not flying on top of the capitol.


Yes, I was wrong when I didn't say it -- well, when I said that I believed that it was up to the state of South Carolina. That was a wrong statement on my part.


Now, after long negotiation amongst most parties, there is an agreement that that flag no longer flies on top of the capitol of the state of South Carolina.


Almost all parties involved in those negotiations believe that that's a reasonable solution to this issue. I support it. I still believe that it should not have flown over the capitol, and I was wrong when I said that it was a state issue. But now I think it has been settled, and I think it's time that we all moved on on this issue -- especially the people of South Carolina. (Applause.)


Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2007 08:27 AM (m2CN7)

8

Yeah, his comment was awesome, that's why I linked it.


South Carolina, Georgia, whatever. You trailer-dwellin' three-tooths all look the same to me.


Posted by: lauraw at November 30, 2007 08:28 AM (5WB7l)

9

It's not wrong to call them on their bullshit.  That's kinda what we do here.


 


Sometimes their bullshit is outrageous (more outrageous than other times).


I know tough questions can be a net positive.  Would be nice to see the Dems deal with some.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2007 08:29 AM (FXakj)

10 How can a candidate distinguish himself among his competitors when
outside people are deliberately subverting the debate process until it
is a sideshow conveying nothing but irrelevant information?


That hits the nail on the head.

Nobody cares about retired "Brigadier General" Keith Kerr and his gay issues. But they  foist it on us anyway.

The Republican candidates should only have agreed to do the YouTube debate if the Democrats had agreed to doing a Fox debate.





Posted by: Nice Deb at November 30, 2007 08:31 AM (OaU9X)

11 Laura Ingraham had some jack-off from CNN on her show and she missed asking about this very point, which is the main issue.

His excuse was that they were trying to "humanize" the candidates. Thanks buddy, but until proven otherwise I'm going to assume all Republican candidates are human.

Except for Dick Cheney. He's an Old One or something and he's not running.

For someone with mad Photoshop skillz - how about one of those dogs playing poker pictures except with Cheney and Cthulhu, and a few of the others?

Posted by: rinseandspit at November 30, 2007 08:32 AM (5ksba)

12
Nobody cares about retired "Brigadier General" Keith Kerr and his gay issues. But they  foist it on us anyway.

Well, maybe the guys he attends the weekly lemon party with do.

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at November 30, 2007 08:33 AM (ibiEO)

13 "are being afforded the full substantive benefit of this process."

No. The "plants'" questions exposed contradictions in the views of the candidates. As it turns out, the "gay" question exposed the usual contradiction that the Republican party is not "big tent";  same goes with the immigration, christian and southern racist questions: it appears true, based on the responses of the candidates, that the Republicans despise fags, non-christians, and non-whites.

It seems, lauraw, you want a forum which can conceal these contradictions. You want a "debate" which hoodwinks voters.

Posted by: william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 08:34 AM (ZX6hi)

14

CNN being in Atlanta means nothing. They want to project an image and agenda, darning reality to heck.


Very many Muslim organizations want to impose or establish sharia law (or some form thereof) in the US. They see it as their right as Muslims.


It is difficult for them -- the Islamist ones anyway -- to understand that civil law is for everyone regardless of religion. The promulgation of any law based on sharia or because of one's attitude towards sharia is a manifest violation of the separation of church and state.


Why more Americans don't see this threat is beyond me.


Posted by: Muslihoon at November 30, 2007 08:35 AM (LR1ZU)

15 Wow, talk about a bad faith argument there WJB.  Also, wasn't WJB a "Christianist" of a sorts?  Aren't we projecting a wee bit?



Posted by: Techie at November 30, 2007 08:42 AM (AV8Z6)

16 william j bryant - No. We want a level playing field.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 30, 2007 08:44 AM (p0Yi7)

17

Ya know, I hate to see I told you so, but I told you so.


If you remember back to last summer when this whole thing started, Rudy and Romney who said the format was demeaning to the office and not worthy of a Presidential debate and  said they wanted no part of it.  McCain jumped in because he was polling .0004% and Ron Paul was all over it because youtube is his base.  Fred was still on his couch and unavailable for comment.


Well the blogosphere had a collective tizzy led by that online media guru Patrick Ruffini who warned that blowing this format off would set the Republicans back a decade with the online world and hand the living in mom's basement vote to the Dems.  The most notable pushback was from Hugh Hewitt who said the real danger was not from youtube but from the people picking the videos, CNN.  Pretty good call.


The RNC, the Florida Republican Party and every other numbnut who kept pushing this joke forward got exactly what they should have expected, a disaster.


 


Posted by: JackStraw at November 30, 2007 08:44 AM (t+mja)

18 Frankly the 'gay' question was pointless. The candidates are running for the lead job in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

I agree with Laura, the candidates need to start showing some backbone and calling certain questions what they are, bullshit.

Posted by: GarandFan at November 30, 2007 08:45 AM (+tCxF)

19 No. The "plants'" questions exposed contradictions in the views of the candidates.

Speaking of plants . . .

Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2007 08:46 AM (EchQe)

20 Well, hello erg!

Want some fruit?

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 08:49 AM (R8+nJ)

21

Who picked the questioners.  There has ben allot in the news about plants before the debate.  Time/CNN hired Clinton's Carville, the person responsible for the destruction of America.


They hired KOS.  KOS got his start by dems, like Hillary , payng him to blog.  Hillary isn't gay and neither is anybody else.  So, did KOS pick the questioners?  There was allot n the news about gay people before the debate.


Gays and plants.


 


Posted by: KJH at November 30, 2007 08:50 AM (j1Yu1)

22

WJB's cognizant dissonance meter measurement is off the charts.  Its going to BLOW. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!! 


 


Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2007 08:51 AM (m2CN7)

23 The only persons acting in bad faith were the Republican candidates who failed to condemn racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance.

In any case, with Hillary & Obama the rightwing voter enjoys the usual policy homologies favored by the political class, without all of the dipshit hatred. Hill & O will continue to murder countless "jihadists," support economic policies lining the pockets of wall street financiers, and burn the middleclass with further assaults on the bogeyman "entitlements."

It's win, win for you knuckleheads, in other words. Why complain?

Posted by: william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 08:55 AM (ZX6hi)

24 So, the Dems are the Folk Song Army?

They're all against poverty, war and injustice.  Unlike the rest of us squares?

Posted by: Techie at November 30, 2007 08:58 AM (AV8Z6)

25

The problem with the debate is both the questions, some were worthless and some were clearly designed to portray Republicans in a bad light and the dishonesty of CNN in not doing the most basic of homework to see the agenda of some of the questioners.  Anderson Cooper was on the Glen Beck radio show the morning of the debate and was specifically asked about questions that are in effect planted and Cooper said although they have a right to ask, CNN did not think they were appropriate and would try to avoid those. 


So either CNN is being dishonest or they are incompetant.  Those are the only two options.


Posted by: AndrewsDad at November 30, 2007 08:59 AM (u+Nop)

26 Boo!

Posted by: Cross of Gold at November 30, 2007 09:00 AM (R8+nJ)

27

Foaming waters run shallow.


Posted by: sherlock at November 30, 2007 09:00 AM (ojW85)

28

It's win, win for you knuckleheads, in other words. Why complain?


How's always being on the lose / lose side working out for ya?


Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2007 09:01 AM (m2CN7)

29 As it turns out, the "gay" question exposed the usual contradiction
that the Republican party is not "big tent";  same goes with the
immigration, christian and southern racist questions: it appears true,
based on the responses of the candidates, that the Republicans despise
fags, non-christians, and non-whites.


You know, I don't exactly suffer from a lack of self-esteem and self-respect.  And I'm both a Republican and a fag.  Do you know how many tolerant liberals have told me to my face that bisexuality doesn't really exist so I must hate myself so much that I can't accept that I'm a dyke and that I must be self-loathing to embrace such horrors as conservatism and a belief in limited government.  I am far, far, far more welcome by these here fellow morons than I am at any gay bar.  So, you know, FY, NQ. 

Also, it's William Jennings BRYAN you idiot.

Posted by: alexthechick at November 30, 2007 09:01 AM (SHHaV)

30 the "gay" question exposed the usual contradiction that the Republican party is not "big tent"

erg,

If by 'big tent' you mean big enough to include the Democrat's base, then no.  Of course on a normal standard, the Republican tent is quite large.

There's a pro-choice candidate, a candidate who wants a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion and several in between.

There's a huge difference on other issues like immigration, taxes, spending, the over all role of government, health care, foreign policy and a whole host of other issues.

What major policy difference is there between the Democratic presidential candidates?  Essentially none. Nice echo chamber 'big tent you have there.

Posted by: Drew at November 30, 2007 09:03 AM (hlYel)

31 Cross of Gold - nice one.

Posted by: sherlock at November 30, 2007 09:04 AM (ojW85)

32
Posted by: alexthechick at November 30, 2007 02:01 PM (SHHaV)


For that rant, I owe you a drink.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 09:05 AM (R8+nJ)

33 alex

Well, it's a bit like the Jewish man who joins the Aryan Brotherhood, isn't it?

Unfortunately, victims of hegemony like yourself--the kind of person who demands her own subjection--harms us all.

Posted by: william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 09:10 AM (ZX6hi)

34

 Do you know how many tolerant liberals have told me to my face that bisexuality doesn't really exist so I must hate myself so much that I can't accept that I'm a dyke and that I must be self-loathing to embrace such horrors as conservatism and a belief in limited government.


I went over to excitable Andi's yesterday to guage his reaction to the don't ask don't tell general (who he clearly knows given that he has done at least one prominent speaking gig with him) but his response was oddly muted.  Well, for him anyway.


But he does have a bunch off posts on this topic essentially saying what you did, that bisexuals are just gay people in denial.  Personally, I hope this is not true.  I have years of fantasys tucked away that would be destroyed.  This would be worse than finding out Santa was really my mom and that one really left a mark.


Posted by: JackStraw at November 30, 2007 09:11 AM (t+mja)

35

Well, it's a bit like the Jewish man who joins the Aryan Brotherhood, isn't it?


No.  FY, NQ


Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2007 09:11 AM (m2CN7)

36

Also, it's William Jennings BRYAN you idiot.


heh heh heh


Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2007 09:16 AM (FXakj)

37 Oh and dumbass, there are jewish members of the Aryan Brotherhood.  The AB was formed as prison gang based mostly on being white not what religion you were.

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2007 09:17 AM (m2CN7)

38

I'm gonna go hide now. 


Well, first I'm gonna say that there are plenty o gay folks serving in the military.  My husband knows a fair number of them, and as far as AF folks are concerned, if they keep their hands to themselves, nobody gives a flying fuck.  


Alex, did you know you were a victim of hegemony?  Because you live as an "out" bisexual female?  OMG  what exactly are the burkha/hijab babes then?  Just passionate about expressing their devotion to their religion?  Yeah, sure.


Posted by: funky chicken at November 30, 2007 09:18 AM (I+jPP)

39 william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 02:10 PM (ZX6hi)

whb, I don't think you want to keep flogging that dog....  I'm pretty sure that Alex could kick your ass in her sleep.

Posted by: A. Weasel at November 30, 2007 09:18 AM (bqcfE)

40 Now ergie, this has been fun and all, but you've been banned.

Multiple times, actually.  We co-bloggers have basically been given carte blanche to do whatever we wish with your lunatic ravings.  So unless you want to find yourself describing the unspeakably deviant things you're currently doing (and there is some creativity among the morons), I would suggest finding another blog to infect.

Toodles!  Hugs and kisses!

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 09:20 AM (R8+nJ)

41

it appears true, based on the responses of the candidates, that the Republicans despise fags, non-christians, and non-whites


Funny, but you couldn't give an example of this.


No matter, it's "true" in your mind...


Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2007 09:21 AM (BNlV7)

42 I just read the wjb posts again.  It has to be parody.  Where's Tushar?

Posted by: funky chicken at November 30, 2007 09:22 AM (I+jPP)

43 Where's Tushar?

Probably changing a diaper.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 09:24 AM (R8+nJ)

44 Probably changing a diaper.

I thought he had in laws to do that for him.

Posted by: A. Weasel at November 30, 2007 09:26 AM (bqcfE)

45

Ergastularius, I am in a terrific mood and therefore inclined to not nuke your comments today even though you are a tiresome previously banninated pointless waste of pixels.


Have fun and play nice with the other kids. Don't make me come down there.


Posted by: lauraw at November 30, 2007 09:27 AM (5WB7l)

46 Well, it's a bit like the Jewish man who joins the Aryan Brotherhood, isn't it?

What the fuck?  No.  Not even remotely.  Despite what you may think, the Republican party is not calling for the death, torture or imprisonment of people for their sexuality.  Disagreeing as to whether or not gay people should be allowed to serve openly does not for one second equate to calls for physical harm.  And you shame only yourself by denigrating true victims of prejudice and hate by making this comparison.  Not to mention you just proved my point. 

Unfortunately, victims of hegemony like yourself--the kind of person who demands her own subjection--harms us all.

Not that it's any of your damn business, but I am usually the subjugator, not the subjugatee.  Victim?  Hegemony?  Subjugation?  Babycakes, I am an independent, successful woman who has her own car, her own residence, pays her own bills and has a graduate degree.  I can do what I want, with whom I want, without having fear of going to jail.  I have had federal judges call me for my opinion on issues, I've been commended from the bench by the Third Circuit for drafting one of the most well written briefs they've ever read and I've taught legal theory on the university level.  Help, help I'm being oppressed is not exactly on the tip of my tongue.  I do not give a rat's ass about marriage, straight or gay, and I deeply resent having someone else think that they have the right to decree for me what my political positions must be merely because I want to bang both Mr. The Rock Sir and Milla Jovovich through the wall.

I am not my sexuality, my sexuality is part of me.  Attempts to make any one aspect of my personality and life primary is insulting and demeaning.

Or, for the short version, shut up, Jane, you ignorant slut. 

Posted by: alexthechick at November 30, 2007 09:28 AM (SHHaV)

47 Don't make me come down there.

That'll put the Fear of the Hump in him.

Posted by: A. Weasel at November 30, 2007 09:30 AM (bqcfE)

48

Fuck You, Next Question


LauraW... geeze... that's suppose to be super-secret! God it's hurting me in ways impossible for you to understand!


Oh, and Fynq.


Posted by: TheEJS at November 30, 2007 09:31 AM (KINJc)

49 Btw, lauraw, eliminate the word "being" in your writing; use of the word is unnecessary.





Posted by: william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 09:31 AM (ZX6hi)

50 I less than three alexthechick, that was a great rant.  Slubbo, you got a running tally of how many times you've dropped the banhammer on erg?

Posted by: sinistar at November 30, 2007 09:31 AM (VZv6D)

51 Your presence here is unnecessary, erg.

Posted by: sinistar at November 30, 2007 09:35 AM (VZv6D)

52 Not that it's any of your damn business, but I am usually the subjugator, not the subjugatee.

Hawt.

Posted by: sinistar at November 30, 2007 09:36 AM (VZv6D)

53 Anybody else find it funny a guy going under the monicker of "William Jennings Bryan" is complaining about other people not being more accepting of immigrants and minorities?

Posted by: AD at November 30, 2007 09:37 AM (z5+EM)

54 Slubbo, you got a running tally of how many times you've dropped the banhammer on erg?

Oh, it's got to be near half a dozen by now.  Still, I'll go with lauraw on this one.  We'll set the ergie free and let you morons have some fun with him.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 09:43 AM (R8+nJ)

55 AD, I don't know weither or not it's being "Ironic" "Ignorant" or suffers from a massive case of CD.

Posted by: Techie at November 30, 2007 09:43 AM (AV8Z6)

56

Hey, since somebody brought up sexuality, perhaps the worst/saddest part of the whole debate is the fact that one of the questions they used was submitted by a deluded teenaged Anderson Cooper fangirl.


Honey, you're really not his type. 


Posted by: funky chicken at November 30, 2007 09:47 AM (I+jPP)

57 Aw let him foam.  It will keep the wings on a fly.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2007 09:48 AM (FXakj)

58 Alexthechick

I appreciate everything you have to say and share, but liberals don't really believe half the shit they profess to stand for and certainly don't act in accordance to those beliefs.

I have so many liberal friends who consider themselves so enlightened and look down their nose at conservatives and lob "racist" and "bigot" insults but don't even realize what bigots and hypocrites they are.

Some were opposed to the High School hosting a cellular tower in trade of some dollars and new footfall field lighting. My liberal friends are pissed at the "groups" that come to watch the games the new lighting attracts. My favorite was a passionate liberal friend chastising me for eating meat and not supporting Peta as he was wearing fricken' Doc Martins and a leather jacket.

Al Gore hearts jet fuel.

Liberals are just frauds in denial.

Posted by: topsecretk9 at November 30, 2007 09:48 AM (ryO1F)

59 I suppose mercy is a good thing.  It is Friday after all.

Erg, please continue.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 09:49 AM (R8+nJ)

60 alex

Your biography is heroic in your mind, but is an anomaly proving nothing. That you personally derive satisfaction in a membership in a party which despises your lifestyle is your kinky pleasure, but not one shared by many non-straight persons. Roy Cohn went far in your party, and along the way did as much as he could to deprive happiness in the lives of many fellow homosexuals. He was required to do so, you know, because he was a powerful Republican. It is not surprising that a few targets of hegemony survive and even thrive by subjugating compatriots in the effort to demonstrate the proper ruthlessness needed for advancement.

Bravo, alex. Well done.


Posted by: william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 09:50 AM (ZX6hi)

61 Techie, trust me, it's ignorance. Irony would fly past this guy like a condor over a cockroach.

Bryan was a Dem, so whoever the troll is read a few quotes of his he liked on a Democratic website and decided to use his name while being oblivious to everything else the man stood for.

Posted by: AD at November 30, 2007 09:53 AM (GBZnn)

62 And in any case, we have here yet more examples of the kind of inductive thinking which typifies the rightwing mind: personal experience is always generalized as the archetype of the social.

Posted by: william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 09:54 AM (ZX6hi)

63

I FOUND HIM, I FOUND HIM. This "william jennings bryant", I found here!


Just remember what Butter's says guys. Fynq.


Posted by: TheEJS at November 30, 2007 09:55 AM (KINJc)

64 Slublog - I'll take that drink now, thanks. 

But he does have a bunch off posts on this topic essentially saying what you did, that bisexuals are just gay people in denial.

If all y'all thought the above was a rant, I can go on for days and days about the "bisexuality doesn't exist!" stupidity.  I have known that I like both boys and girls since I was 14.  This is simply who I am.  Just as some people are attracted only to members of the opposite sex and some are attracted only to members of the same sex, I find members of both sexes to be attractive.  Case closed, end of story. 

The impetus behind portions of the gay community's rejection of bisexuality is the assumption that bisexuals are trying to engage in same sex sexual activity without incurring any societal costs.  This is nonsense on stilts.  There is a difference between bisexuality and, say, the "down low" culture in which gay men marry but have male lovers on the side.  Yes, of course there are people who are in denial.  But that does not mean that every single person who is bi is attempting to do that.

JackStraw, your fantasies are safe.  Well, you know safe to still have anyway. 

Posted by: alexthechick at November 30, 2007 09:56 AM (SHHaV)

65 personal experience is always generalized as the archetype of the social.

Well it's not like your personal experience has much to offer. You ought to be grateful that we're so generous with ours.

Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2007 10:00 AM (EchQe)

66
Posted by: alexthechick at November 30, 2007 02:28 PM (SHHaV)

Heh, I was going to delete/'fix' erg's comments as well but thought it would be more fun to watch you rip him a new one. I was right.

Posted by: Drew at November 30, 2007 10:02 AM (hlYel)

67 And this bad faith is repeated over and over in ever more average existences. Consider the numbers of heartland Republican voters who live on Social Security and welfare who vote for politicians supporting an end to entitlements and income transfers.

Amazing. People routinely demand to be harmed in defense of an ideology.

These are the kinds of contradictions exposed in the debate.

Posted by: william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 10:02 AM (ZX6hi)

68 Slublog - I'll take that drink now, thanks.

Heh.  If you're ever up this way, consider it done.  Same goes for the rest of your morons. 

I should specify one drink.  We don't want a repeat of Boston.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 10:02 AM (R8+nJ)

69 Re: alexthechick's rants.

Number of morons leaving work and retiring directly to their bunks: 27 and counting.

Bravo.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2007 10:04 AM (Ds4I5)

70 heh, heh, heh  Heartland republicans who live on welfare.  Oh, my sides.  LOL

Posted by: funky chicken at November 30, 2007 10:07 AM (I+jPP)

71 And in any case, we have here yet more examples of the kind of
inductive thinking which typifies the rightwing mind: personal
experience is always generalized as the archetype of the social.

Heavy shit man, pass the dope.

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at November 30, 2007 10:08 AM (sf4Oe)

72

Consider the numbers of heartland Republican voters who live on Social Security and welfare who vote for politicians supporting an end to entitlements and income transfers.


A contradiction is when two observations which are both true lead to logically incomplatible outcomes.  There is no contradiction when one of the things is not an true observation, but a strawman.


Posted by: sherlock at November 30, 2007 10:13 AM (ojW85)

73

erg-


Your ability to be proven wrong over and over on virtually any topic and still come back for more is astounding.  Talk about self-loating.


Didn't mommy hug you enough?


Posted by: JackStraw at November 30, 2007 10:13 AM (t+mja)

74 People routinely demand to be harmed in defense of an ideology.

It's this thing called principle. Google it.

Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2007 10:14 AM (B8QiA)

75 The funny part to me is that he won't drop the 't' as it would acknowledge all those that pointed out his arrogant ignorance.  Beautiful.

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2007 10:18 AM (m2CN7)

76 geoff

No. More like the slave who demands another whipping from his master. The principle is masochism.

Posted by: william jennings bryant at November 30, 2007 10:20 AM (ZX6hi)

77 The principle is masochism.

It seems you have a profound understanding of that principle.

Posted by: A. Weasel at November 30, 2007 10:23 AM (bqcfE)

78 More like the slave who demands another whipping from his master.

That would depend on why the slave made the demand. Not that it's a fair or relevant analogy in the first place.

Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2007 10:24 AM (B8QiA)

79 And in any case, we have here yet more examples of the kind of
inductive thinking which typifies the rightwing mind: personal
experience is always generalized as the archetype of the social.


And here we have your inability to recognize that I was responding to your characterization of me as subjected.  I am not.  And my life is hardly heroic, which is rather the point.  I had access to and took advantage of opportunities that were available to me without regard to my sexuality.  I do not hold myself out as an archetype of anything, for, lo, I am a unique and beautiful flower of flowerhood, etc., ad nauseum.  My point, which I did not think was particularly subtle, is that true subjugation is when I am at risk of death or physical harm at the behest of the state.  People calling me names or shunning me is hardly the same. 

I am not a fool.  There are individuals in society who would do me harm were I to walk down a street holding a girlfriend's hand.  But those are actions by individuals, not the state.  And the state will find and punish those who do so for their violence against me.  Was it always so?  Hell, no.  Are there portions of this country in which there would be those in law enforcement who look the other way?  Hell, yes.  But that is not the norm and those who do so face prosecution themselves. 

Let us take my fellow morons.  There are those here who vehemently disagree with the morality of homosexuality.  They have no problems in so stating.  But I know, with confidence, that those who have moral objections would be among those standing up to say that I should not be the object of violence for those beliefs with which they disagree.  Facing social scorn is not the same as being beheaded or having a wall pushed on top of me.  Again, you belittle the deaths of those to whom that is currently happening. 


Bravo, alex. Well done.

Thanks!  I knew that my new jackboots would come in handy.  Damn.  Where did I leave my good crop?

Posted by: alexthechick at November 30, 2007 10:24 AM (SHHaV)

80 Thanks!  I knew that my new jackboots would come in handy.  Damn.  Where did I leave my good crop?

It gets better and better.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2007 10:33 AM (1Ug6U)

81

Just wanted to shout-out for Tom Lehrer that comment #24 brought up.


 


I think you should use National Brotherhood Week as an encore.


Posted by: meep at November 30, 2007 10:37 AM (5j3FI)

82

And in any case, we have here yet more examples of the kind of inductive thinking which typifies the rightwing mind: personal experience is always generalized as the archetype of the social.


You tell 'em, jackass!


Posted by: That Rich Kid Whining About SCHIP at November 30, 2007 10:42 AM (gQ+XA)

83

We don't want a repeat of Boston.


 


Don't we?


Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2007 10:49 AM (FXakj)

84 Don't we?

Okay, maybe parts of it were fun.  But really...that poor bartender will never be the same after some of what she saw.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 10:53 AM (R8+nJ)

85 Alexthechick,
I didn't know you are half gay, and frankly I don't care.

And that is what the Erg and the rest of the Lefties don't understand about us, we are not concerned about everything that happens in the privacy of people's homes, we care about how they act, and their views on important subjects.

Whoopie! There are Gay Republicans, and there are Black Republicans, and Asian Republicans and Hispanic Republicans, to us they are just smart Republicans. But to the Left, they are traitors, because rather than toeing the commie party line, they actually use there brains to think out the issues.

Posted by: Mr Minority at November 30, 2007 10:54 AM (rV8wK)

86
But he does have a bunch off posts on this topic essentially saying
what you did, that bisexuals are just gay people in denial. 
Personally, I hope this is not true.  I have years of fantasys tucked
away that would be destroyed.


JackStraw:  If you want to have sex with a man, go for it.

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at November 30, 2007 10:57 AM (ibiEO)

87

Amazing. People routinely demand to be harmed in defense of an ideology.


Erg, you're one unintentionally funny clueless fuck.


Posted by: cranky at November 30, 2007 10:59 AM (7rKVk)

88 NiceDeb's commenter Nick has been investigating the background of Keith Kerr, the first plant discovered at the debate. This is from the transcript:

Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (Ret.): My name's Keith Kerr, from
Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years
of service. And I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course,
the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I'm
an openly gay man.


But Nick points out that Kerr retired from the Army Reserves as a Colonel in 1986, and was promoted to BG in 1991 in the California State Military Reserve, a state-level organization. So calling himself a "retired brigadier general" was at least misleading, if not fraudulent. Nick promises more info over the next couple of days.

This could get very interesting.

Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2007 11:04 AM (B8QiA)

89

LauraW amd the other co-bloggers,


The library isn't going to close for another hour or so, which means a lot more ergalatrocious. And his stupidty is not leavened by the slightest bit of humor.


So could you all at least start adding some of his frozen fruit phantasies to the end of his posts so that they'll end on an amusing note?


Thanks.


Posted by: maxxman at November 30, 2007 11:07 AM (OYeDg)

90

that poor bartender will never be the same after some of what she saw.


oh.  forgot that.   yeeesh.  the smell of burning human flesh.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2007 11:10 AM (FXakj)

91 Actually, I am just sick of the Malor posts, and would like to be rid of them, or at least have a lot less volume.

Posted by: holdfast at November 30, 2007 11:23 AM (Gzb30)

92 Erg, I guess I see each person as an individual, and not solely as a member of some group he was born into. If you have a problem with that, you can kiss my pasty, cellulitic ass. (That should get people out of their bunks.)

Take the issue of trans-racial adoption. Some lefties see a white couple adopting a black child, and they want to prohibit it because the child will be deprived of full access to his black heritage.

I look at the same situation, and all I see is a baby who's getting the loving family he needs.

BTW, one reason I like the Bu$hitler is because when he was governor, he worked to get rid of racial restrictions on adoptions, so more kids got adopted.

Posted by: stace at November 30, 2007 11:23 AM (A56/D)

93 oh.  forgot that.   yeeesh.  the smell of burning human flesh.

And the screams.  Oh, the screams...

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 11:26 AM (R8+nJ)

94

I'm so jealous.


Posted by: lauraw at November 30, 2007 11:28 AM (5WB7l)

95 I'm not. =shudder= Boston =shudder=. What a dreary little town.

Posted by: meep at November 30, 2007 11:45 AM (5j3FI)

96 Road trip to slublogs!  I'll pick Alex on the way. One night with me and she'll be hard core, lipstick lesbian for life.  Or join a Convent.   I've had both happen to women I've slept with.  The Lesbian community has me to thank for converting so many straight women, much to my chagrine.

Posted by: hutch1200 at November 30, 2007 11:54 AM (cRsIQ)

97

But really...that poor bartender will never be the same after some of what she saw.


Chicks dig clog dancing guys and I don't intend to apologize yet again for being the one guy there unafraid of young blond clog-dancing drunk girls.


Posted by: spongeworthy at November 30, 2007 11:57 AM (uSomN)

98 Hobo: "Senator Hutch, what will you do to make railyards safe for transient mass cargo enthusiasts"?     Fuck you, next question Willey

Posted by: hutch1200 at November 30, 2007 11:59 AM (cRsIQ)

99 Maybe I'll bring "So over Him" to Slublogs. For the week!

Posted by: hutch1200 at November 30, 2007 12:01 PM (cRsIQ)

100 "Mrs. Clinton, you haven't been seen with your husband in months, are you actually married or is it one of the Marin County marriages, one of those weird liberal ones..."

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at November 30, 2007 12:06 PM (sf4Oe)

101 "Mrs. Clinton, will you sit on my face with that big ass and wriggle?"

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at November 30, 2007 12:08 PM (sf4Oe)

102 Hutch, all you'd see is a little cabbage-patch face peeking in from the laundry closet, "Is she gone yet?"

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 30, 2007 12:11 PM (uSomN)

103 Hutch, all you'd see is a little cabbage-patch face peeking in from the laundry closet, "Is she gone yet?"

Haha...

I'd actually hide in the basement.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 12:31 PM (R8+nJ)

104 that sizzling sound, that's the one that haunts me so.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2007 12:56 PM (FXakj)

105 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bryan also the lead prosecutor attacking evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Posted by: AD at November 30, 2007 01:29 PM (z5+EM)

106

it appears true, based on the responses of the candidates, that the Republicans despise fags, non-christians, and non-whites.


Exactly how does it appear true? Be specific. What responses made you declare such a stereotyping, narrow-minded, and "full of bovine excrement-like" accusation? I don't believe we got an answer to that when the question was asked earlier. If you can't defend your own statements, then vamoose, you vapid tool.


Facing social scorn is not the same as being beheaded or having a wall pushed on top of me.


I would like to nominate this as one of the most profound statements ever made on this blog.  Well that, and FYNQ. 


Posted by: Conservative Belle at November 30, 2007 02:14 PM (O6e5f)

107 "Senator Osama, if elected POTUS, will you THEN say the pledge of Allegance"?

Posted by: hutch1200 at November 30, 2007 02:33 PM (cRsIQ)

108 This should really be a whole weekend thread. "WWMAD's"  What would morons ask donks?          Dave?     Lauraw? Sslublog?

Posted by: hutch1200 at November 30, 2007 02:35 PM (cRsIQ)

109 I'm sure this has been said a few dozen times already, but I am a law student studying for finals so I don't have enough time to read all of the comments.

Besides the obvious "gotcha" quality of the questions that were asked at this debate...my big problem is the misrepresentation and deception.  CNN portrayed people with a left-leaning bias as undecided, just as they portray their left-leaning journalists as objective.  And the worst part of it is they had the gall to do it, in the face of the new media and the conservative blogosphere, apparently believing that they wouldn't get called out on it...and then added insult to injury by feigning innocence.  Old habits die hard, I guess.  I keep thinking that eventually they will realize that their bullshit won't fly anymore, but obviously it hasn't sunk in yet.

So that's MY two cents.  Back to the books. 

Posted by: mississippigirl at November 30, 2007 02:59 PM (0mB+O)

110

Mrs. Clinton, as President, .......... do you plan on hiring any female staff members or interns?


If your answer is Yes, will you have dibs on them, or will you share them with Bill?


Posted by: maxxman at November 30, 2007 03:28 PM (OYeDg)

111 So, the Dems are the Folk Song Army?
They're all against poverty, war and injustice.  Unlike the rest of us squares?


It don't matter if it isn't good english, and it don't even gotta rhyme...

...excuse me, "rhyne".

Posted by: cheshirecat at November 30, 2007 06:21 PM (zOVk7)

112

I want to bang both Mr. The Rock Sir and Milla Jovovich through the wall.


I'll be in my bunk!


Posted by: The Rock at November 30, 2007 09:17 PM (+P4HU)

113 I was niether Demacrate or Pepublican..After clintons run and hide, and not directly addressing the hostage situation----It scares me that the may have to face Irans big bully, and how she will handle that? She mustn"t be so sure she will win if she has to continuely  sneak spies into the Republican  media to ask questions she thinks they will fall on thier face on.  I say she opened the flood gates, so why not plant questions in her forum we want her and other Demacrates address?  The  Demacrates have shown me I voted the wrong way in the last election, and I wont make that mistake in this election.

Posted by: abby.treadway@hotmail.com at December 01, 2007 08:35 AM (aiu8R)

114  the second most popular gift after weapon. If your boss and his inner rolex submariner replica that these are chanel j12 replica

Posted by: dfsf at October 18, 2010 10:01 AM (s4Wcr)

115 I'm happy I found this blog, I couldnt discover any info on this subject matter prior to. super bowl tickets I also run a site and if you want to ever serious in a little bit of guest writing for me if possible feel free to let me know, i\'m always look for people to check out my site. Please stop by and leave a comment sometime!!! radio city christmas spectacular tickets

Posted by: alannajobly at November 01, 2010 12:21 AM (fAYtI)

Posted by: tracyjq at February 08, 2012 01:56 AM (Z66iR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
128kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 0.0943 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0337 seconds, 303 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.