In the first debate I thought McCain had slightly the better of it. Basically a draw, but McCain seemed a bit more forceful and confident. Then the polling over the next few days showed that most people thought Obama was the clear winner. Yay!
I hope, though, that I am not similarly out of touch with my country on this one. I thought McCain made an absolute fool of himself in this debate. Carnage. The calculus exams I was grading while watching were less gruesome than McCain's performance.
Obama was his usual super-composed self, delivering one solid answer after another to the questions being asked. His shots at McCain emerged naturally in the course of his answers, and many of them were just devastating. McCain sings about bombing Iran to old Beach Boys tunes, and Obama is the one who lacks the sobriety to handle foreign policy? Please.
McCain, meanwhile, seemed on the verge of a complete breakdown. He delivered his lines in the juvenile, taunting style more familiar from the elementary school playground. Then there was the weirdness. Hair transplants? Referring to Obama as “that one?” Prowling around the stage while Obama was speaking? Bluntly telling Tom Brokaw he would not be the treasury secretary in a McCain administration? Huh? The man's at the end of his tether.
Andrew Sullivan has it exactly right:
This was, I think, a mauling: a devastating and possibly electorally fatal debate for McCain. Even on Russia, he sounded a little out of it. I've watched a lot of debates and participated in many. I love debate and was trained as a boy in the British system to be a debater. I debated dozens of times at Oxofrd. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.It has been about as big a wipe-out as I can remember in a presidential debate. It reminds me of the 1992 Clinton-Perot-Bush debate. I don't really see how the McCain campaign survives this.
Jonathan Chait came to the same conclusion:
After the first debate, I didn't have a strong sense of who won. This time I do: Obama crushed McCain.
I'll predict that two things broke through. First, Obama constantly invoked the lived experience of Americans and explained how his proposals would relate to them. McCain hardly ever did this--even when he got specific, like on pork barrel spending, he did not relate it to peoples' lives. Second, McCain was just nasty--calling Obama "that one," and delivering zingers like "Did we hear the size of the fine" with a smile so forced it looked like it would break his face.
Quite right.
I have MSNBC on in the background as I am writing this, and they are reporting that the instapolling show that Obama won the debate by a large margin. Double yay!
- Log in to post comments
I was a bit peeved when Obama avoided answering the questions that were asked. I wanted to hear him actually respond to the questioners and thought that his evasion made him look bad to some undecideds.
No, I didn't care that McCain did practice the same technique. I don't care if he looks bad. But when Obama spoke first and failed to answer the question, McCain sometimes noticed that and said, in effect, "He didn't answer, but I will."
I'm not an objective viewer, but I do think Obama came off better than Grampy ("I know how to do it") McCain. But I do think Obama could be better than he was.
I thought McCain did quite well...as much as can be expected...he's not Mr. Personality. Having said that, anyone who would vote for Obama, socialist/muslim/tax-hiking/baby-killing friend of terrorists is out of their freaking mind.
John McCain did just fine, the otiose comments of execrable Andrew Sullivan notwithstanding.
Obama wouldn't pick Tom Brokaw as treasury secretary either. What's weird is that McCain thought this would need to be said. Or maybe it did. But how ironic that McCain should imply Brokaw's incompetence. After all, Brokaw still has a career in journalism, which, after all his grotesque cheerleading of the invasion of Iraq, not only after Wilson's letter, but even long after Bush-appointee Charles Duelfer failed to find any WMDs, and even after the Lancet reported an excess mortality of 90,000 in the invasion's first 18 months - why he deserves a career in journalism about twice as much as Matt Drudge does. Which is to say, if people really valued honesty in journalism, Brokaw would have been ridden out of town on a rail a long time ago. (Drudge would have been tarred and feathered.)
But there he is, moderating a presidential debate, with a worldview as far right as Ronald Reagan's, and as naive and distorted as that of a fourteen-year-old who loves war movies but never read a sentence about history. The best part is right-wing blogs are all accusing him of 'being a lefty', 'favoring Obama', and on and on.
And that's how far from reality our political discourse is, folks. Obama, hope he wins, is only a small step back toward sanity.
And you can see here - or any of dozens of blogs - McCain's lines, despite what Andrew Sullivan wrote, play quite well to the reality-challenged. Not nearly well enough, however. McCain is in a very deep hole.
Listen scott, if Obama were a socialist I'd have fewer qualms about voting for him.
He's not a socialist (as if that were an insult), and so far as I know he doesn't kill babies. Hes sacrifices them to Our Dark Lord before eating them. Big difference.
And as far as your "friend of terrorists" goes- OH MY GOD. He once worked with a lunatic. That is so freaky. Not as freaky as being married to one, but freaky nonetheless.
....
More seriously (sort of), I have a hard time watching McCain. It makes my skin crawl when he tries to get all...emotive. And I can't freaking stand it when he tries to be Reagan. Every time he says "My friends..." in that creepy soft voice he affects, I feel like I've just been hugged by Palpatine. It's revolting. And kind of insulting, because that jackasss is not my friend.
Who buys this crap? Negative reinforcement! Every time a politician tries to make a sleazy, unwanted and awkward emotional connection with us we should encourage them to stop by neglecting to vote for them.
But what we do?
*sigh*
It is difficult for me to judge whether llewelly is more or less anoetic than Andrew Sullivan. I suspect Sullivan has lost more brain volume but with llewelly's probable Wasatch Front inbreeding he no doubt had less to begin with.
jesus Leni, you're boring, boring, boring. You and O'Brien were made for each other. Two nits witless.
McCain would have fared far better had this debate been on the radio but not tv. I got the impression of a man wearing a truss and a girdle who had to take a leak. His humor was weak, but he did not act as maniacal as some led us to expect he would, nor did he offer the smears we have been hearing recently from Palin. I was struck by the ease with which he could mischaracterize his opponent with straight face. But on the whole, I find this "debate" format pretty worthless.
"Who buys this crap? "
The same people who get viagra-induced erections when they think Sarak Palini is winking at them....
scott: "anyone who would vote for Obama, socialist/muslim/tax-hiking/baby-killing friend of terrorists is out of their freaking mind."
Poe's Law in action.
BTW, may I introduce a new definition to describe what's happened in these debates?:
Sidestumping: To avoid answering a question by reciting a stump speech that at best is only tenuously related to the question.
I think that we saw both sides do this.
Re scott
Having said that, anyone who would vote for Obama, socialist/muslim/tax-hiking/baby-killing friend of terrorists is out of their freaking mind.
Anyone who would pay the slightest attention to the opinions of a lying sack of shit like Mr. scott is an idiot. Not only is Mr. scott the slime off the bottom of the cesspool but he has the intelligence of your average amoeba.
This is the same Mr. scott who demonstrated his incredible ignorance on the previous thread relative to the theory of evolution and has yet to reply to the challenge leveled at him by myself and Mr. Science Avenger to comment on the presentation by Ken Miller on the chromosome merger issue.
His attacks on Senator Obama merely repeat the type of lying fascist filth that appears on websites like stormfront, likely enough one of Mr. scotts' favorite watering holes. Is Mr. scott also a Holocaust denier?
I would like to respectfully recommend to Prof. Rosenhouse that he follow the lead of P.Z. Myers and place Mr. scott on the shit list, along with Larry Fafarman.
My subjective conclusion was that people who agreed more with Obama's positions (such as myself) would think Obama won, and people who agreed more with McCain's positions would think McCain won. On debating style, I thought both were better than Gore but way behind Clinton, although personally I found that a bit reassuring. Advice to Obama: don't say you will be very brief unless you will be very brief. Advice to McCain: don't say we need a stable, steady hand on the tiller while looking like you want to strangle somebody.
just out of curiosity, do any of you Obama supporters really believe him when he claims to cut taxes for 95% of the population? Seriously...the most liberal senator cutting taxes for those make $249,000/yr? Give me a break. Does it not bother you that he just looks in the camera and lies right through his teeth?
Jim, that is a fair assessment....only thing I'd add is that McCain, if he was smart, would take the American flag and shove it right up Obama's ass.....he'd empasize over and over how great America is, his love for it, the greatness of the people, etc etc.....Patriotism obviously isn't Obama's strong-point, especially considering his association with known terrorists and his willingness to play kissy-kissy with the thug-leader from Iran, not to mention his secret desire to "change" America into an eastern-block country. I don't think the majority of the American public are stupid -- they know this guy is little more than a dirty Chicago slimeball -- and he's an empty suit at that...absolutely nothing going on upstairs other than how to empower the black race. At least The Clintons, though disillusioned, didn't associate with known terrorists, and I don't think they really hate America like the Obamas do.
Re scott
It obviously doesn't bother Mr. scott at all when Senator McCain lies through his teeth when he claims that cutting earmarks will solve the budget deficit problem. It obviously doesn't bother Mr. scott when Senator McCain, who voted against the Bush tax cuts calling them fiscally irresponsible, now supports them? It obviously doesn't bother Mr. scott that Governor Palin had an affair with her husbands business partner which resulted in the breakup of the latters' marriage. It obviously doesn't bother Mr. scott that Governor Palin won't submit her daughter Trig to a DNA test to determine if her husband is the father. It obviously doesn't bother Mr. scott that Govenor palins' husband is a traitor who was a member of the Alaska Independence Party (how does his association differ from that of Jefferson Davis?). It obviously doesn't bother Mr. scott that Govenor Palins' former pastor invites witch hunters and antisemites to give sermons in his church. Mr. scott is a fascist goatfucker.
Re Jason Rosenhouse
Prof. Rosenhouse grades his own exams? When I was an undergraduate at Berkeley, no math professor in his right mind would be caught dead grading his own exams. That's what graduate teaching assistant slaves are for.
SLC...McCain never claimed that cutting earmarks would balance the budget -- you moron. The rest of the crap you made up came right out of your ass and into your brain.
The lunatic is on the site.
The lunatic is on the site.
Remembering games, and daisy chains and laughs,
Got to keep the looney off the site.
Whoops! Listening to my iPod again in my office.
Re scott
Mr. scott boinks his mother.
I thought McCain did quite well...as much as can be expected...he's not Mr. Personality. Having said that, anyone who would vote for Obama, socialist/muslim/tax-hiking/baby-killing friend of terrorists is out of their freaking mind.
Come on Scott. I hope you're only being facetious ???
As an outsider, some of the US political institutions are truly bizar. The insistance on the right to carry fire arms for example (and then Americans wonderr why there is multiple school shootings) or the fact that over 40 million US citizans don't have any health insurance at all (I thank God for the NHS in this country. Does that make me a commy ?).
At least I agree with Jason on this one. If I lived in the US I'd definitely vote for Obama. To be honest, a vote for McCain is partly a vote for Sarah Palin (given McCain's age etc.).A "President Palin" would surely be a joke.
SLC: "Mr. scott boinks his mother."
Shame on you for that kind of inane slander. Who do you think you are, McCain's campaign manager? :)
I was incensed that McCain would refer to a planetarium star theater projection system as an "overhead projector." He is clearly angling for the anti-science vote.
I think the candidates could have been better with their debating. Like remembering the question that was asked. Remember the retired Navy guy at the end (in the pinkish/reddish shirt), did either of them actually answer his question?
But my favorite part was when both candidates blocked Tom's telepromter and he asked them to move.
And one more thing: Scott sounds like my father, my father spews the same pointlessness. The same father who was a dope smoking hippie, who lived in SanFran in 1968, free this, free that, no war in Vietnam, etc. etc. My sister and I have been asking "wha happened" to my father's head? The parachute does not deploy anymore. :-( Poor Daddy.
@scott,
It's not a question of believing a nearly-meaningless sentence, or making a prejudicial judgment based on the word "socialist". It's a question of looking at their actual plans. From the Washington Post, no less:
http://tinyurl.com/5s4l7j
To answer your question: yes, he will be better than McCain for 95% of people. That probably includes you.
But this is hardly surprizing. The right wing has a history (in all countries) of preying on the poor and making them vote against their interests.
Christian "pro-life" conservatism: because protecting embryos is so much more important than being able to feed, educate, and keep already born American children healthy.
Scott, Robert, your guy is going down in flames. And quite deservedly so. Go Obama!
Not to feed the troll, but the idea that McCain "loves" his country is laughable when you consider that in his own autobiography he states that he did not love his country for the first 30-odd years of his life (IIRC -I may have the number wrong). This is the man who cheated on his wife with his current sugar mommy, who has ties to anti-semitic lunatics, who has supported homegrown terrorists, is embroiled in scandal wherever he is, and who picked a whackjob YEC and separatist (and terrorist supporter) as his running mate.
This man only loves what the country can give him (side note, when I first wrote that, I left out the "o" in country - probably suitable for McCain, considering his contempt for women). His service to the country ended when he put himself above everything else. As ex-military, the man is a disgrace to his uniform.
Sidestumping (good word BTW) is hardly new. Frankly I think it was done more in Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry debates than this year. I wish it would stop too but it'll only happen if the moderator steps in and encourages on topic answers and actual discussion. Brokaw didn't. Ifill really didn't. I thought Jim Lehrer did better at that then is typical of these big debates over the last few elections.
Jason wrote: "Prowling around the stage while Obama was speaking?"
Today on Stephanie Miller they did not characterize it as "prowling", more like "shuffling." Just like Tim Conway's Mr Wiggums on the Carol Burnett Show.
Re J. J. Ramsay
But look at the restraint I demonstrated. I didn't use the f word.
Don't count your eggs yet.
Access to firearms for law abiding citizens deters crime.
I am glad you do not.
If Obama wins this thing it will be tragic for this nation. Just look at the looney left-- they're the ones who caused this whole freaking financial collapse due to their moronic policies of giving loans to millions of people who couldn't afford to pay them! What a bunch of liars to then come back and blame bush. These pigs should be in Jail and the democratic party shouldn't be allowed to get anywhere near positions of power or decision-making in this country, as they're nothing but a party of corrupt, good-for-nothing fools who not only hate America, but hate capitalism, hate life, hate God, hate babies, hate small businesses, hate the Flag, hate home-schoolers, hate anything that doesn't involve the government running our lives. It's truly pathetic that this Presidential race is even close. McCain is certainly not perfect, but anyone who would vote for that fag-loving, leftist, communist pig Obama is an intellectual lightweight who not only deserves a life of utter misery, but should just go ahead and move to Cuba, Russia, or China and live out there dream of being a slimeball peon who's every thought and action is controlled by the government and where they have absolutely no ability to succeed. Geez..what a bunch of twerps.
Glad to see you're not given to overstatement or hyperbole, scott.
"Glad to see you're not given to overstatement or hyperbole, scott."
The truth is entertaining, isn't it???
They have shots for rabies, dude.
Scott, there is no need to talk about shoving a flag pole up Obama's arse. It's the Left's job to be low-rent and trifling. These are the fools who think the judiciary is authorized to act as a superlegislature and to make **** up as they go, most often by building on the accreted **** of past judges, instead of being bound by the Constitution firmly anchored in the socio-historical context in which it was written and amended.
The Left are also the fools who think any problem can be solved by throwing money at it. For example, they operate under the delusion that pumping yet more money into our primary and secondary schools will improve the mediocre performance of US students despite the firm evidence to the contrary.
So, you see, there is no need to resort to such low-brow remarks in criticizing the brain dead opposition as represented by Obama.
"Just like Tim Conway's Mr Wiggums on the Carol Burnett Show."
Pedantic Syndicated-Comedy-Show-Fan comment: Tim Conway's character in those ineffably hilarious sketches was named "Mr. Tudball". The perpetually clueless, gum-chewing secretary played by Carol Burnett was "Mrs. Wiggins".
The verbal disemboweling of Sen. McCain may now recommence...
So, what is it again that gets one banned from this site?
Hey, someone shouted "Kill him!" in reference to Obama at a Palin rally. Maybe next an angry Palin rally mob will start shouting "Crucify him!" when she mentions Obama. Wasn't there some other time in history when a bunch of people blinded by hate and anger called for an innocent guy to be killed?
Oops, thanks for the correction, Bill, you are correct, sir. that is what I get for getting my facts from talk radio. But at least I just get my trivia from there, unlike a few of the other posters on this thread...
Thanks to this thread, I now fully understand why Ed Brayton's Idiot of the Month Award is called the "Robert O'Brien Trophy". Thanks for clearing that up!
You know, it would be great if we could see for ourselves a display of the legendary McCain temper. Obama should provoke him during the last debate so McCain esplodes on screen, turning red in the face and spouting spittle. Maybe Obama can even get McCain to call him a "n*gger" or even a "c*nt" (the affectionate way McCain refers to his wife in public, apparently). If we could get even luckier, McCain would stroke out live on TV! Palin alone on the ticket, oh yeah!
OK, that last comment of mine was tasteless. I don't really want McCain to die, and no way in Hades to I want Sarah Palin running for president....but I really would love to see McCain lose his temper during a debate.
Ed Brayton is a sociology drop out, a failed comedian, and, quite possibly, a failed business owner, who is supported by fellow mediocrities.
Which must make you seethe that much more, knowing he still manages to be more clever, astute, and profound than you.
Your opinion of our relative merits is duly noted and discarded.
Re Jason Rosenhouse
Given Mr. scotts' last rant, I think it's about time to give him the heave ho. Even Larry Fafarman has more intelligence then does Mr. scott.
I agree that this is inappropriate. Even though I disdain leftist ideology, Obama is not communist (more like a socialist in the Western European mold) and he certainly is not a pig. Also, even though I recognize homoeroticism as irrational, disordered, and shameful, I would not refer to a homosexual as a "fag." Leave that sort of low speech to hoi polloi on the Left.
Calling one's opponent a terrorist is not low-rent? Putting out an ad comparing him to the antichrist is not low-rent? Swift-boating is not low-rent? Spreading rumours through push polls that your opponent's adopted daughter is really a mixed-race illegitimate child is not low-rent?
Still in Hanoi: McCain refers to "my fellow prisoners"
Robert: "Obama is not communist (more like a socialist in the Western European mold) and he certainly is not a pig."
"pig" was actually the nice version of what I was thinking...our country is in shambles right now and it's people like him -- his leftist, socialist, immoral minions -- that are dragging it down to the gutter. This guy is a liar, a crook, a thug, an America-hater, and a friend/ally of terrorists. "Pig" is a compliment.
scott -
I'm sorry for all the things that have gone wrong in your life to bring you to your current sorry condition. But my blog is not the appropriate forum for showing off your emotional problems. Continue writing comments in the manner you have been so far and I will simply delte them as soon as I see them.
What a coincidence! I recognize that statement as irrational, disordered, and shameful. Judge not and all that.
Funny, Jason...I noticed you said nothing to SLC...here is some of his fine work:
SLC: "Mr. scott boinks his mother."
SLC: "Anyone who would pay the slightest attention to the opinions of a lying sack of shit like Mr. scott is an idiot. Not only is Mr. scott the slime off the bottom of the cesspool but he has the intelligence of your average amoeba."
SLC: "His attacks on Senator Obama merely repeat the type of lying fascist filth that appears on websites like stormfront, likely enough one of Mr. scotts' favorite watering holes. Is Mr. scott also a Holocaust denier?"
and then in total irony:
SLC: "I would like to respectfully recommend to Prof. Rosenhouse that he follow the lead of P.Z. Myers and place Mr. scott on the shit list, along with Larry Fafarman."
See the thing is, Jason...I'm just merely insulting Obama....that's what politics is about, or at least partially....you guys have certainly done your fair-share of bashing McCain, so it's funny that now that the shoe's on the other foot how you want to stifle it......but not only that...SLC, on the otherhand, is not just merely insulting McCain...but insulting me personally, as if me insulting Obama somehow rationalizes him telling people I boink my mom. I realize this is your blog and you can do what you want, but if you cared to play this game in the name of fairness you'd moderate fairly.
Obama's stated positions put him to the right of Angela Merkel, the supposedly conservative German chancellor. No doubt Mr. O'Brien regards everything European as socialist in some diabolical sense even though what he doubtlessly view as soul-destroying, totalitarian institutions--universal health care, for example--are about as malevolent as indoor plumbing.
scott sounds like an example of what happens when easily deluded people become so influenced by hate and lies of propoganda that they may be capable of committing the atrocities like those committed by the followers of Hitler. Other people become nothing more than abstract objects of disgust stripped of their common humanity and are therefore expendable.
Having said the above, I promise to tone it down. I write many of my posts in an over-the-top way that humors me more than anything, but I do realize that they don't always come off that way to others. So if I've offended anyone too badly, sorry about that...I'll try to be a good/mild-mannered conservative from now on.
I actually found this debate interesting because, for the first time, I did NOT think it was necessarily a slam dunk for Barack Obama. Don't get me wrong - I certainly thought he won, but not by as wide a margin as the first debate. I would have thought the commentators would declare it a tie, and that the polling data would show the night to be divided right up the middle.
As usual, the majority (particularly undecided voters) responded to cues a liberal finds it extremely difficult to measure.
Obama did miss ONE opportunity that I would really have liked to see him take - McCain repeated his mantra that he has "taken on his party leadership," whereas Obama has cleaved to the Democratic party line. Screw bipartisanship - I wanted to see Obama stand up and say "You've broken with your party because they've been wrong - I've stuck by mine because they haven't."
On many of these supposed divergences from the Republican leadership has John McCain actually taken the DEMOCRATS' side?
"I'm just merely insulting Obama...."
Yep, referring to homosexuals as "fags" can only be construed as an insult to Obama.
You're human shit scott, I wholeheartedly join SLC is hoping to get the banhammer.
@scott,
I see you don't like to follow up on rebuttals to your assertions.
Will you concede that you were wrong on taxes? Consider it penitence. ;)
Re scott
Actually, my comments about Mr. scott are quite mild by my standards, in deference to Prof. Rosenhouse who would prefer that profanity be kept to a minimum. If this were Ed Braytons' blog or Matthew Yglesias' blog, I would be a whole lot nastier.
scott -
You are welcome to bash Obama all you want. I only ask that you do so without the profanity, and that you at least try to say something substantive to go along with all of your insults.
Dan, how do you think raising my taxes will benefit me? And please don't tell me you believe Obama when he says he's going to lower taxes on 95% of the working population....there is absolutely no reason to believe that a left-ist, tax-and-spend liberal is going to lower anyone's taxes.
I thought that the Regans disliked McCain after a while due to how assholeish he could get in the late eighties. Really, by imitating Regan (as much of a bad president he was) in that way shows how much he cares for others.
That seems more like scumbag behavior to me than anything else. Presentation of who he is towards a man who disliked him towards the end of his life. Hmmm.
I thought that the Regans disliked McCain after a while due to how assholeish he could get in the late eighties. Really, by imitating Regan (as much of a bad president he was) in that way shows how much he cares for others.
That seems more like scumbag behavior to me than anything else. Presentation of who he is towards a man who disliked him towards the end of his life. Hmmm.
I thought that the Regans disliked McCain after a while due to how assholeish he could get in the late eighties. Really, by imitating Regan (as much of a bad president he was) in that way shows how much he cares for others.
That seems more like scumbag behavior to me than anything else. Presentation of who he is towards a man who disliked him towards the end of his life. Hmmm.
Sorry about the triple post. I thought it went through once.
The Rolling Stone article that just came out about McCain says that the Reagans were actually friends with the McCains (John and Carol), but then distanced themselves from John after he coldly dumped his injured and crippled first wife for Cindy.
Yeah, I'd guess the Obama isn't going to raise taxes on 90 to 95% of Americans.
Maybe that's the socialism in him?
Scott,
Raising your taxes benefits you by making you one of us. By absorbing you into the fold. Do not resist. It is indeed futile. Raising your taxes makes it possible for people like McCain and Obama to keep you under control. And don't fool yourself, McCain wants to absorb you equally as well. He's part of the commune. You may not know it, may not believe it, but it's true. Truth is painful. Reality hurts. More than a little, I know. McCain is a terrorist-loving commune comrade not at all unlike Obama. Really. Honestly! Come into the fold scott. It only hurts for the first few moments. It soon is followed by grand relief! Great, sweet relief! Orgasmic RELIEF! SCOTT! Pay your taxes scott! Do it! You know you want to. It's wonderful scott. Pay scott... PAY!!! PAaaaayyyyyuggghhhuuughh!! Aaaaahhh.....whew.
Got a cigarette, anyone?
I did my best. I hope the good leader is pleased.
Scott?
1. I noticed the blurb about Governor Palin's remarks but I have not looked into what she said, specifically.
2. "The One" is a great ad. They used Obama's own words, and I saw nothing about the antichrist therein.
3. That smear against McCain was execrable.
Of course, you forgot to mention the "he crashed 5 planes" lie, the "she tried to ban Harry Potter" lie, the "she cut funding for special needs students" lie, the "she made rape victims pay for their own kits" lie, the "he wants to deregulate your health care like Wall Street" lie, the "he wants to play the stock market with your social security and/or cut your benefits in half" lie, the "he's friends with Rush Limbaugh" lie, the "he left his disabled wife for Cindy as soon as he returned from Vietnam" lie, etc.
I have also seen some of the filth for the internet ****hole otherwise known as the Democratic Underground. Expressing a desire that William Rehnquist rot in hell after his death is representative of your typical low-rent liberal. And then there is DailyKos, the liberals' very own Enquirer, which accused Governor Palin of passing off her daughter's child as her own.
Robert.
McCain crashed two planes. Stalled them. He clipped power lines in another plane wiping out power for a Spanish town. In his memoir he admits he was being irresponsible and clowning, daredevil-like.
There was a mishap on an aircraft carrier in which his and other planes caught fire. He did less than most others in trying to help those in need. He did not comport himself well in that particular incident. He then was shot down in Vietnam.
Clearly he was a lousy pilot. And not so impressive as a human being either.
Whether McCain crashed 4 or 5 planes is a legitimate argument. He was a lousy pilot, who certainly would have lost his flight privileges without the miracle of nepotism, the same miracle that got him through the Naval Academy when he should have been kicked out on his ass. McCain is on the record as thinking that Social Security is fundamentally a mistake and he would certainly like to destroy Medicare if he could--very few Republicans don't want that. McCain did fuck around on his wife as soon as he could, though it took a while for him to leave her while he was scouting out a younger meal ticket in the form of a rich heiress. Meanwhile Palin certainly did support making rape victims pay for their rape kits and, though I have no idea which books she wanted to burn, she was certainly interested in censoring the offerings at the local library.
McCain is a pretty inferior specimen of human being and Ms Palin is an absurd twit.
Jim Harrison,
Thank you for showcasing yourself as a typical vapid liberal. McCain was commended for his skills as a pilot. Read the following from factcheck.org (or, more appropriately, have it read to you):
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_mccain_crash_five_planes_did_…
Excerpt:
Did McCain crash five planes?
No. Chain e-mails and Internet postings that make that claim are mistaken. And the Navy commended his piloting skills.
Your other lies are debunked there, too.
Robert?
Yes?
Whether I'm a liberal or not is beside the point. You don't dispute any of the charges I made except to cavil about the McCain's several crashes even though I'm quite willing to say four instead of five. Thing is, McCain always survived in the Navy by virtue of being the commanding admiral's son. He crashed two planes before he even went to Vietnam, but even on the assumption that these incidents were simply bad luck, he should have washed out at the Naval Academy before.
In a previous life you probably defended the rights of idiot princes to the throne. Or am I wrong to assume you supported that paragon, George W. Bush?
By the way, many other captured pilots were tortured. Some of them didn't sign confessions, however. How come they didn't get to ditch their inconvenient wives, marry a beer heiress, and become a senator?
Jim,
Do I need to resort to Dick, Jane, and Spot with you? Losing two planes to engine failure is not McCain's fault; it is the fault of the maintenance crews. And a missile accidentally fired from another plane into his is not his fault either.
Listen, Jim, I am already satisfied that you are an idiot from your ridiculous attempt to argue against Goedel's Ontological Argument; I do not need further proof.
Oh, and Jim, until your sorry, worthless ass is tortured like John McCain was tortured, you are in no position to criticize him for signing a statement. (Which he regrets to this day.)
If McCain is going to call Obama a "terrorist sympathizer", why doesn't he do it to Obama's face?
One car, one house, one wife. Obama 08.
I guess somewhere, someplace I crossed swords with O'Brien about Goedel's Ontological Argument. I don't recall. But it would figure. Goedel's Ontological Argument was the fruit of his senile insanity--he ended up starving himself to death. Very few people believe that Goedel proved a damned thing in that argument except that he'd gone over the hill. In contrast, when Goedel was still sane and functioning, his great incompleteness proof was accepted readily despite its great novelty. The old Goedel and the (young? old?) O'Brien. Cranks.
For the record, I don't blame McCain for the missile that hit his parked aircraft. I know the tale. And as for being tortured myself, I'm sure I'd do just what McCain did. Sing like a canary. Because I'm not well connected, however, my behavior wouldn't have made me a famous politician.
So conservatives are against flag burning, but pro flag sodomy? Does that require a constitutional amendment?
And what is conservative fixation with asses?
Oh, and Jim, until your sorry, worthless ass is tortured like John McCain was tortured, you are in no position to criticize him for signing a statement. (Which he regrets to this day.)
Well, according to our current president, John McCain wasn't tortured, so what's the big deal?
McCain's first crash was determined by the Navy to be McCain's fault alone. His cutting of power lines in a small town in Spain was, by his own admission, his fault--clowning, daredevil flying. The Naval Aviation Safety Center was unable to determine the cause of his third crash/accident in VA. He says there was a "flame-out." Given his history to this point, why would anyone give credence to anything he said?
And with hindsight, looking at all his "incidents" and how he conducted himself, it is clear he sucked at flying and clearer still he sucks as a fellow human.
John McCain: lousy pilot, shitty human being.
@scott
I hate to repeat, but here's some evidence
http://tinyurl.com/5s4l7j
as to why I "believe Obama when he says he's going to lower taxes on 95% of the working population" to quote you and answer your question directly.
Do you not take the Washington Post as evidence? Where, instead, do you get your evidence?
Please provide a link or a citation that is contrary to what the above Washington Post graphic states.
@scott
I can only assume you earn over $600k, in which case what on earth are you doing wasting your time on a blog? ;)
Both of them have a pro and contra issue.
Both of them have a pro and contra issue.
You can add that delusion to your stockpile.
No delusions. Just facts.
I'm disappointed that either of them is talking tax cuts at a time when we are facing massive federal deficits due to Bush's war and the financial meltdown. Bush's tax cuts and income tax rebate were supposed to stimulate the economy--anybody feel stimulated?
I wish that Obama had said, "With historic federal deficits, it is irresponsible to urge tax cuts at the present time. For the federal government to borrow money to cut taxes--which is what would be required--is foolhardy, and would ultimately cost every citizen far more than their tax savings. We must all work together to recover from 8 years of gross mismanagement resulting in a ruinously expensive war and a financial collapse. It is likely that in a few years, the federal investments in the economic recovery will have borne fruit, and the country will once again be on a strong economic footing, as it was during the Clinton year, and it will be possible to return a share of those benefits to our citizens."
Nevertheless, when we are currently investing $700B to rescue American business, the notion that the wealthy--who stand to benefit the most from the rescue--should get a tax cut is outrageous.
"O'Brien said: Listen, Jim, I am already satisfied that you are an idiot from your ridiculous attempt to argue against Goedel's Ontological Argument; I do not need further proof.
Ah, the ontological argument, the grandest example of the power of desire to overcome even great intellects, leaving them believing patent absurdities, with mediocrities cheering them on every step of the way.
When did EvolutionBlog go from "Commentary on the Endless Dispute Between Evolution and Creationism" to "Just another political blog"?
Stick to your actuarial tables, Bubba; I already know that you lack the native intelligence to apprehend the argument.
I apprehend the argument just fine Mr. Pseudo intellect, and it is a bunch of question-begging gibberish for wishful-thinking morons like yourself. No one not already determined to believe is going to be persuaded by it.
Second, you are too ignorant to even be a good bigot. If you wish to attempt to cover for your ignorance by insulting my heritage, you may call me a Wop, Mick, Kraut, or Frog, or if you want to go the sociological route, try "uppity city boy". "Bubba" is about as far from the mark as you could get.
And finally, many actuaries don't deal with actuarial tables, which you should have known before spouting off about them. But then, bothering to learn something before spouting off about it has never been your strong suit, has it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH8K0bPc-BE&feature=related
Hey! The man has an award named after him, so try to show a little respect. He also likes to use words like otiose and anoetic, just so we all know his thesaurus is bigger than ours.
If I were you, I'd find a better source than a man who has bombed out of just about everything he has tried his hand at and who looks as if he could win an award for putting away jelly dough nuts.
Oh, and the thesaurus is in my head, but I could try to dumb down my writing if it makes your head a-splode.
No, Bubba suits you (as does Hayseed). In any event, you are a low level actuary with only a bachelor's degree and it shows.
Robert,
You think John McCain is hero and you believe in sky fairies. This says more than enough to all of us about your intellectual heft. heh-heh-heh...
Since you are already drowning in a sea of delusions, I suppose you might as well expedite the process.
Don't be upset Robert. If nothing else you are not alone. Sadly, there are many, many millions of 'Mercins who believe in stupid shit just like you do. Now buck up!
You haven't seen me upset. Internet pipsqueaks like you cannot raise my choler.
"...Oh, and the thesaurus is in my head..."
That's got to hurt like a mother!
"...No, Bubba suits you (as does Hayseed)..."
Given what the guy has said about his background I think you need help with your soft core insults.
"...In any event, you are a low level actuary with only a bachelor's degree and it shows..."
Talk about being an elitist, geez.
Insecure believers like you are too easily riled. It shows. Believe this... we are laughing at you. Constantly.
Small, weak, nervous, insecure turds such as yourself provide endless forms of entertainment! heh-heh!
Found that Robert O'Brien has a blog titled "Robert O'Brien"
It seems more like a venue where he can worship at his own feet and display his "obvious" superior intellectual prowness at responding to blogs such as this one or Ed Brayton's. Can you spell E-G-O-T-I-S-T?
Robert O'Brien made shit up thusly: No, Bubba suits you (as does Hayseed). In any event, you are a low level actuary with only a bachelor's degree and it shows.
Typical crank - when reality conflicts with one's pet theories, deny reality, and make shit up. I especially like the "low level" comment, as if that has any meaning outside Senior O'Brien's paltry imagination. Par for the course, eh?
No, I have a blog titled Huperborea.
If it's made up, then you're the one making it up, since this is information I've gleaned from your blog.
That would be a horselaugh.
Ah, Robert, now I see why you come over here to play. I see lots of posts on your blog with no comments at all. One can almost hear the crickets. But at least it gives you a place to call Ed Brayton fat. Calling people fat; very high level thinking there.
Still laughing. Little man.
Robert?
You seem to have missed this comment.
Leni, McCain was tortured, he deserves respect for that. But it didn't make him smarter, nor does pointing out the obvious make you smarter, nor does baiting an idiot make you less of an idiot.
Ahem... *cough-cough*
Thank Our Sweet Lord Monckton I'm not you. I'm more the type to judge what I read by what's been written and not the BMI of the writer. I've read your writing and I've also read Ed's. In spite of what you say here and in spite of Ed's girth, I would consider his writing to be a success and yours a failure.
Is that what causes my eyes to roll? A head a-splosion? Fascinating. I can see why there's an award named after you.
If it's made up, then you're the one making it up, since this is information I've gleaned from your blog.
Which simply stands as a condemnation of your gleening abilities. You really do have a hard time distinguishing between what's in your head and what's outside it.
Certain noxious mediocrities brought Ed Brayton into this discussion, not I. If I have something to say to Ed, then I communicate it to him directly.
Doesn't the following post title refer to Ed Brayton?
"On Tubs' blog, SteveP hits the nail on the head"
It certainly appears to this noxious mediocrity that you used your blog to call Ed Brayton fat. No?
Like this? (on your blog under the entry "Response to SLC" -- much of which has been repeated verbatim here):
You sir are a transparent liar & an elitist snob (which you probably profess to detest so much).
Look here, you stupid bastard; that response was posted to my blog because posts to scienceblogs with multiple links get queued. And, again, I only referred to Ed in that post because SLC brought him up. Quit while you are behind.
And the word "Tubs" means what, exactly?
It's a term of endearment.
A term of endearment? Like "noxious mediocrity"? And what did I do to deserve that? I pointed out the lack of comments at your site and noted that you used your site to call Brayton names, both accurate observations.
JimCH is right, you really are a transparent liar, aren't you? Just another religious hypocrite . I can see how you earned the honor of having an Idiot Award named after you. Well deserved.
Just to clarify, I can handle the insults, I was just suprised at the somewhat childish overreaction to what I said.
The phrase "certain noxious mediocrities" was not directed at you. (Although, you appear to be well on your way to claiming the distinction despite my original intent.) It was directed to those who first brought Ed into this discussion.
I'm sorry, but using the phrase:
"If I have something to say to Ed, then I communicate it to him directly."
then referring to Ed in the 3rd person would make that a lie in any universe (no matter the circumstances), except yours apparently.
"Look here, you stupid bastard..."
Is this what you're reduced to?
Here's a thought. If you don't want any confusion as to whom you are referring, try using their names instead of insults. Insults make Baby Jesus sad.
Robert O'Brien wrote:
Then why not do what the rest of us do, and limit the number of links in a single post or break the post up into parts?
Because Leni, he can't do that and cite his authority at the same time. Oh, that's right, why should he cite authority if you never do?
@Tulse
I know it is late coming (other side of the planet and only now followed the thread),
but you caused a white wine spray across my keyboard.
From my viewpoint (northern Europe) it is kind of strange that the democratic party and Barack Obama repeatedly are called socialist or even leaning to the left.
We would not call him socialist even if he wanted every American citizen to automatically be part of a completely state financed social security. Even our conservatives wants that.
I'll say he is a socialist the day he proposes state monopoly in the areas of transportation, postal service, pharmacy, telecommunications and things like that.
But opposing private ownership, free media and real democracy, is an old ugly form of socialism, which I am not discussing here.
scott, as in the previous thread, you have been asked several questions that you have chosen to completely ignore. Shame on you.
----------------------------
Robert, your wishful thinking is transparent. I've never seen anyone try so hard to believe what he would like to believe, but despite that, it's just so obvious... go ahead, admit it to yourself.
----------------------------
No.
He would fit very nicely into any of the conservative parties of Europe (not just northern Europe!). And so, incidentally, would Kerry and both Clintons.
David Marjanovic,
As I made known in another thread, I consider most biologists to be low-level thinkers, and you are not exempted from that judgment.
Andreas wrote:
Most of the time it's meant to be an insult or a scare tactic. So it needn't reflect reality, it only needs to appeal to the basest stereotypes and irrational hatred much of the American right has for anything they perceive as too European.
They get this crap from the National Review and Rush Limbaugh, I presume. Maybe it's a holdover from the cold war. Whatever the case may be, you you don't usually hear it come from anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in smearing American liberals.
Precisely. Most Americans would not place the political center in the same place as you. I look to Europe for some things (such as probability theory and poetry) but not for political grounding.
Damn, little boy, you're nothing but insults, and yet you call others "low level thinkers". Seriously, Jesus would be proud. You are a Christian, yes? Can't really tell from your behavior.
Robert O'Brien
If anybody has demonstrated here that they are the epitomy of a "low-level" thinker or what is profoundly mediocre... it is you.
You are really in love with the with the excretement that issues forth from your ego and which has taken over any so-called native intelligence your brain may have had once.
Go play with somewhere else like at a Palin rally with all the other village idiots who scream and drool and chant mindless slogans. You would fit right in with those who are so proud of their obstinate and willful ignorance.
I have to admit that I find Robert O'B perversely fascinating. He claims to be a Christian and his blog has links to Christian web sites, and yet he has all of the behaviors and mannerisms of a guttersnipe. He seems to genuinely believe that he is the smartest person commenting here, and yet there are no data to support that conclusion, and no evidence that he's any smarter than anyone else. To some extent, there is always some difference between who we think we are and who we really are. But with Robert, the separation from reality is disturbingly large. Fascinating, Captain.
One of the smartest, anyway; my maidenly modesty forfends me from claiming that I am the smartest. Although you would not know it from his political opining, Jason is intelligent enough to have obtained a doctorate in mathematics, for which I give him full credit.
Leni quote: "Maybe it's a holdover from the cold war. Whatever the case may be, you you don't usually hear it come from anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in smearing American liberals."
Do the simple minded have a vested interest in smearing liberals, or is it only simple minded posters who could think it's that simple?
Robert O'Brien
I apologize for using personal insults to criticize your posts here. Those viscious remarks do not resolve anything but just deepen divisions. In the end we are all imperfect beings with egos that get in the way of finding our common humanity.
And?
How am I supposed to react to a statement that comes without any evidence attached? Put up or shut up.
Oh, now I see it: you don't even want me to react. You just want to have the last word. As usual.
You should look to the whole world for evidence of what happens when certain policies are implemented.