I've been idly following the Real Clear Politics electoral map. I think some of it is kinda silly. Yesterday Virginia was "leaning Obama." I wondered when the last time Virginia went Democrat was.
I went back to 1968 (as far back as RCP's maps go, plus, since Nixon was the first President I was alive for, seems like a nice round election) and couldn't find a single example: it went Republican every time. I thought, what other states go Republican every election? Since 1968: Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Indiana. Plus Virginia.
How many have gone Democrat every time since 1968? None: just the District of Columbia. Of course, without the Republican blowouts in 1972 and 1984, there'd probably be more.
As George Will likes to remind us, the future is just like the past right up until the point where it's not, which is why I call this "trivia." Still, I think Indiana and Virginia are not likely to go Obama this year, despite close polls.
[Note: if you go back to 1964, apparently there are no states that are all GOP either.]
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 18, 2008 11:06 AM | Email ThisLooks like Arizona flip-flops almost as much as McCain does.
Looks like he flip-flopped just the other day...last week he was against the taxpayer bailouts, this week he's for it. Same with immigration, he was for Amnesty before he was against it.
DEM's are for open borders, welfare, schooling for them (college too). Shall I go on.
Gezzz
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 18, 2008 12:25 PMFalse.
Same with immigration, he was for Amnesty before he was against it.
False.
During an interview on NBC’s Today Show, McCain said “No, I do not believe that the American taxpayer should be on the hook for AIG and I’m glad that the Secretary Paulson has apparently taken the same line.” [NBC, 9/16/08]
McCain Flops:
The next day on ABC, McCain said “I didn’t want to do that. And I don’t think anybody I know wanted to do that. But there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here. They were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption.” [ABC, 9/17/08]
Flip: On a number of occasions, Senator McCain has repeated the Party line that he "strongly opposes" government regulation of free-market enterprises. From the WSJ:
With regard to the current economic crisis, the McCain campaign is now arguing for “strong regulatory oversight of Wall Street.” McCain, however, has long held that he is “fundamentally a deregulator.” As he told the Wall Street Journal in March:
I’m always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. … But I am a fundamentally a deregulator. I’d like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.
Flop: On NBC’s Today Show, McCain told Matt Lauer:
"Of course I don’t like excessive and unnecessary regu — uh, government regulation."
Less than an hour later on CBS's Early Show, McCain tells host Harry Smith:
"Do I believe in excess government regulation? Yes.
Exactly. This year we have a very clear choice between someone who wants to increase debt, restrict oil supply, and has no experience in dealing with the financial markets; and on the other hand, someone who wants to reduce debt, increase the oil supply, and who has for years been working to fix our problems with poor regulation of the financial markets.
McCain is the easy choice at tough times such as these.
Flop: In a second speech in nearby Orlando, FL just hours later, Senator McCain had this to say about the state of our economy:
"I know Americans are hurting, and the fundamentals of our economy are at risk. They're at risk. [...] Our economy is at risk today."
Posted by: Waffle McCain on September 18, 2008 01:07 PMIs it because you are desperate?
Your very first example was an obvious lie, because McCain NEVER SAID he was in favor of the AIG bailout. He simply noted the fact that there are good reasons to do it, something everyone acknowledges. That doesn't imply he agreed, at all.
I won't read the rest, because you proved with your first that you're not worth bothering with.
That McCain has talked about and the dem's made sure no action was taken.
Who was the top 3 people who got big bucks from Freddie & Fanny.
That say's a bunch. (-:
The common misconception on McCain and immigration is that his bill called for cards (I read amnesty) and called for a fence. He flipflopped when we all blew our gaskets and then later said he got the picture. America wants the borders secured first and foremost before doing the other things. He understands now. I don't call it a flipflop in the guise of a John Kerry flipflop.
As for the stock market, I don't think anyone has the answer, except for George Soros. Today, the traders were happy when the government said they would do another bailout. I still don't know if anyone has the answer. Except, I sure wish McCain trotted out Romney on this issue a little more than he has.
I would love to see the 2 minute infomercial Obama bought to explain the stock market problems. I am sure he can explain it all away- that is, while we are hypnotized.
Posted by: swatter on September 18, 2008 01:17 PMThat's why Obama is a superior choice in these tough times. Not necessarily an easy one.
Anyone else smell that smoke? Mmmmm.
Posted by: Acid Brain on September 18, 2008 01:23 PMLet us hail the almighty Pudge that when faced with the meltdown of his candidate before his eyes, like dissing a NATO ally and not even getting he ally's leader's position straight (ergo Spain is a monarchy with a Prime Minister, not a President, like his campaign noted in its press release defending McCain's dish of the Spanish Prime Minister yesterday), Pudge mightly battles on. Oh hail the great Pudge, with mighty word will slay any detractor from this Bizzaro reality with the mighty "you are lying" response.
I, who am not Pudge, is not even worthy to attempt such a masterful, continued endevour. For even his hero, McCain, is faltering at trying to keep up the alternative reality. Like McCain, Pudge, heartingly travels forward on this doomed path. Like the Man of LaMancha, Pudge is our knight in this fairy-tale world. The windmill is all people who try to talk reality.
Carry on brave Knight, Pudge! For we, apprentices are mere peasants to your almighty mastery of this alt-universe.
Posted by: NotPudge on September 18, 2008 01:34 PMThe other thing relevant to this is Barney Frank's quote from 2005, when McCain was pushing for reform:
"These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
Posted by: Palouse on September 18, 2008 01:35 PMOne candidate that flip flops like a fish with a cattle prod turned on full time.
Who thinks Reaganomics, trickle up policies which have turned America from the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation, and is largely responsible for today's market melt downs is still a good idea. Just ask his buddy "whiners" Phil Graham.
Who after fighting regulations and oversight for years/decades, while taxpayers, and stock holders were being raped, now seems to think we need them.
Who has 83 of Washington's top lobbyists running his campaign, and thinks our children should be made to pay for what we are spending/throwing away today.
We have another candidate who knows our system of looting the treasury for the benefit of the super rich and large corporations is wrong, and wants the government to serve the other 99% of Americans.
Take your pick. A lying 2 faced piece of slime, and a wicked witch from Alaska, who only wants more of the same, or an agent for the type of change we need DESPERATELY!!!!
Vote Republicon if you hate America.
Face it.
They caused the first great depression, and Reagan, Friedman, and their pro billionaire corrupt lying lemmings caused another one. It is happening before your eyes, regardless how badly you don't want to admit it.
So wingnuts, how many (dun been looted) companies are you willing to bail out with your children's tax dollars? Huuuummmm?????? Grover's (a maggot) fantasy of drowning government in a bathtub is coming true. The bathtub of debt.
Why don't you pathetic wing nuts move to your own country. Call it Moronia. Or Liarland. Us folks that think the constitution is more than toilet paper, and the president is not a dictator don't need you.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 18, 2008 01:57 PMYou folks can live in your fantasy world.
All Facts Support My Positions!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 18, 2008 02:04 PMThis election will ultimately be decided by Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada and New Mexico.
If McCain takes one of the first three and two of the last four, or if he takes two of the first three and one of the last four, he'll win.
Posted by: Cliff on September 18, 2008 02:04 PMI see. The old "big lie" theory. If you say something totally untrue often and loud enough, it'll become true.
Anyhow, you're a liar and I dare you to provide a full, in context statement that says anything of the sort.
McCain and, actually, the dreaded George W. Bush proposed regulations on the quasi-Government Fanny and Freddy (the kinds of quasi-Government stuff Obama likes so much) several years ago.
Surprise surprise, the Senator from Fanny/Freddy, CHRIS DODD blocked it.
Posted by: Cliff on September 18, 2008 02:08 PMGregoire should still get dumped though. The hole in the state economy is getting deeper.
Posted by: ajday on September 18, 2008 02:31 PM
Acid Brain:
I see a clear choice between someone who wants to increase national and personal debt
Only one candidate's plans will result in an increase in debt: Obama. So that must be who you are talking about.
permanently tighten the stranglehold of oil monopolies
If you say Obama would do that, OK. I know McCain doesn't, so why don't you vote for him, then?
and has a long history of destroying financial markets through deregulation and then handing over taxpayer funded bailouts
Oh come on. Just because McCain has never done that, doesn't mean Obama has. He hasn't even been around long enough to do that!
on the other hand, I see someone who wants to manage debt and equalize the relative burden of all earners, modernize our antique fossil fuel economy, and who will bring some modern policy and talent into a failing infrastructure that has for decades been working to enrich themselves and their peers through deregulation of the financial markets and systematic dismantling of the public trust
Yes, that's what McCain will do.
Posted by: pudge on September 18, 2008 02:44 PMI don't look the facts in the eye and ignore them because they don't fit with my alternative reality.
Yawn. In all those words, you did not actually describe a single fact that I ignored (obviously, because you are incapable, because none exist).
83 lobbyists??? It seems to be growing exponentially with each post!
Facts can be ugly things to the purveyors of lies. 9-5 bHo 'wins' the most lobbyists game.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 18, 2008 02:51 PMEven Alan Greenspan says McCain's tax policies are a load of hooey....
I know, he is a liberal....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 18, 2008 02:54 PMIf Republicons weren't basically vermin, it would be sad to watch....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 18, 2008 02:59 PMIt's not that you're a liar, it's that when are proven to being lying, you don't care. You just keep telling bigger lies.
I am ignoring everything you have to say. It's pointless to respond when you ignore the facts.
Who had the CEO who presided over the start of the collapse of Fannie Mae sitting on his VP search committee?
Who has the VP who's sons are registered lobbyists?
Which Presidential candidate took more money from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae?
Which party has a committee chair being an admitted tax cheat and liar?
Which candidate wants to raise taxes even though they admit it will hurt the economy?
Oh, and a little hint for you - see those bolded, different color parts? Those are what are known as "links", and they go to these things you clearly have no experience with called "facts".
You nitwit...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 18, 2008 03:23 PMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/379476_teepenonline18.html
Where just last March he was telling The Wall Street Journal, "I am always for less regulation," now he is promising, though without saying just how, to end the "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" of Wall Street.
I don't have to lie. I am not a Republiconvict.
Tell you what. I will provide links for every post, just to make a point. Just take what I type as fact....
Posted by: al on September 18, 2008 03:23 PMDo you know how many regulations exist right now for Wall Street?
What McCain is calling for is wiping them all out and starting fresh. You can cut the regulations by 90% and end up with STRONGER controls.
Just like the tax code - go to a flat tax and you can wipe out 99% of the tax code and end up with stronger control and taxation laws.
Less regulation does NOT mean no regulation, and often adding a new regulation that also wipes out dozens of others is a net positive.
Of course, the article from the PI is about as slanted and biased as you can get. But what do you expect for that trash-can liner...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 18, 2008 03:31 PMYou are lying OR stupid. Take your pick. McCain is for less regulation overall, but not removing every piece of regulation. This is obvious from his record, from the context, and from common sense, which is why I say you are either stupid, or lying.
Posted by: pudge on September 18, 2008 03:34 PMStill waiting for you to post substance. Tap tap tap. Are you able? I doubt it.
Posted by: pudge on September 18, 2008 03:48 PMTo dream the impossible dream.
You know, the Obamassiah is going to be upset with you because he's THE ONE who stands for hope and change and dreams and dreams of hope and change of hopeful dreams and the like...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 18, 2008 04:42 PMPeople fail to realize how empty and hypocritical BHO really is and many just yearn for change for the sake of change. BHO is a talker - McCain is a doer and a leader. BHO screams for firing everyone, but he really won't do much of anything - if the misfortune occurs of the One being elected. I won't be able to believe this country has become so collectively stupid if that happens !! His track record shows nada - voting present and NOT crossing party lines about any meaningful reform.
The change mantra will slide toward the Democrats unless the Republicans use their wedge issue of energy effectively and also give some sort of an economic plan. After the sham of an energy bill, the Democrats will not do anything more for an energy bill until after the election. The left will preach fear of a bad economy and more of the same. Can McCain/Palin effectively counter this in a debate format ? There are a number of ways to skin a 'Crat and winning the election depends on it...
Posted by: KS on September 18, 2008 08:07 PMThey've got a Democratic Governor in Tim Kaine and they elected Jim Webb over George Allen in 2006. Mark Warner has a huge lead over (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Graphs/virginia.html) for a Democratic sweep of the Senate seats.
That you think it kind of "silly" that Virginia could vote for Obama is highly insightful.
Posted by: Daniel K on September 18, 2008 09:36 PMYes. Regardless of any point you think you have, your comment was a troll.
Seriously, if you think Virginia possibly going Obama is "silly" you're not paying attention.
False.
They've got a Democratic Governor in Tim Kaine and they elected Jim Webb
Jerry Kilgore and George Allen are no John McCain. Both committed big "gaffes" that led to their downfalls.
Mark Warner has a huge lead
And Barack Obama is no Governor Warner.
Blindly looking at what party the various elected officials are is non-instructive.
@48: Virginia and Colorado are going through demographic shifts that are changing the political landscapes in those states. Saying that they shouldn't be voting Democrat because they haven't before is like saying that Massachusetts will vote Republican because it voted for Warren Harding in 1920.
And while gaffes may have led in part to the downfalls of those respecting candidates, Webb and Kaine weren't exactly leading dark horse campaigns.
Posted by: demo kid on September 19, 2008 12:47 AMSeriously Pudge, you don't get it? Just as the minstrel's of the middle ages pointed ridicule at the kings and queens, so I am poking you. To keep up your charade of actually believing the crap you right is damn hard. I assume it is a charade because know one in his right mind would bend and contort the way you have been doing to defend idiotic statements McCain has made and the flip-flops, gaffes, and downright falsehoods that come out of his campaign. You want examples:
1. Strong Economy Statement: He did state it on Monday. He has stated at least 16, if not more times, this year. This isn't a new statement. Yet, after the "gaffe," which I would categorize it as a "gaffe," he felt the need to come back later in the day to correct what he meant.
2. AIG: He did state one opinion early in the week and then reversed the course later when the administration did the opposite. Why? If he was true to conservative priniciples, then he should stick to the principles, which is less government and not government bail outs. Let the free market operate as a free market.
3. Regulation: For years, John McCain has championed less regulation. His economic advisor Phil Gramm was the instrumental politician responsible for doing away with a lot of regulations the are directly involved in this week's situation. Yet, now McCain is calling for regulations. Again, he is betraying his conservative principles.
4. Silliness: Yesterday, given the hard week McCain has had, his campaign tried to change the subject slightly with an ad that stated that the head of Frannie Mae (maybe former head, and maybe Freddie Mac), is a major economic advisor to the Obama campaign. The problem is this is a falsehood. Now, if he wanted to hit Obama on former financial people who are economic advisors, there are plenty to choose (e.g., Volker and Rubin to start with). To pick someone totally not involved in the campaign is baffling and silly.
5. Carly F.: His campaign needs to give her the boot, period. She has not helped his campaign one bit this week. Even her comment about all the candidates not being able to run a major US company is a joke. This from a woman who was fired for her mediocre running of HP. McCain's camp doesn't need these distractions, yet even after they stated she would be taking a lower profile, she was on CBS yesterday still spouting off.
No, McCain needs to get a grip on his campaign. He needs to show leadership, which is measured (i.e., not to quick on the gun and at the same time not too wishy-washy). OBTW, Palin isn't helping him this week either, and why does the campaign want to drag out Troopergate is beyond me. If nothing was done wrong, then be upfront and say so to get it over with and out of the news cycle. This delay, delay, delay approach they have chosen is keeping it in the news cycle. It makes it look like they are trying to hide something. People are looking for opennes and transparency.
Posted by: NotPudge on September 19, 2008 07:40 AMI didn't say that. Read, read!
Webb and Kaine weren't exactly leading dark horse campaigns
But there's good reason to think Webb in particular would have lost if Allen didn't stick his foot in his mouth.
1. Strong Economy Statement: He did state it on Monday.
I never said he didn't.
This isn't a new statement. Yet, after the "gaffe," which I would categorize it as a "gaffe," he felt the need to come back later in the day to correct what he meant.
No, he didn't. He was talking about two different contexts.
2. AIG: He did state one opinion early in the week and then reversed the course later when the administration did the opposite.
You're lying. Quote him claiming one thing and then saying the other. I defy you.
3. Regulation: For years, John McCain has championed less regulation. ... Yet, now McCain is calling for regulations.
You're lying, tc, by saying those are contradictory positions. McCain has NEVER championed eliminating or reducing ALL regulation, and has NEVER opposed increasing SOME regulation. Indeed, he was leading the charge -- that the Democrats killed -- to tighten regulations on GSEs in 2006.
4. Silliness: Yesterday, given the hard week McCain has had, his campaign tried to change the subject slightly with an ad that stated that the head of Frannie Mae (maybe former head, and maybe Freddie Mac), is a major economic advisor to the Obama campaign. The problem is this is a falsehood.
As usual, tc, you're lying. What the ad actually says is that Franklin Raines, according to the Washington Post, "advises" Obama on economics, not that Raines is an "economic advisor." Those are two very different things. And the Post actually did report that Raines took calls from the Obama campaign regarding advice on "mortgage and housing policy matters."
If Raines didn't advise Obama, fine, blame the Post.
5. Carly F.: His campaign needs to give her the boot, period.
False.
OBTW, Palin isn't helping him this week either
False.
and why does the campaign want to drag out Troopergate is beyond me. If nothing was done wrong, then be upfront and say so to get it over with and out of the news cycle. This delay, delay, delay approach ...
More lies from tc. Unsurprising. In fact, we know that they are responding to an investigation that has gone far outside the boundaries originally intended, and it has turned into a witch hunt which should be resisted. You and her political enemies are pushing her to cooperate with an investigation that they know she will resist due to its unfairness, JUST BECAUSE you all want her to look like she is hiding something. It's an old, dishonest game, and apparently you aren't above it. Shocking (or not).
Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2008 07:55 AMRepublican mismanagement over the past six (or 12 of the last 14) years has resulted in a whole boatload of problems that will be foisted on our children and grandchildren.
And those problems are? Please explain. Or do you just like making meaningless statements like your Obamassiah? What problems do we have? that are the result of the Republican mismanagement...
Oh, the last 14 years? Slavery Party President for 6 of them (meaning Slavery Party acquiescence), and Senate controlled by the Slavery Party for an additional 4 (House controlled for 2). Meaning 4 of the last 14, you liar.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 19, 2008 08:20 AMPudge, regarding "MY" post (not "tc"),
I was simply pointing out this weeks gaffes, misstatements, and flat out silliness. You don't need to get testy. So you disagree, that's fine. To me, McCain got off-track this week. He needs to get back on track. To me, McCain talking about regulating is not a conservative approach in the realm of Barry Goldwater. It is more government intervention into the market.
I could also point out Obama's gaffes, misstatements and silliness, if you like. How about:
1. Releasing an ad on immigration quoting (out of context) Rush L. and tying to McCain. Rush L. attacked McCain ruthlessly on this subject. There is no tie there.
2. Stating he would provide a plan and then stating he would have to meet with his advisor and then stating he would wait for the Treasurer Secretary to speak.
3. Gaffe machine Biden. Yes, Biden can attack, but also can put his foot in his mouth, like his stupid statement on patriotism and paying taxes.
4. Over playing of the McCain gaffe on "fundamentals." It might have been funny once or twice, but continually repeating it is overplaying it.
5. Use of teleprompter, even at small events. Obama's campaign makes it sound like he wants to get his words out correctly as to not commit a gaffe. Yah, sure. Is this to say you have to have a script to speak to the people? Obama, you won't have a script next Friday at the debate. You better know your facts and not have to rely on a script, or McCain will destroy you and the polls will swing back in his favor.
Of course, one could also hit a bunch of other political figures this week. Pelosi: AWOL, Bush: Holed up in the Whitehouse, Reed: Should be AWOL -- i.e., statements made have not helped the situation, Network News Organizations (any of them): Still focused on silliness instead of really explaining what is going on.
To me, there is plenty of blaim to spread around and everyone is playing politics. This week is a test of true leadership and so far, I haven't seen much.
Posted by: NotPudge on September 19, 2008 08:35 AMI was simply pointing out this weeks gaffes, misstatements, and flat out silliness
And I was pointing out the fact that you were lying.
Claimed Levi Johnston was a rapist by Alaskan Law. When confronted to prove it, he selectivey quoted a sentence of rape law when in fact when the entire text reveals the intercourse was perfectly legal in Alaska.
Claimed Seattle Times endorsed Bush in 2004.
Makes stuff up out of thin air, no facts, no proof.
Cato is a liar with zero credibility.
I could point out that "Pudge" is not your real name but your on-line persona, is it not?
Posted by: NotPudge on September 19, 2008 09:38 AMAnd no, I have no on-line persona. It is not my real name, but it is a nickname I have had since long before I ever went online. There is no distinction between my self online, or offline.
OBTW, I didn't say "I" was or was not "tc." Here is what I stated.
"Regarding "MY" post (not "tc")"
Many here do use on-line persona's, initials, nicknames, etc. It is an open board. A persona may or may not be who the person is in real life. If you state that you are the same in your real life persona as you are here, then so be it. I find it hard to believe that you are as judgmental and closed-minded as you display here. Have great success with your choice.
I will not retire the "NotPudge" persona. The peasant who looks up to his brave Knight, his Man of La Mancha fighter who dares any naysayer to take him on and slays the poor victim with a swift "your lying." For it has been shown, that no such almighty Pudge Knight exists. Pudge is a living human person that judges characters without a concern of who they actually be. Pudge is a living human person that will call anyone a liar to their face, no matter the facts. Disagree with Pudge and be banned. For he controls all. Beware you wary traveler if you should encounter Pudge in real life. It will not be pleasant, for Pudge is only pleasant to those who agree with him. Disagree and be prepared to feel the wrath. Vengence is his, declares the Pudge. He is the supreme Judge and Executioner.
So, long farwell, forever.
Posted by: NotPudge on September 19, 2008 10:25 AMSo, "Pudge" is a nickname. If so, why not put your real name also on your website?
I do. That you don't see it is not my problem.
OBTW, I didn't say "I" was or was not "tc."
Yes, you did, and your words are clear to that effect.
A persona may or may not be who the person is in real life.
I draw no distinction for me or anyone else. In a discussion forum, your words are your words.
I find it hard to believe that you are as judgmental and closed-minded as you display here.
As you are a liar, I do not care what you pretend to believe.
I will not retire the "NotPudge" persona.
And I won't not call you "tc."
who dares any naysayer to take him on and slays the poor victim with a swift "your lying."
Another lie. There are, of course, far more examples of me NOT saying people are lying when they disagree with me, than there are of the opposite. And further, there are examples of me calling people on lies when they DO agree with me. And you know this. You're lying.
Pudge is a living human person that judges characters without a concern of who they actually be.
I do not do that in person or online. You're lying.
Pudge is a living human person that will call anyone a liar to their face, no matter the facts.
I do not do that in person or online. You're lying. I do call people a liar to their face in person and online, but only when the facts warrant it.
Disagree with Pudge and be banned.
I never banned anyone on Sound Politics except for Wilda, because she was hijacking every post I made with false claims of racism against me and everyone else. You're lying.
Beware you wary traveler if you should encounter Pudge in real life. It will not be pleasant, for Pudge is only pleasant to those who agree with him.
You're lying. I am very pleasant to people who don't lie to me (like you do) or say extremely vile things (like SeattleJew does). Ask demo kid and others who treated me like crap initially, but then grew out of it. I treat them quite well online, and would do so in person.
So, long farwell (sic), forever.
I sincerely hope you mean that. We could do with one less liar around here.
The sad thing, tc, is that you started out being nice to me just because I was honestly evaluating Obama's positions. You disagreed with some of my analysis, but you recognized I was being honest from my perspective. However, then you proceeded to lie incessantly about McCain and other Republicans. You didn't return the "favor" of honesty.
And now your anger has bubbled over so completely that you're completely unhinged. My only regret is that perhaps I played a small role in pushing you over the edge to oblivion, but I could not force you to go where you were not already headed.
You are to be pitied. But I still won't let you get away with lies.
Comments are not trolls.
You made a bold statement and I'm calling you on it. If you can't deal with that you shouldn't be allowing comments.
Comments are not trolls.
You must be new to the Internet. Have you ever used Slashdot? It's common vernacular, and has been for ... oh, about 10 years. Comments are moderated "flamebait," "informative," "troll," etc. And from this, we have common phrases like "that comment is a troll."
You made a bold statement and I'm calling you on it.
No, your troll comment called me on nothing. It was just a snarky, substanceless, attack. In other words: a troll.
If you can't deal with that you shouldn't be allowing comments.
Yawn.
Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2008 10:52 AMHow is that a problem?
Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2008 11:15 AMSo you ARE new to the Internet.
Again: have you ever used Slashdot?
Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2008 12:03 PM
