« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
You are why Sen. McCain will win this fall
Wow. The Red'd list and forty-one comments on a non-issue posted by a troll about whether subliminal messages in a ad sponsored by a senile cretin are the product of mass hypnosis.
The same troll has raised more outrage by posing another burning question of our time: Whether a non-candidate's alleged girlfriend's baby was fathered by the named father or by the non-candidate.
Your ability to expect privacy while making a phone call is gone and you're heppy about it. Habeas corpus -- the Great Writ that prevents the government from throwing you into an oubliette -- is damaged beyond redemption. The entire American economy is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the the Peoples' Republic of China and your great-grandchildren will pay for that $600 check you got a few weeks ago.
But the question that obsesses you is whether that image was intended to represent the Washington Monument, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Berlin Victory Column, or Sen. Obama's dick.
Eat your bread and watch your circuses, and watch my left hand very closely while I pick your pocket with my right.
We liberals are all the way through the looking glass and the Dums are laughing at us.
Comments (160)
If Obama loses, there will be one and only one reason. His shabby treatment of Hillary Clinton. I have sifted through my esoteric knowledge and come up with a startling fact. The only way Obama can lose is if he loses Michigan. To win Michigan, Obama must reinvigorate the traditional Democratic base. His course to the white house is now clear.
August 7, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is that lovely little image that Tankard uses for an avatar?
Also worth noticing is "oubliette"...
Apparently Tankard has read Stendhal, or at least something besides the fucking internet and a novelization of Batman.
This should be a wake-up call to posters like me and Billy Glad, who actually had a little education once upon a time, but now all we do is fling poop at the smaller-brained monkeys who can't recognize Obama as a sociopath.
The currency of the hour in American politics is flying poop, and lovely images and subtle historical references get lost in the cacaphony of squealing Obamabots.
But still...
What is that lovely image Tankard uses for an avatar?
August 7, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a statue of a nymph or some such ensconced in a lily pond on Margaret Island on the edge of Budapest.
August 7, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
August 7, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's The Little Mermaid, based on the Hans Christian Anderson story.
August 7, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure? This little mermaid has legs. And it's in Hungary, not Denmark.
August 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't the famous one in Copenhagen but they do call it the Little Mermaid:
http://orangeimagery.sensus-studio.com/3w/?zid=376
http://www.theblackadder.co.uk/2005/Budapest/index.html
August 7, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for tracking down those pictures... the garden in Budapest is really beautiful, but the Nazi wax museum in your second link is really too creepy. Who would visit such a thing?
August 8, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I never bothered to look it up.
August 8, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like Gollum, only green.
August 8, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how they catch monkeys, Jacob.
http://billyglad.blogspot.com/2007/04/monkey-jar.html
The TPM monkeys won't let go of the Obama rag, but how could they? There's no sugar rag for them in the McCain jar. It matters less and less every year who the President is. We have to let go of politics and find something else to hold on to.
August 7, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm happy to discover your blog, and the image of a sugar rag has some depth, IMHO.
There's not only no sugar rag in the McCain bottle, there's not much sugar in the rest of the world that the Youth Vote is likely to inherit. This is a desperate generation, for some very good reasons, and if they let go of Obama's empty promises, what's left?
If you're 18 years old, there's an excellent chance you'll grind out your life in a wasteland with a low-wage job, and the promise of "affordable healthcare" at the end of it isn't exactly inspiring.
So the Obamabots rejected Hillary and embraced Barack, and their credulity annoys the heck out of me, but they still deserve a better choice of futures than the nightmare of Bush/McCain, the tedium of old-line Democrats, and the empty promises of Barack Obama.
On the fringe of this dismal picture, "Uncle Ralph" Nader is shuffling around in his bathrobe, while the freaky and unintelligent Cynthia McKinney rattles her tin-foil hat defiantly at the moon, and Bob Barr explains to his audience dim-witted hoodoos how they can build their own roads after he abolishes the government.
August 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pseudonym "urban" thinks it's safe to slander other posters because he or she doesn't post under his real name and can't be prosecuted.
It's easy to check that I never posted anything like the "Mammy" nonsense he attributes to me and my "ilk," and I didn't make any effort to have him banned, beyond complaining in my comments about the thousands of lines of spam he posted on my blog.
How old is this person? Somehow I feel like I've gotten into a ridiculous dispute with a child, who posts some angry nonsense and then sticks his fingers in his ears and runs away:
"I wont be reading the rest of this thread, and dont care what you have to say."
That's okay with me.
August 7, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all have our sugar rags. Mine were literature and art. When I let go of those rags, I fell to earth. Hard.
August 7, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Riiiight. Because Hillary got creamed. If she had won the nomination, politics would be the most important thing in the world. You're such a sour old pout.
August 8, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Jacob,
I thought everyone would like to know about your efforrts to get be banned from TPM. Sorry Tankard, I wont use up too much space.
When Jacob was trolling the other day for McCain, and he and his ilk were making references to Obama singing "Mammy", I decided I would post Antigone, several times. I admit it was out of anger. But the subtle and not so subtle racism of some of these posters is beyond the pale. However, I take complete responsibility, as I did violate a rule here. I wont be doing that again.
However, Jacob and his little troll friends decided to "tell" on me, and I was notified via email that I was banned from TPM.
But guess what Jacob, It didnt work. When I directed the management at TPM to take a closer look at your posts, as well as other trolls, it was decided that a warning would suffice.
However, I am letting the TPM readership know that these fools are dangerous. I you agree with me, please dont sit passively at your computer right now. Please show support. They are here to bully and insult. Their defense is that they turn around and blame the ones they abuse by crying, "I'm being abused! My free speech!" ot they will call people "ignorant" and "stupid".
TPM readers, if you have had enough of the trolling, please contact TPM management. This site is getting ugly. Who wants to come here and read people like Glad, Blow, Desidero, Gotalife, Julian Smith, (the list goes on...) insult and bully. I noticed alot of interesting posters dont come back here as often as they used to. I know some people think its wrong to call people out, but for crying out loud, I think we all have been a little too tolerant with their collective bad behaviour.
TPM - get a troll rate system. People will start behaving around here. This is getting out of control.
August 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for you trollers out there thinking of a response, dont bother. I wont be reading the rest of this thread, and dont care what you have to say. I'm done here.
August 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winner of the Most Ironic Comment Award.
August 7, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious irony.
Bunch of Obamamaniacs, and I do mean maniacs, obssessives (as in, not normal people simply excited by voting for Barack Obama,) take over a web forum for a few months, and, by virtue of their mass and gang-like behavior, can game the newly installed software, and, with some added use of bully tactics, chase off anyone who wants to talk about anything outside the frame of pro-Obama, anti-Hillary. In doing so, they help to divide the liberal blogosphere into two camps: Hillary sites and Obama sites, where each group can send echoes and chase off the other group.
Then this self-selected group, who has chased off the most reasonable people who think different from them, start to think they own the website, and that the brand of the website is "all Obama all the time," and think there was no one here before them who appreciated a place where there was a mixture of viewpoints. They have no idea that tons more people left because of them and their sometimes bullying gang-like behavior, lack of interest in any objective analysis about anything regarding Obama much less analysis of any other topic, and how they changed a place for good wonk discussion of many varying viewpoints to "all Obama all the time."
I think Don Key, possibly a member longer than me (I've been using the site for 3 years,) finally spoke to that very eloquently here June 14, on Jason Miller's thread when he was still in Obama bully mode.
Most old timers just gave up and quit using the site, though, let them have it. (Former frequent commenters like hcBerkowitz, pseudocyants, devon, neoboho and nascardaughter still can't seem to stand looking at what this site has become for too long, spend time talking to each other when they feel the need on instead.)
But I always got the impression that although they were allowed their way for a while, that situation was not in the long-term Josh Marshall business plan. See, for example, "Seriously folks, you can stop writing about how angry Hillary makes you now," By Andrew Golis, May 28 or Lila's June 16 introduction where she said I'm excited about expanding the reach of Cafe-- bringing in more broadly cultural and literary topics-- without losing the driving force: a place where we can talk politics and keep a watchful eye on what's happening in Washington, and around the world, or in response to my query about site mission, Golis on her thread said that that's definitely part of why Lila was brought on. As she said, her interests are broadly literary and political, so she'll steer the site according to that. (One of Miz Lila first projects was host a book club that was about Ross Douthat's book on the GOP remaking itself. Think mebbe that was a message as well?)
August 7, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The kind of attitude you complain about was plenty prevalent on both sides of the Clinton/Obama divide. There were more people on the Obama side, true, which might possibly correlate to his having won.
But your one-sided complaint is redolent with bitterness over the loss of an entirely unacceptable candidate.
August 8, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! As usual you're totally wrong about this, tankard. artappraiser was never a Hillbot, never even committed to a candidate during the primaries.
Your knee-jerk assumption demonstrates once again how unobservant you are, how inaccurate your version of history is, and how much vitriol you still harbor about Hillary. Your vanity and self-confidence are puzzling.
August 8, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring the ad hominem, I'll happily agree that I have beaucoup disdain for Sen. Clinton. She left me standing at the altar when she revealed her pandering right-of-centerness. I find her despicable, actually, and will do what little I can to impede her political career.
I used to be a fan of hers and I used to smoke. I have dropped both bad habits. No one hates a bad habit as much as a reformed practitioner.
August 8, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's still in the thread. You can count on that. Hard to believe it just complained about almost getting banned, then came in here soliciting emails to get other people banned. Lila is trying to clean this place up. With characters like urban around, she has her hands full. I'm willing to bet she's keeping an eye on it and its days bugging people here are numbered. It's a perfect example of why Obama is constantly in danger of losing. Nobody wants to live in a world where the urbans can have any say over their lives.
August 7, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe you're not checking this thread for replies. You're too much of a drama queen. You're all hysterical about supposed humiliations suffered participating under a pseudonym in virtual reality, a worse "in a bubble" loss of reality behavior than George Bush.
My two cents as a former moderator of a forum is that Lila made a newbie mistake in deciding to give you a warning instead of banning. Precisely because here you are, once again acting like it's your website, trying to round up a posse to act against those you don't like. (One tip off you've gone off the deep end of reality, you say: "these fools are dangerous." They are just words written mostly by pseudonymous commenters.)
I saw your spamming. That was acting like its your website to do with as you wish, i.e., you decide what posts people can easily have discussions on. I also saw more than one commenter that I recognize as very pro-Obama get upset about your spamming because they wished to participate in discussion on those threads and you disrupted that. Now you are once again trying to make it the website of your dreams, you name the people you don't like, you want others to help you get rid of them.
Clue: those on your list of targets do not appear to have been threatened with banning nor reprimanded. Think it might possibly be reality that they are approved for participation by management until you see otherwise. Posted rules include all political viewpoints are welcome. That means to me: people are not trolls because of their political viewpoint. The comment policy otherwise only notes the specifis of insults, personal attacks and overuse of profanity, leaving the request for civility vague. That would mean management decides what's civil. That would also mean a McCain supporter who is civil is welcome. But hey that's just me, maybe you are right, maybe Josh Marshall likes getting his rocks off watching various gangs fight it out over control of his website.
They had one, a comment rating system, for several years previous to the last software change. Josh Marshall specifically stated that he no longer wanted one because too many people (like you,)abused it to troll rate when they disagreed with other commenters, rather than for poor behavior or lack of quality. I see the opposite you do. As a member here for over 3 years, I see the site improving over the last month from the terrible downward slide from the beginning of the year, the terrible ugliness peaking around April and May. I see some old names, who left when a bunch of Election Central Obama fans took over with the software change in February, starting to return, because the discussions are of more interest to them. I see some older members who decided to stay but ignore what was going on in Reader Blogs since February, and only comment on TPMCafe front page posts, starting to jump into conversations on Reader Blogs because they are becoming more varied in opinion (not just pro-Obama talking points), more thoughtful. and more grown up. I see the management chasing away some of the most egregious infantile behavior, something they never had to do much of before Obamamania invaded.All of a sudden I also see a lot of people trying to post a blog for the first time. To me, this is a sign that supporting more variety in the political discourse is paying off. They look, they see: ah, one does not have to prove to the posse that one is sufficiently pro-Obama before posting.
August 7, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
People will start behaving here?
LOL.
If you're so concerned, you should "DIRECT" the management of TPM once again, to revise posting rules as follows:
- critizing Obama is verboten
- everyone must be very serious
- everyone must preface anything with "As you know, I'm A HUGE OBAMA SUPPORTER"
- dissenters will be terminated
You get the point (I hope!)
I understand that you are trying to build an extra-strong Obama-bubble here. I understand that you are willing to have a Gestapo Code of Conduct to enforce it.
I just can't understand how you can have anything in common with what Obama supposedly stands for.
August 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo -
I think it is OK to criticize Obama. Somee days I agree with him, and sometimes I dont. That isnt what I'm talking about. Its the tone and language people use at each other. Instead of saying, "youre an idiot", why cant someone say, "I disagree with you and here is why..."
And I would hope that people will not get too serious. If you knew me, which you dont, you would know that getting too serious, even about yourself, is BORING!!!
Its the way some people get wound up around here, getting personal, hurling insults, and saying some really terrible things about variouss candidates. They purposely incite people with rude comments. There is funny, and then there is rude. You can be rude with your friends you know well, but not with some anonymous person out there.
I am a pretty thick-skinned person, but c'mon, cant we all be a little more sporting in our behaviour? I dont want an Obama bubble. But I have to wonder why there are some people who do nothing else but attack the guy and other people.
Do you see what I'm saying?
August 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I see what you're saying. But I also see that intolerance of tone is still intolerance, period.
If you find something or someone uncivilized or not helpful, you can always choose to ignore them. If you enforce civility, you end up enforcing behavoir.
On top of this, it won't work, neither here at TPM nor anywhere else on the internet. Everyone here is an anonymous ghost, there are no rules, there is no accountability, it's a free-for-all.
I think that Democracy is a very messy and complicated thing. And either the absense or the deliberate surpression of skepticism and dissent is the first sign that something is going wrong.
And while it is understandable from a supporter who would be better described as fanatic, it becomes threatening when it comes from someone who would call himself a thinker.
August 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so I eat my words and post another reply like I said I wouldnt.
I dont think civility should be "enforced" here, and I am not asking for the management or anyone else to take such steps. I am asking that people in this little community find it within themselves to be civil to each other and disagree without being haters.
You seem to have the impression that I want everything in a neat little package where we all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". No. But I am tired of the other extreme where people hurl insults, call people names like "obamabots". If I am a Obama supporter, am I going to hear what the person is saying? Does the person care what I think? Obviously not. They are here to piss people off, which is childish.
And, are you saying that I am a "fanatic" for Obama? Did I understand you right? Because if you were saying that, you were accusing me of something that you have no idea about. Do you know me? Have we met and had a beer together and talked face to face? If not, then you really cant know whats in my head, or what I think about OBama. As you say, democracy is complicated.
In conclusion, Lalo, the hating here should stop. Is it too much to request? (of course, not demand and enforce)
August 7, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lot of it will be gone when you are.
August 7, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but that isnt going to happen.
August 7, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bummer.
August 7, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't been reading enough of your posts to have an opinion whether or not you're a fanatic. It wasn't directed at you personally but at a type of a supporter in general.
Also, I think it would be a good idea if you re-read your comments in this thread. Because I personally get confused now. First you want to have a troll rating system. Which is the enforcement I talked about. Then you say you're OK with Obama-criticism, as long as it's polite. Which to me is, again, enforcement.
In the end, if you have strong principles about manner of speech, wouldn't the best way of upholding them be to avoid what you find inappropriate?
I don't know you and I have nothing against you, but it seems to me that you are suggesting an official system that will allow you to block anything you don't like to hear. However mild or well-intended it is.
August 7, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear what you are saying, Lalo. And the more I think about it, perhaps troll rating is a bit extreme. You make a good point.
August 7, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
Because I was just thinking that if I still haven't explained myself clearly enough, I would have to roll out my loaded weapons, which I use to defend the troll race and to fight troll-baiting.
:-)
August 7, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I witnessed your spam attack on Jacob. If you keep it up, you are going to end up like a few of your friends that have been banned. If you don't like someone, stay away from them. Pranks like spamming a thread with wall posts ought to get you banned.
August 7, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Glad,
As I said above, I know it was against policy. And I explained that I wont be doing it again. OK? Nuff said.
August 7, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. Lila is doing a good job of cleaning this site up. No stalking. No ad hominems. No wall postings to disrupt a thread. No multiple identities talking to one another. If you do it again, I'll turn you in personally.
August 7, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turn me in? Talk about Gestapo tactics. Just let it go already.
August 7, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got my eyeball on you. Lila needs to know when you misbehave, young man.
August 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
Mr. Glad, your priceless.
August 7, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a price, but no one has been willing to pay it. Seriously, though, Lila does have her hands full. We can make her life easier by chilling out some.
August 7, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prissy cunt.
August 8, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now there's a valuable contribution to the discussion!
August 8, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realize you have little respect for me and my point of view, but I would ask that you not respond to this person, well, anywhere, but particularly not in my threads.
No offense intended to anyone. He and I simply have nothing to say to each other and on my threads he seems to have no objective except to villify, which lowers the level of conversation in my opinion.
August 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that you are trying to build an extra-strong Obama-bubble here. I understand that you are willing to have a Gestapo Code of Conduct to enforce it.
I don't think this is particularly fair. Anti-Obamites and Obama agnostics comprise a fairly significant minority population here. You, gasket, Billy, Desi, bluebell, quinn, Your Humble Servant, etc.
There are also many quite reasonable pro-Obama people -- people who are critical of many of his conservative positions but who don't feel they have a choice. Raider and lux are good examples.
There are many people on both sides of the Great Democratic Divide who are easy to engage, and god-would-know-if-there-were-one many who will instantly invoke the nuclear option when challenged.
August 7, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record, I don't support Obama only because there seems to be no other viable choice. I actually like the guy. I know he's not perfect, but having done a brief stint as an elected official in an area with radically diverse constituencies, I know that black and white thinking doesn't get the job done and compromise is really the best way to build consensus and to build rapport - and ultimately to get things done.
Obama has many great qualities - more than just about any other Democratic contender in a long time. I will agree that Clinton could be a strong candidate, too, especially against such an idiot as McCain. She would be on the attack more vehemently than Obama, too, I believe.
So, maybe it's just personal principles, but I prefer the way Obama does things. He can hit hard, but not with the kind of childish nastiness of the Republicans. It's just not clear yet whether a more principled approach will actually work. And I do believe that, when in office, Obama will do more that we agree with than what we don't. As I said in another post, I think for a Democrat, getting elected against the Republican smear machine is a lot harder than leading the country. Once you make it to the Oval Office, the rest may very well seem easy by comparison - especially with a friendly congress.
August 7, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. But you are a reasonable debating partner nonetheless.
BTW, I like Obama too. I just can't countenance his campaign to gut the Constitution. OK, that's a little harsh.
August 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. And with regard to the Constitution, I'm not as worried as some people. First, I think I know what McCain would do to both the Constitution and the Court, but as for Obama, recent actions aside, I think (hope) he would be far more of a Constitutional protector than the campaign suggests so far. If I'm wrong... well, we need to let him know what we think once he's in office.
August 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. When she was still running, I spent a lot of time on right-wing blogs trying to understand their thinking process, their view of her and their view of the world. It helped me in two ways: crystallize the reasons why I support her and understand how they tick. I must admit that there were several instances where the Republicans made very valid points that had nothing to do with personal character or personal history or Iraq yet still gave me a long long pause.
The point of all this is that I think TPM, like any echo-chamber, would actually benefit from encouraging dissent. And Obama supporters would benefit from talking less amongst themselves and talking more to the world outside. It's a little sad that so many of them wouldn't even dream of it.
August 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well she'll never be president so you lose.
August 8, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no divide. Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't. Either you defend it or you don't. And in your case, either you understand it or you don't.
August 8, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing. Obama should hire you to sit on his desk and say that over and over. No one in politics right now needs to hear that more than he does.
August 8, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they'll put you in charge.
August 7, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you're still holding onto that myth of "his shabby treatment of Hillary Clinton." If McCain wins, it'll be because of those like you and all the other PUMAs.
August 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? In Bill Clinton's last interview, I watched a former Democratic President of the United States who had withstood attacks from the Atwater smear machine for over 15 years, withstood impeachment, saved millions of lives in Africa through his work on AIDS, have to stand there and say he's not a racist. And I'll say it again. At that moment I thought of Barack Obama and the campaign he ran against the Clintons, and I thought: "Proud of yourself, little man?" McCain is a walking cadaver. He and the Bushes could star in a remake of Dawn Of The Dead. Stop whining and beat him.
August 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did President Clinton feel the need to bring that up? I watched the whole interview, he was never asked a question that would even bring that to mind. He was also a lot more supportive of Senator Obama than the clips and talking heads have made him out to be. As for you expressing your opinion that Senator Obama somehow made President Clinton appear to be a racist, well; I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
August 7, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Jack the Obama hack Cafferty is at it again:
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/07/does-hillary-want-obama-to-win/
August 7, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shabby treatment? She's a completely self-obsessed bitch. He's been incredibly tolerant and compassionate, as far as I'm concerned. If Hillary had her way it would have been illegal to run against her. Perhaps Bill should have set that up before he left office...
August 8, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure this one will get on the Rec'd list, why? simply because it's debatable.
I didn't realize there were what-is-and-is-not-debatable-subject police out here.
If you don't like the subject, move on. No need to insult other people's interests.
August 7, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I clearly intended to insult those interests.
Your interests are, as you might have picked up had you actually read my essay, prurient, distracting from actual issues, tawdry, degrading to your political friends, ignoble, proletarian, and encouraging of idiots who take delight in first pissing you off, then laughing at you for rising to their bait.
Your interests are reflective of the interests of American society in general. Karl Rove loves you for your interests, and will use your interests against you to elect Sen. McCain in Nov, hence my headline.
You heard it here first.
August 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You confuse my interest in your post or any other posts I've replied to with being pissed off about anything. I've always imagined blog police to be funny-looking, green creatures who get off by insulting people--you just reaffirm my belief.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't reply to a lot of the "heavy" political posts because I am not well-informed or because after reading some of the replies, I feel someone has spoken FOR me. Replying to the trivial stuff is actually fun because one doesn't need expertise; just experience and opinion.
I just don't agree with your conspiracy theory because, as I've told you, my political interests are way beyond your post--I just feel more confident replying to the trivial postings.
August 7, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Getting into an argument with you about this is not in anyone's interest either. I've expressed my opinion that you are aiding and abetting the enemy. If that's your thing, you and the rest of the rabble obviously have the right to do it.
On a related topic -- related to your comment, that is, not necessarily related to reality -- accusing people of being conspiracy theorists is another tactic beloved of the Atwood/Cheney axis.
August 7, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I love conspiracy theories.
I just told you why I reply to the trivial posts--my reason--And you claim I'm aiding "the enemy"; geesh...lighten up, Holmes.
August 7, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignore Tankard. A born troll. The dynamic will change completely after the convention. Tankard doesn't count for anything.
August 8, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. Tankard may be a born troll, but you, my little friend, are a self-made man.
August 8, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It won't get on the rec list because it's debatable. It will get on the rec list because no one reads this blog any longer and it only takes about 5 recs to make the list. Why? Because clueless morons like Billy Glad, Tankard, Lalo35adm, readytoblowanybody, etc. have taken over the Cafe. This site has been rendered useless by the persistent trolls.
TPM used to be a great place to discuss politics. The trolls have turned it into a great place to argue about absolutely nothing.
Highly fucking rec'd.
August 8, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has been clear for a while now that Arianna Huffington reads my every word. She has admitted this for all intents and purposes by not only expanding on the theme that I established here, but actually doing so a full 10 hours before I published my essay.
C'mon Arianna. You could at least give me credit when you steal my ideas and thoughts in advance.
August 7, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question: What are you talking about? Your post covers National Enquirer, Bush & Co, and Keith Olbermann; Huffington is covering McCain/RNC campaign ads. What am I missing?
August 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
My post covers the delight that the hoi polloi take in spectacular and irrelevant Grand Guignol produced by Republican propagandists. Ms. Huffington's post describes and expands on this theme.
Note that she specifically uses the term "issueless sideshow." Note that she lists some of the issues that are not being discussed by the propagandists. Note that she discusses "the politics of nothing" of which you express an eagerness to foster.
August 7, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Reps have been smart enough not to alienate voters with terms like 'rabble' and 'hoi polloi'. Throwing around terms like that plays right into their 'elitist liberal' stereotype.
August 7, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not talking to Republicans. Or am I?
August 7, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not counting the trolls, you're potentially talking to Dems, Greens, Independents, disaffected Reps and Libertarians.
August 7, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me for doubting that any of those people consider my prose to be a reason to change their vote. Do you? If so, may I discuss with you a sensational investment opportunity in which you may be eligible to participate?
August 7, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're such an elitist, Tankard.
You believe in all those snobby,eggheady things like the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, Habeas, treaty obligations, separation of powers.
Real Americans aren't interested in such things! You must be from Bulgravia or some such foreign place.
Hopeless case.
August 7, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You believe in all those snobby,eggheady things like the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, Habeas, treaty obligations, separation of powers.
No, actually, I make it a point to believe in nothing. You and I have been through this before, n'est-ce que pas?
August 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
with you, no good post goes unpunished...
August 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard is a nihilist when it comes to posts. But it gave up the most revolting avatar on TPM in hopes of being liked. Is it working? We need to let it know that it has found friends here. We need to let it know that it has found an AUDIENCE!
August 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would certainly know, Hot Dog.
August 8, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well they certainly won't bring anyone into the party.
August 7, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument rests along the lines of "off-shore drilling certainly won't raise the price of gas," or "you have nothing to lose by believing in unicorns" but fine. I can see that I have failed here.
Therefore I hereby resign my postition as Voter Recruiter for the Democratic Party. I already have a better offer from the Republicans anyway. Soon I will be their official Discoverer of Derogatory Descriptions for Dangerous Dupes and Dopes from Dubuque.
August 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must be from Bulgravia or some such foreign place.
Born in Lower Slobovia. Went south from there.
August 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
worse than East Lansing.
August 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but almost as bad.
August 7, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tonalli, don't fall into the trap. Tankard wants attention--nothing more. Every post Tankard has published has been a desperate plea for validation. Tankard is an attention sponge.
August 8, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I love humanity, but I hate people."
- Edna St. Vincent Millay
August 7, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I love people. It's Edna I can't stand."
August 7, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the black helicopters I hate.
August 7, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I hate everbody I don't know."
- Me
"Don't be cruel."
- Elvis
August 8, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"l'enfer, c'est les bloggeurs"
August 7, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Je comprends les mots, mais pas le sens.
August 7, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's adapted from Huis Clos: "Hell is other people"
August 7, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
purement et simplement....
August 7, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who uses "oubliette" in any context is an elitist that makes Barack the arugula eater look like a folksy populist.
People are interested in sex and race matters, not the arcane details of health care policy. Go to any blog and compare the number of comments on sex and race topics with the paltry comments on Iraq withdrawal timetables or federal reserve policy. The policy wonks who wish to debate the latter are not swing voters and do not affect the outcome of presidential elections.
Edwards' mistress scandal is most important for the mainstream media's attempt to suppress it when they would have proclaimed it if it involved a recent Republican presidential candidate.
August 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they're suppressing the story about Laura scratching Dubya's face, too. I can't see why the MSM doesn't run with that one.
August 7, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about the fact that I am indeed an elitist.
I and a few other people thought we might try for, say, competence and integrity this time. Some intelligent elected officials? Some politicians with ideas? Some people with a program that might actually work? You know, we thought we might try to elect some, how do you say, elite politicians rather than the "sub-standard" ones we have been experimenting with lately.
We tried the "good ol' boy that you'd want to have a beer with" thing with quite modest success.
As for your argument that commoners (that's what we elitists call the Great Unwashed Mob) prefer sex, scandal, and shit -- of course! That's what I'm complaining about!
And you seem to be suggesting that our leaders should come down to their level rather than trying to get them interested in the issues that determine our standard of living, the survival of our country, and the world we hand off to our children. I think the last 30 years have demonstrated that the Republicans are much better at that and are much more convincing running that kind of campaign. They'll win with it every time.
August 7, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back to the real world Tankard!
August 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm completely with you on this comment. Someone who can manage not to mangle the English language would be refreshing. Someone who I don't worry about having a senior moment at 3am is another.
But someone who actually does the homework, knows how to listen to people and can actually lead is something remarkable. I think Ripper had a post up here that distinguishes between mere celebrity and the ability to inspire and lead others.
But leading a country is probably far easier than getting through the Republican electoral minefield. For any Democrat who manages that feat, we should give considerable credit, then hold him accountable once he takes office.
August 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, can't help it...
Troy: [singing] I hate every ape I see
From chimpan-a to chimpan-zee
No, you'll never make a monkey out of me
Oh my God, I was wrong
It was Earth all along
You've finally made a monkey
Apes: Yes, we've finally made a monkey
Troy: Yes, you've finally made a monkey out of me
Apes: Yes, we've finally made a monkey out of you
Troy: I love you, Dr. Zaius!
August 7, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Planet of the Bloggers.
Doctor Faustus: "How comes it then that thou art out of hell?"
Mephisto: "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it!"
August 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
References to classic literature is elitist, you snob.
August 7, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get your hands off me, you damned, dirty elitist!
August 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
=]
August 7, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most posts on TPM are a waste of time, and often the ones that get the most recs are ones that spark nastiness and invective, or that propose outrageous ideas or that complain about what others post, or that allow people to think they are being funny or clever.
Unfortunately, none of this matters a rat's ass to either candidate or to most voters. It's just entertainment, so if people want to talk about phallic symbols in attack ads, or arugula or oubliettes, it's fine by me.
Personally, I'd rather be doing something to help the candidate I believe will be best for the nation and the world. But there's always room for entertainment.
August 7, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's also always room for Jell-O.
August 7, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
But rarely a room with a view.
August 7, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
August 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just decided to officially proclaim myself your NUMBER ONE FAN.
Of course, your last paragraph is an irritating, but minor mistake, so I will ignore it. Plus, it obviously has nothing to do with 99.99% of posters/readers on this site.
It's the first two paragraphs that so perfectly summarize what has been my motto and mission on this site.
There is nothing more entertaining than the highly predictable Pavlovian reaction of some of the Obama supporters here (I mock McCain elsewhere) - small group and they who they are.
I hope it won't be breaking news here when I say that it is this kind of supporter, holding on to Obama on a taut string of emotion, will be the first to abandon him.
If he were a Republican nominee right now, it wouldn't make a shade of difference. It's all about the rollercoaster.
Tankard - back to you.
August 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
kind of supporter, holding on to Obama on a taut string of emotion, will be the first to abandon him.
If this refers to me, too late. I abandoned him a week or so ago, but it had nothing to do with emotion or scabrous advertising. It had to do with his increasingly conservative positions.
August 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not. You were included in the irritating but minor mistake, those who give a damn about issues or position. Plus you seem to be a teeeny bit of a radical, which probably makes you an endangered species here.
August 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A radical? If a radical is someone who tries desperately to defend the Constitution and human rights I plead Guilty As charged.
Endangered around here? Maybe. I might get bored arguing with people who try to convince me that the Dem candidate can do no wrong, that we should encourage trolls and trolling, or conversely that a troll is someone who has an objection to injustice, illogic, or insanity. I might get bored arguing that the use of a word like "oubliette" brands a poster as being out of touch with America or that using an expression like "hoi polloi" makes the poster an enemy of the people. But as long as I can keep scrounging up ten or twenty interesting comments to my articles -- with enough meat in them to encourage a spirited discussion, I don't think I'm terribly endangered.
August 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
allow people to think they are being funny or clever.
Damn! I'm busted.
It's just entertainment, so if people want to talk about phallic symbols in attack ads, or arugula or oubliettes, it's fine by me.
You make an excellent point, raider. Creating and consuming entertainment is certainly THE reason I'm here. What makes me scratch my head is this: Entertainment can be "Three's Company" or it can be "M*A*S*H." It can be "Plan 9 From Outer Space" or it can be "2001: A Space Odyssey." Why would people not insist on entertaining entertainment instead of the stuff that's aimed directly at the groin?
And this is my main point: Why should we encourage the stuff that works so well for the Bad Guys?
August 7, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are what we Rec?
August 7, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec ergo sum
August 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so elitist to say things in Latin. For that matter, it's probably elitist to use HTML tags. Oh well.
August 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like "We have rec'd the enemy and they is us."
August 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Je suis coupable....
August 7, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sooo elitist to reveal your second language! (or is your third?)
Entendu?
August 7, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Non
August 7, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most posts on TPM are a waste of time
Who was it that coined the phrase, "Ninety percent of anything is shit?"
August 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like Carlin.
August 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon: "Ninety percent of science fiction -- of anything -- is crap."
August 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit. That was Sturgeon? Wow. I studied with him once. Learned a lot from him. Great dude. Fabulous writer.
August 7, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're wondering why a lot of weird things end up on the rec list -- including some fairly right-wing posts by A. Perez -- a large part of answer, surely, is that traffic on TPMEC is down. These days, posts can get pretty high up the list with a single-digit number of recs.
Why is traffic down? I don't know. Speaking for myself, I find that Obama's rather stable, modest lead in the polls has produced a self-defeating sort of discussion. Instead of disagreeing about issues or candidates, TPMEC is now effectively divided between optimists and pessimists. The pessimists post something like "What Obama must do now" or "Why Obama deserves to lose," and then a few optimists write in to say "chillax, he's doing fine" or "it's politics, dude."
But really, there's no reason for the optimists to bother commenting unless a tiny part of them is anxious too. So they're reassuring themselves under the guise of reassuring someone else.
Which is great, and has worked for the last few weeks. Except that -- personally -- I find that I'm beginning to lose even that tiny, necessary bit of anxiety.
No doubt I'm crazy to feel that way. "It's already August, and Obama's modest 3-5 point lead in the polls could evaporate at any moment!" Yeah, I guess. But sadly, I'm losing my desire to argue about it.
August 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to include you in the list of reasonable pro-Obamites, Alex. BTW, does your avatar's last name begin with "H."
August 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Unless you count the "von."
August 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
discovered any new currents lately?
August 7, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as you know, my pet cause is the MSM, which I think is part of the reason the Obama lead is modest and not a blowout. So I'm here from time to time to remind people that we are working on the SCAAMD effort and making progress toward a website with new tools for instant response to the lies and propaganda that is destroying accountability and the chance to have a well-informed electorate.
Otherwise, it's just entertainment.
August 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A warning from someone who's been there, done that: you can easily make a mistake interpreting falling on political and related topic blogs in July and August as something that it's not. Very simply, they lose traffic in the dog days, as have news programs in other media for decades. This is also why the summer first run movie selection is either blockbusters or trash or both, and the better films are introduced in This is why if you have news coverage during this time, shark attacks or Lady Diana's death takes precedence, and that coverage is done by a skeleton staff.
It is actually an interesting phenomenon that this still exists. It's a carry over from pre-air-conditioning days, when there was an actual reason that brain activity slows in the dog days and no one wants to be involved with "serious stuff"....part of it is "the children," they are still on the pre-air-conditioning schedule, if you've got them, all of a sudden, there they are looking for entertainment and attention 24/7.
August 8, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goodness, what a confederacy of dunces!
August 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goodness, what a confederacy of dunces!
Wrong twice. Goodness has nothing to do with us. And we're not confederated.
August 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is an important post and thread!
August 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where?
August 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If McCain wins, it's the typical scenario: Republicans using the character-assassination strategy, the Dems unable to somehow reciprocate or deflect. The Republicans creating a simple equation:
Obama is "risky", McCain is "safe". Realizing that even though the vast majority of voters say they want a 'new direction" and "new politics", in reality they vote their emotions, which means they vote their fears. That's why Republicans win elections...they're masters at it...and that's why Republicans can't govern. After all, you think you're getting a 'maverick' in McCain? Think again. You're getting the Republican party. Period. And that means more lobbists, more party hacks, more future manipulations of elections, and a Supreme Court firmly in the pockets of the cultural conservatives and The Club For Growth for the next two decades. But the average American voter will probably not realize it till it's too late,
and we have another round of more of the same.
August 7, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My kind of chaos. Sign me up!
August 7, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves without someone to gripe against.
Bush we will miss you
August 7, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Tankard, this did at least end up a literary comment thread. Though I will never use your "oubliette" (which I duly looked up) in speech, it does make me feel more elite for now knowing it.
And the Faustian quotes from Lux Umbra Dei were classy.
Not to mention atreideshawk's lyrics from The Simpsons' epic Troy McCure musical "Stop The Planet Of The Apes, I Want To Get Off." Talk about upscale and classy.
August 7, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making me the center of attention.
By the way, some people actually care about our major politicians cheating on their wives, and more so when said wives have cancer.
August 7, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your compassionate concern for the desires of Elizabeth Edwards is duly noted.
August 8, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You conveniently let Keith Olbermann and Bob Herbert, who obsessed first about the VC and the Tower of Pisa. You, my friend, are why McCain will likely win. Because instead of telling the major journalists, those who reach millions, unlike me, to stop wasting their time in race-sensitive issues that scare away white voters, you choose to attack an anonymous TPM blogger.
I'm flattered though. Keep linking to my diaries, please.
August 7, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conveniently let them off the hook, I meant. I forgot to type some words.
August 7, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two MUST-READ articles spelling out the reasons why Obama can't drop McCain in the polls:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/obamas-self-defeating-rhe_b_117463.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/why-voters-say-they-dont_b_117238.html
Same reasons Kerry (war hero) and Gore (Nobel Laureate) BOTH LOST TO A CHIMPANZEE.
Obama's campaign needs to WAKE UP and stop playing Little League ball!!!
Josh: can you make sure these articles get forwarded to the campaign? PLEASE!!?!?
August 7, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Die, spammer, die!
August 8, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard, just a note on topic (wonder of wonders)
Given what you say in this post, ever have doubts about giving this website support through traffic and usage? I must admit I do sometimes.
The reason for that feeling on my part is mainly this post "Why I love not just the sideshow but the entire circus," by Josh Marshall (my alteration of his title.) Read it carefully, really try to get the entire intent.
That post did disturb me. And the coverage and general modus operandi here since the primary heated up, taken together with that post, sticks in the back of my mind.
I wonder sometimes if I should feel guilty that I do support this website with my traffic, if that is the mission behind it, but I put myself in denial, I think: he couldn't have really meant what he said there that strongly, I must be reading it wrong.
Now I'm no "spinach promoting" purist, though my preference is definitely issues, it's more like arugula and chard. I do like me some of that participating in horse race coverage of big elections. But I like cynical analysis and deconstruction of what the campaigns are trying to do, along the lines of: there is always hope that if people understood what was going on with this whole thing better, that it would eventually stop, and issues would be more appreciated and included in the political salesmanship. Just like, once edjumacted to a certain degree about advertising, most peoople stopped falling for jingles like "see the U.S.A. in your Chevrolet" and started doing consumer research when they bought a car.
I just can't get it out of my mind that Josh Marshall was saying in that post that democracy in our system is not ever going to be about issues, and not only that but that he thinks that's a wonderful thing. It's almost Straussian/neo-con in a way.
August 7, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Horserace coverage is one thing. Tabloid sensationalism is quite another.
Wouldn't you agree?
August 8, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, the lines seems to get awful blurry at times. Just now, for example, I compared drudgereport.com to talkingpointsmemo.com, and they look pretty much the same, except that TPM has given more space, quite a few more links, and a bigger picture to the John Edwards story, while Drudge actually has a few more serious news links mixed in down the page.
August 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does this have to do with sensationalism? It's got nothing -- zip, zero, nada, nunka -- to do with any foreseeable political race. It has to do with the private sexuality of a non-candidate, and it's front-page news.
<gavel />Next case.
August 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser, can you repost the link to the Josh piece? I can't retrieve it. :-)
August 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
What We Do
01.22.08 -- 11:27AM By Josh Marshall
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/162969.php
August 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some would say that synthesis is the holy grail somewhere beyond deconstruction or analysis. If we break it all down, we ought to be able to put it together in a new way. Isn't it the new synthesis that has a chance of changing the way we think about things?
The low brow, high brow, middle brow theme seems to work for almost anything, including political blogs like TPM. I agree that some of the bloggers in the reader blog space are getting better, and it's easy to ignore the ones who aren't.
What I find most amusing about all of us is that after politics has failed us so badly for so long, we want more politics. As my friend gasket says, this is the island of broken toys. Greetings.
August 8, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser,
At one time in the not so distant past our democracy was about issues. Josh has it wrong.
Things like Monopoly, Free Silver, Rights of Labor, and so forth meant something to people and affected their party affiliations and their votes.
We are living perhaps in a post-issue age, an amazing hall of mirrors, a kabuki play going through the motions of how things were done when issues meant something to us...i.e. our economic survival and food on the table for our families.
In this faux-paradise we created, we have removed the original motives for caring...survival.
It is now a sterile Guelph and Ghibelline dance of partisanship with our separate rosters of states and cities....
August 8, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once created, the primary function of any system is self-preservation. Decay begins at the moment of creation.
August 8, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I find truly amazing is that you have the gall to refer to someone else on this site as a troll.
August 8, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, here's a clear indication we're dealing with a Republican troll:
The Dums? By that do you mean the Democratic Party? The party of which I'm a proud member? Because if you do, fuck you.
August 8, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
As the rest of us can see, by Dums he means the Dumb Republicans. You, however, have earned the Dum label in your own right. Wear it proudly, pussy hare.
August 8, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ohh, Billy. Been eating your Malt-O-Meal lately? Very brave.
August 8, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brave? It hardly takes courage to rebuke a little pussy hare like you. I think of it as cruel. But your inability of address issues ever provokes it. Study artappraiser. Try to participate. Give up your self-appointed role of echo chamber enforcer. Become a mensch. We'll welcome you to our society.
August 8, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What could have been a very interesting thread devolved into an orgy of fuckwittism right from the first comment.
While the extreme dishonour belongs to everyone participating, I single out Mr. Billy Glad, just as cognitively dissonant as the cultists he denounces; Mr. Jacob Freeze for pathetically exposing the true dearth of his capabilities by pretend-psychoanalysing a man he has never met or, I daresay, even studied in object detail; M. urban for just being a completely useless whiny hypocritical asshole and Rbt. hrebendorf for, once again, not having anything intelligent to say and resorting to rather poorly formed ad hominems instead.
Tankard, want to make another go at it?
August 8, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like a moth to the flame. We see you, my son.
August 8, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No thanks, roo_P. I simply refuse to engage some of the folks you mention. Any attempt to get some them to hold a civil conversation raises memories of the tired old joke about trying to teach a pig to whistle. It's a waste of your time and it just annoys the pig.
(Now watch the fun as they pretend to believe that I've called them all pigs.)
But this thread became another example of the kind of attitude that causes the very phenomenon that I set out to highlight: Desperate melee over triviality. Which introduces another tired chestnut, usually applied to other trivialities such as sport or religion: Passions ran so very high because the outcomes were so unimportant.
August 8, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record: "Dums" following a reference to Lewis Carroll was my feeble attempt to pay homage to the esteemed Tweedle family.
August 8, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment