The Mud Pit

They screwed it up…

Sending that kind of an announcement at any hour via text message is just immature. And coming from a presidential candidate is just plain ignorant. I can’t seem to find the words. Reminds me of drug dealers letting customers know that the goods are in.

But it shows he’s hip, right, and in touch with the younger generation, doesn’t it?!?

I think its pretty lame too, but amusing that they botched it so badly…

pppsssssssssssttttt…..the drugs are here and they taste like White Peaches!

YUMMM !

Can we get the facts straight? It has been reported a number that the plan was to send the text at 10 AM Sat. It leaked before that, around midnight, so the timing was forced by the leak. Too bad; sometimes, when you try an interesting and innovative strategy that no one has used before, it doesn’t always get perfectly executed. But bungled? No. They kept the attention of the press for days, got the media off John McCain and focused on the VP pick, and obtained millons of cell phone numbers in a data base. It worked, not perfectly, but it certainly worked.

Maybe the intense dislike of the candidate influences the evaluation of the candidate’s strategy. If so, I suspect you’re not the target market.

FACTS STRAIGHT……HA HA HAH HA HAAHAAAHAHA…..

Can we PLEASE get some facts that we all have been waiting for? Geez, no wonder you like this guy to be YOUR leader, you already follow like a donkey chasing a carrot that is tied to a stick.

Frankie Boy,

Curious what facts you’re referring to, but I might point out that in political discussions where not everybody agrees, not everybody is going to get a reference like that. The carrot you speak of is, I’m guessing, having a president who says, “Yes, we can,” as opposed to, “Bomb, bomb Iran.” But then the obscurity of your expression makes if difficult to be sure. Do I take it from your earlier post that you are using this blog to send messages to fellow drug dealers, or suggesting that someone else is? It sounds chancy to me, but then I don’t know as much as some folks seem to about the use of cell phones or blogs in drug deals. I would, by the say, like for this guy to be your leader as well.

I’ll pass on your chance at sarcasm. To imply that you don’t understand something is amazing to see you write it.

Whatever, I hold anything you or your wife say as bull anyway.

Have a great little party.

FB,

You’re probably right that it would be amazing if you could write something I wouldn’t understand. I didn’t really know if you’d catch that. By the way, I’m not sure what you mean by a party. On this side of the political aisle, we’re serious this year. Very serious.

whackette, you want to know why no one took you up on your Obama post yesterday? Look at the post at 5:36, and 6:42 from today.

You know there are people who read this blog everyday (and you know some in the real world, too)who are Dem supporters, who write well, have thought through their choice carefully, and who are interested in talking politics. People who you know and get along with on most matters.

But apparently not here. And especially not over at your husband’s blog, where the the language and tone has gone from ordinary disagreement to name-calling to hateful, vicious language to downright vulgar, repulsive vitriol.

You get what you tolerate.

Useless…both your actions and words…JFG, take your wife for an ice cream cone, but don’t forget the napkins.

Frank J Witt, over and out!

FB,

Is there some commentary there I’m too dense to get, or can you really not spell “JGF”?

I got the text at 3AM. It didn’t bother me. I kind of thought it was neat. I’d already read who he didn’t pick, so I assumed it was Biden. Off to donate some money and get my new car magnet!

“whackette, you want to know why no one took you up on your Obama post yesterday?”

Whackette said she’d edit posts that just sought to attack whomever took her up on the offer. Even with that caveat not one Obama supporter posted anything. Do they just want to post on liberal blogs where they know everyone will agree with them and nothing will be challenged?

And, this whole VP thing WAS messed up. They tried to be a little too cute about it (the Obama-Bayh bumper stickers, etc) and ended up announcing when a lot of folks probably weren’t paying any attention. And as far as it keeping the focus off McCain…Obama has always been the focus, regardless. When he was vacationing in Hawaii we got stories about him, video and pictures of him and his family enjoying themselves. So why wait? Especially since it was Biden and not some surprise dark horse candidate? There is a bit of a let down, no?

Also, since it was sent at 3 AM, you’ve got lots of Hillary supporters, who were cool on Obama anyway and were strung along thinking maybe SHE was the pick, thinking that it was a slap at her due to an ad she ran during the primaries. That probably isn’t helpful since a lot of those, at least now, seem to be leaning towards McCain. That could be significant, especially since Biden offers virtually no benefits in terms of electoral votes (maybe helps shore up PA, but DE is solid blue regardless…where else is he going to help?).

too dense…

RF says: “Do they just want to post on liberal blogs where they know everyone will agree with them and nothing will be challenged?”

No.

There’s a difference between being challenged and being called names. Between discussing issues and being mocked. Between trying to untangle policy implications and being insulted.

Who here is really interested in an exchange of ideas? Or even interested in the facts? Christa notes that Obama reminds her of a drug dealer, FB talks about donkeys and sticks and tells the world that anything I say is bull. “Guess Who” on the Obama thread spends 311 words in one single post on talking-points mockery, and them more on “tele-tubbie-prompter cracks, and name calling. People here (and 10 times worse on Republitarian) write stuff they would never, never say to another person’s face.

I’ll give you lots of credit – you tried at 4:27 yesterday in the Obama thread to start a serious discussion. But what reasonable person who holds something other than right-wing views would to try to hold a real conversation here? You got your answer yesterday.

DebSF, the name calling and mocking and insulting cuts both ways, and there have been instances where those on your “side” have engaged in the same. I don’t want to speak for Christa, but all she noted was her distaste for the manner in which Obama chose to announce (except for the leak beforehand) his VP nominee. That’s all. I don’t believe she was equating Obama with a drug dealer despite the reference.

In any event, why can’t the posts that you speak of, the ones that mock and insult, simply be ignored? I think Whackette was honestly trying to get a good discussion going and was genuinely interested in the possible responses; I have no doubt others were as well. It still strikes me as odd that no one took her up on it…I just can’t believe that you and the other Obama supporters that have posted before would be that hesitant to write views contrary to what others may think for fear of being attacked. You all seem strong enough to take your lumps, and dish out accordingly.

Deb, had anyone used the Obama thread to tell me why they support them and then had someone attacked that person, it would have been edited. I don’t like editing people’s comments. I usually only do it for EXTREMELY FOUL OR GRAPHIC CONTENT. Like the F word. I just had to remove that one this morning. I don’t like censoring. It’s too subjective.

The offer still stands on the Obama thread to tell my why you support him (if you do).

RF, I’ve never called anyone a name on any one of the local blogs, and yet I’ve been called b&*%h, an idiot, a moron, and other colorful names. Why should anyone put themselves in a situation where they have to spend the energy even to ignore this kind of behavior, behavior that wouldn’t be tolerated in the home, church, workplace, classroom or in public places?

You write: “I just can’t believe that you and the other Obama supporters that have posted before would be that hesitant to write views contrary to what others may think for fear of being attacked.”

It’s not fear of being attacked.

Obama supporters who post on local blogs have the intellectual chops to have a conversation about their choices with anyone. And if you have any doubt that I can play the reindeer games that go on here and other blogs, “dishing it out” toe to toe with the rest of you, you’re wrong. They’re just boring, and too easy. The hard work is in keeping an open mind, marshaling facts, separating the value judgments from the real-life implications of your views, and defending your positions.

But conversations like the ones here and over at republitarian that include the mocking, name-calling, cursing and insulting are boring, unproductive, uninteresting, and, when they get as out of hand, destructive. Whackette set the tone by letting the first post in that mocking Obama stand unchecked and unchallenged. If this is what you want, have at it.

Again, as with the discussion on home schooling, thanks for an interesting conversation.

That last one was from me, not Joe.

Does that mean you aren’t going to tell us why you support Obama?

And what is it with you liberals? You come across as if you expect me to censor things you don’t like because it “sets the tone”. Would you rather a tone of censorship be set?

Of course they would…remember, they are in favor of BIGGER GOVERNMENT.

Their memory is like Myron’s blog, it can emptied at any moment to hide the truth of what gets said.

Let me see if I have this right. One party is in favor of bigger government, and the other is in favor of BIGGER LETTERS?

Oh.

FB, thanks for proving my point.

I’ll send it back to you, Meghan: what is it with you conservatives? All I pointed out was that you want it it both ways, you want the goods without paying the price. You want a serious discussion from liberals, while allowing the conservatives like FB to mock, insult, and trash them and the values and the policies they advocate, all in the name of “anti-censorship”.

Censorship isn’t the issue. Getting into a real discussion here under the kind of atmosphere you allow is like trying to have a conversation at a concert right in front of the speakers. You can do it, but it’s not worth the effort.

Since when are you or your husband interested in anyone else’s discussion points. Here, or other places you shout your position and expect people to kiss your ass and shout to the LORD that only you and your side can be right.

You’re right abut something though…it’s not worth the effort.

DebSF:

“RF, I’ve never called anyone a name on any one of the local blogs, and yet I’ve been called b&*%h, an idiot, a moron, and other colorful names. Why should anyone put themselves in a situation where they have to spend the energy even to ignore this kind of behavior, behavior that wouldn’t be tolerated in the home, church, workplace, classroom or in public places?”

I wasn’t referring to you specifically, but there are liberals who do engage in that (kestrel, for one, over at the other blog). But, I honestly don’t see why it takes a lot of energy to simply ignore comments one deems inappropriate, offensive, and/or derogatory. And yes, such remarks wouldn’t be tolerated in the places you mentioned, but aren’t you guys taking blog postings a tad too seriously? They’re simply forums for discussion, nothing more…maybe you know the people that are attacking you, which makes those attacks mean more than they ordinarily would. Regardless, it wouldn’t seem to take much to simply skip over them, right?

“Obama supporters who post on local blogs have the intellectual chops to have a conversation about their choices with anyone.”

I know they do, and I acknowledged that. Again, that is why I was surprised at the lack of response to the post. Obama supporters are very passionate about their candidate, too, and I assumed that would override any concerns one would have with getting caught up in the ad hominem attacks which may result.

“Whackette set the tone by letting the first post in that mocking Obama stand unchecked and unchallenged. If this is what you want, have at it.”

But didn’t Obama supporters let it go unchecked and unchallenged, too?

I honestly was curious to hear why Obama supporters feel as they do about him. Its an interesting perspective, at the very least…

Deb, it’s not like I censor one side and not the other. I let comments that personally attacked me stand when I blogged at DWJ. You want special treatment?

I know that you, and several others, are very articulate and could have clearly stated why you support Obama–if you do. I wanted you to be able to do that, if you choose, without being personally attacked for telling me something I am truly curious about, which is why I stated in the post that comments like that would be edited. I will do the same later for McCain supporters.

If you don’t want to say what draws you to support your candidate that’s ok. No one is forced to comment on a blog. You will not make a positive comment about the Democratic nominee, claiming it takes too much effort to ignore name calling (name calling that was not allowed)but you’ll chastise me for not censoring to your liking and try to insult my effort (as small as it may be) at allowing a view to be heard. I’m almost sure you put more effort into complaining about blogs that have non censoring conversations than you would have spent giving your guy a plug.

I’m seeing a pattern that I don’t like.

Well, I thought we were having a conversation about how conversations about politics take place. I’m interested in this, and I’m getting something out of it, so it’s worth my time and energy.

Pattern? From one data point? Huh. I’ve not brought up this topic here or elsewhere before.

All I’m saying is that you don’t get anything for free. It’s not a matter of censorship to set implicit rules for how conversations take place. I assume you don’t insult your pastor, or verbally attack the cashier at the supermarket, or let your kids curse you home.

Look, it’s your place. Do what you choose.

Chris Saxman once told the story of Vance Wilkins looking around at a room full of people at a political event, ascertaining that he’d shaken all the relevant hands, then saying, “Nope. No votes here,” and heading for the door.

There are no votes here for an Obama supporter, although I don’t mind noting that I support him because he is, in absolute terms, intelligent, principled, and consistent and, in relative terms, the most intelligent, principled and consistent major party nominee since George McGovern. I have no sense that anyone comes to this site to gather information about how to vote for president, although many probably come to get their own views supported and reinforced. Therefore a post asking, “Why do you support Obama?” is hard to view as a purely generous offer to Dem supporters to share their views.

I just post here ’cause it makes some folks on the other side of the political aisle sputter. Hide and watch.

I’ll post about the pattern later. It isn’t just you or this topic.

A few days ago Emmy left this in the comments:
“Obama is my candidate and I will tell anyone who wants to hear why they should vote for him. I won’t participate in any smearing of McCain any longer. There are plenty of things about McCain that could make him a good leader. If he wins, I’ll support him. I’d love it if people spent more time telling me why I should vote for their candidate and less time talking about the guy they don’t like.’

I thought she had a good idea. I still think it’s a good idea. I think something like this could also help each side see something positive about each candidate. Emmy and I probably don’t agree on much of anything, but I have a great respect for her for saying what she did.

I was also hoping someone would have better reasons for supporting Obama than the ones I had heard from other people. In my opinion, voting for someone because they are cool is as horrible a reason as voting for someone just because they were a war hero.

I’m sorry that no one choose to participate. I really thought that one of you could have said something more worthwhile or maybe explained why coolness is important. Or told me how he inspires you and what he inspires you to do. What exactly are you hoping he will change and how do you think he will do it?

And, Joe, you are probably right. I doubt there are many if any people that read this blog that would likely change their vote.

However, both RF and I have expressed a desire to know why Obama’s supporters support him. Neither one of us is prone to name calling and to make it extra safe I made an exception to my hands off editing style. I would think that an interest in your views and an invitation to share them would be the best we could all hope for in politics.

In the ISSUES section of what BO wants to change…he wants change the way they prosecute Crack compared to Cocaine. Apparently he thinks they should be the same. Does he not know the differences or does he just think it is a simple case of the WHITE MAN keepin a brother down by leveling heavier charges for a “heavier” drugs?

Of course no one can answer this either.

I always thought intelligent, principled, and consistent constituted more than “cool” but perhaps I use the word differently.

“intelligent, principled and consistent” is kind of hard to debate, also. It’s like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder. “Intelligent” because he reads a telepromter well, but stutters, and bumble around when he is off it? “Principaled” because he changes his views according to the polls, and avoids difficult or controversial votes? “Consistent” when he said before that we should never go in, but now that we are in, he says we should run away even as everybody now concedes we are winning, until the primaries were over, and he had to tack more to the middle and he changed his tune to say he would listen more to his military advisors? Could it be that these Obama fans have no real reason to support him, other than that he has a D after his name?

Intelligent, principled and consistent are better than cool. Why didn’t you just say so on the appropriate post?

GW makes some good points about whether or not they should be applied to Obama. I disagree with you and think the answer is a little vague. Could you share why you feel he has those characteristics? Maybe on the thread about Obama?

I’m not editing comments on this thread unless they contain something like the F word. If your comfortable with that, feel free to comment where ever you like. (That is not an invitation to anyone to call names. Please don’t. I like how this is going so far without name calling)

The issue of “why didn’t you just” is addressed in a previous comment.

Yeah, Joe, that makes sense.

You don’t think you can change anyone’s mind so you leave the comment on the wrong thread. And then won’t elaborate. Brilliant.

Ok, Deb, we get it. You are too much of a little wussy to state your views and then have them examined by others. So, run along little girl. Go back to places like Cobalt7, where they don’t allow any dissenting opinions. [Want some cheese with that WHiiiiIIIIIiiine?]

Which thread does Rutter belong on, Whackette?

He belongs on any he wants. As do you.

Drat! This is so childish. I’m done trying to get an answer to a simple question. It’s a stupid thing to argue about. Thanks anyway, Joe and Deb.

I hope the conservatives can do better.

Childish is right. Sheesh, I don’t get it.

It seems like it just boiled down to them knowing they wouldn’t be preaching to the choir, so to speak. Maybe some minds would have been changed…not mine, nor HRR’s, but I assume others read this blog that are undecided, or at the very least not comfortable with McCain. It wasn’t worth a shot to ANY of them??? Thats odd, especially since Obama has all this strong and unwavering support otherwise, or at least seems to. The thread was even prompted by someone saying they’d tell anyone, anywhere why they supported Obama, right?

Nice try Whackette, though. The effort was appreciated…

I don’t think anyone who reads this blogs mind will be changed and I don’t think anyone is on the fence. So there isn’t much point. I’m sorry, but I agree with Deb and Joe. It gets really tiring trying to have a conversation when HRR jumps in with insults and name calling. Republitarian is barely readable because of him, and now its spreading. Sometimes, rules are a good thing. I’m never a fan of censorship, but I think the blogs that have banned him did the right thing.

So then why not comment on the thread with the rules? That’s what I don’t get. No one would answer the question. Instead you all came to a different thread and complained that HRR is mean.

Because what’s the point. I don’t think you personally should vote for Obama and every reason I could give you about why I’m voting for him would just be me talking to myself. We have two totally different belief systems. Not to mention that HRR would just bash us on another thread. It has nothing to do with any particular thread, and everything to do with the tone of things in general. I didn’t comment on that thread because I saw it after it had already gone south.

The times I have agreed with you or Myron are few and far between, but I come to these blogs because I like hearing other points of view, I “know” the people I’m talking to, and yes, I like to argue a bit. But, there comes a point when it no longer becomes enjoyable to have discussions when people come on and call you names. I know you read my blog from time to time, and while it doesn’t lend itself to discussion, I can only imagine that after a while it would get frustrating if another commenter or myself repeatedly called you stupid or various other names. It gets really old really fast. I know HRR doesn’t like me, I know he thinks I’m stupid. I know he thinks all liberals are stupid and that we shouldn’t be allowed to breathe the same air that he does. Seriously, how many times do I need to hear it and on how many different blogs? I have lots of things I want to read and I rarely get to all of them. I’m sure you don’t care one bit if I read this blog, but it will quickly become a waste of what little free time I have to do so. I glance at these blogs several times during the day, but I have no interest in becoming part of any real discussion when I have to wade through name calling. So, sorry I didn’t post on the right thread. I don’t have time to read them all. Its your blog, do whatever you want with it, but weeding though his crap makes me tired.

Emmy, weeding through your whiiining little crap makes me tired, so I guess we are even. Pooor widdle ting. You haven’t learned how to ignore some posters. Here, let me help you pwactisss: SKIP THIS.

And there he proves my point. Its so not worth it.

Poor thing.