The last significant presidential primaries until March 4 will be held tomorrow our time: primaries in Wisconsin and Washington for both parties, plus caucuses in Hawaii for the Democrats. Discuss them at your leisure here.
Analysis and discussion of elections and opinion polls in Australia
KR 798- The Aztecs put almost anyone to shame in terms of deaths. Their worst excess was 80,000 human sacrifices in a four day massacre.
801-
well, they ALL need a life so we are talking wholesale prices now.
(memo to self – try and be serious occasionally).
But there are all of these people around me that are pro-choice and it makes the ultimate decision really hard.
William,
I am happy to mix it on this blog with others and give and receive but when things get down to the level of gratuitously offensive a long the lines of davidoff’s comment then its a different ball game.
That comment was just a whole new level of offensive and your actions were unfair in leaving it on.
No intention of barking orders and its your blog but this level is inconsistent with my continued participation. If you choose to run a mutual masturb.ation session for 2 or 3 people on this blog thats your business.
I withdraw.
my #800 blog was based on historical logic and that and my #731 blog this morning remains unchallenged to the swiftboating “snake oil salesman” claim
Zino, a tip of the hat to ya! LOL
Now, what’s this Clinton stuff about the health policy brochure, is she trying to get the fangs out? Or what?
Ron- I’m confused by the term “historical logic”?. Logic requires no evidence and is, in fact, completely abstract being the study of valid arguments. History consists solely of human interpretation of evidence. I am familiar with many forms of logic; inductive, deductive, philosophical, mathematical, modal, syllogistic to name a few. I haven’t come across historical logic before. At best, it could be trying to find a linkage between historical events (which is not logic) but I cant find that in 731 or 800.
As you wish ESJ, but I’m not sure why you’re fetishising comment deletion. I would have deleted the comment if I’d picked up on it earlier, but now there’s no point. I have accurately described the commenter as “extremely childish” and “weak as piss”. That ought to be enough, I think.
“I withdraw.”
Well, Sherlock, what we have here is a clear case of …… “Eddy Interruptus”.
808
William Bowe
The issue is about the possibilities of histrionics, and for someone who’s reknowned on this blog for endless gratuitous and pompous insults (often, although by no means exclusively) directed at yours truly, it’s nothing short of gobsmacking to read a fit of pique so acute that it has cut short the blogging life of yet another troll.
Such is life, always funnier with clowns.
As for davidoff’s little attempt at satire, well, let’s be adult, it wasn’t all that great, but the point was essentially the same one that’s been made over and over and over by numerous bloggers ie ESJ couldn’t help himself.
And the irony? Well, ESJ obliged by ‘terminating’ himself!
Gotta call that funny, or what?
I sort of withdrew for a couple of hours to have dinner with the old cheese and son. It was a very nice Szechuan dinner of hot, very hot stuff. Now let see what we had: Stuffed Crab Claw for entree. Then we had chicken in chilly oil, plus Mopu Tofu and braised Barramundi in Black bean sauce. Topped it off with home made mango pudding with vanilla ice cream.
But i notice that things were also hotted up here in WB’s Boxing Championship. Not too sure who won the bout but there was plenty of hot air and someone did a hara-kiri.
809
EC, that’s too funny for words!
Is that the first case, medically, of ‘self-termination’? Maybe a special award should be instigated, a Darwin Award, for timely ‘withdrawal’ and thereby ‘terminating’ one’s blogging existence.
I’m sure Dr Who would have something to say about it, you know, stuffing up the time sequence with such an act, but for our purposes, it is allowed in the blogging universe.
The award could not have gone to a more deserving candidate.
Davidoff made no such “point”. You’ve got to stop reading imaginary redeeming features into idiotic comments made by those you identify as being on your side.
The Finnigans, I can tell you who lost the bout: Davidoff, who followed an inexcusable display of childishness with a pathetic, mealy-mouthed non-apology. He won’t be welcome back unless he makes a proper acknowledgement of his wrongdoing.
WB, i thought that Davidoff was the rationale one. It must be the bad influence of the Removalist.
#814
William – I’ll have you know that Hillary meant every word of it.
I’d call it a KO to davidoff. Unfortunately for the victor it seems that the referee has discovered the horseshoe in his glove after the bout.
813
William Bowe
I just went back and re-read davidoff’s ‘offending’ post, and quite frankly, I can’t see what all the fuss is about.
Essentially, he takes the rhetorical question about ‘apologising’, and runs it backwards to see who should take the blame for ESJ’s chronic behaviour.
It’s obvioulsy tongue in cheek (explain how else it could possibly be read??), and essentially makes the point that ESJ is the way he is, almost despite himself, so perhaps we could blame his mother?
Having seen the behaviour repeated an nauseum, stirring up other posters with often quite nasty and unpleasant little swipes, it’s a pretty harmless post in comparison.
Maybe I’m more used to coarser stuff William, but seriously, it’s pretty tame.
Featuring Soon At A Blog Near You……
The Eddsorcist:
He’s Back!……And He’s Spewing!!
Davidoff has been banned.
I think Edward has gone off to get his own life, and he’ll be back soon to tell us where we can get them.
KR, I’m afraid I don’t suffer from your selective myopia. If the comment came from ESJ and was directed at somebody of the left, you’d have no trouble at all seeing what the problem was.
WB
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo- he’s my friend.
Please, plaese just make him pick up all the papers.
820
William Bowe
For quoting Hillary Clinton????????
‘Tis a pity, he’s not the boor!
In fact, davidoff has given a substantial amount to this thread, has rarely engaged in slagging, and the one time he makes an effort to retaliate, he gets the boot.
Poor decision I think, William, but hey, you is da man.
Court of Appeal needs to convene.
I agree, poor decision.
ESJ is a snide troll who contributes nothing.
Whereas Davidoff has provided numerous insightful posts.
ESJ loves giving it out and trolling but has an extremely thin skin on the return.
No, KR, for being told to apologise when even you had to admit that his “attempt at satire … wasn’t all that great”, and responding yet again like a child.
822
William Bowe
Except for one outstanding difference: davidoff’s post was a tongue in cheek soliloquoy, and NOT a nasty bit of grubby insulting language that we saw endlessly from ESJ.
Your call, but I think as bloggers they are chalk and cheese. One came here ONLY to pick fights on most occassions, while the other never did.
Go back and look at the record, speaks for itself.
Of course, KR – ESJ is pompous, Davidoff writes “soliloquies”.
827
William Bowe
OK, but maybe he felt that what he’d said, being satire, and not outright abuse, did not warrant anything more than a satirical answer.
Hardly seems like a hanging offence.
I don’t recall ever seeing ESJ apologise for any flagrant insults, abuses, lies, and endless nastiness.
Not once.
It’s a question of emphasis. The question ESJ asked of davidoff was:
“Tell me davidoff what do I have to apologise for?”
If davidoffs response was on the “what”, WB’s assessment is correct. If the response was to “I”, KR is correct. I think most people would think the emphasis was on the former rather than the latter.
I’m not going to comment on the right or wrong of anyone being banned but I do wish to add that I think both ESJ and davidoff make worthwhile contributions to this blog and will be disappointed to see either go.
Above all else, Davidoff has been banned for wilfully ignoring my wishes. This site simply can’t work if I allow people to do that.
#823 – Jen, David is OFF. So long, farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, adios, sayonara, aloha, selamat tinggal, zai jian, Au revoir, Salaam, Farvel, Zbohem, Tot ziens, Khairete, Shalom, Slán agat, Ciao, Vale, Aroha nui, F**off
Meanwhile, back at the ranch. Stop the world, i want to get off. Crazy thing is happening here. PT109 Swiftboat was supposed to be aiming at Obama, but its torpedo is heading straight for “sexy Leg” McCain. Please, somebody tells me what is going on here?
“Files and McCain Letter Show Effort to Keep Loophole – WASHINGTON — In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole. The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?bl&ex=1204002000&en=ae0d714ce3b8d3ae&ei=5087
Seems her loophole was a very precious thing to him.
Finns- The NYT vs McCain battle is shaping up as more interesting than the Obama vs Hillary one. The NYT has clearly been sitting on this for a while and released it after Macca got nasty after the affair story. I heard they only ran with the affair story this early because they thought another group (Newsweek I think) was going to use it before them. It would have had more impact later but you’ve got to fight your battles when you find them I suppose.
835
Robert Bollard
Touche! (no pun intended)
Like I said a while back, the swiftboating is coming home to roost. Macca’s not going to be able to claim he’s clean if he keeps getting this stuff brought up, and eventually, he’s going to make a blunder, like denying he spoke to the CEO when in fact, he’s on the record as saying that yes, he in fact spoke to the CEO.
(See Greenwald in Salon for this tantalizing bit of contradiction)
Macca’s going to be the first swiftboat overboard victim?
Here is my nightly PT109 for Obama. (BTW: where is my fellow night rider, Dr. Adam, i miss his nightly fang of reality check).
The week the Obama backlash started – As the Democratic frontrunner racks up one primary victory after another, American newspapers and TV shows have started to pick over his past and ridicule his rhetoric. But will this come too late to restore the fortunes of Hillary Clinton, who needs to win both Ohio and Texas to stay in the race?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/barackobama.hillaryclinton
I’m going now to softly weep into my linen ‘kerchief at the demise of some of my favourite bloggers.
well, one anyway.
Interesting article in today’s NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Basically, their “public editor” (I guess an ombudsman, but appointed by the paper itself) thinks the NYT’s journalistic ethics were poor in publishing an article cupposedly about McCain’s “carelessness” but where the punter was drawn in by the (unproven) implication that he was getting it on with an attractive blonde 30 years his junior.
Full marks to the NYT for having a “public editor” who can say his/her piece in this way in the paper.
Less than full marks to the NYT for dressing up a fairly blatant (and at this stage, unproven) piece of titillation about a serious POTUS candidate as a “fitness for office” concern.
Fascinating to note that much of the conservative Christian Right (hardly mates of McCain’s) did not react with shock: rather they seem to have taken the line that “the enemy of the NYT is my friend”, and got behind McCain.
Paddypower odds for Repug VP
Mike Huckabee 6 – 4
Charlie Crist 5 – 2
Tim Pawlenty 4 – 1
Mitt Romney 11 – 2
Joe Lieberman 8 – 1
Condoleeza Rice 10 – 1
Chuck Hagel 16 – 1
Rudolph Giuliani 14 – 1
Dick Cheney 20 – 1
John McCain 25 – 1
841
Dyno
But at least it has McCain fighting on a front other than his Democrat adversaries, and it was an excellent way to bring up the Keating Five stuff from the archives.
McCain will be dealing with this for some time, and it always has the possibility of tripping him over.
Pass the popcorn…
Paddypower odds for Dem VP
Hillary Clinton 5 – 4
Barack Obama 5 – 2
John Edwards 5 – 1
Ted Strickland 7 – 1
Bill Richardson 8 – 1
Dennis Kucinich 20 – 1
Ted Kennedy 25 – 1
Bill Clinton 66 – 1
Bill Clinton for VP! There’s gotta be a law against that.
839
The Finnigans
A shopping list of journalist’s barbs?
That’s it?
David Brooks, Krugman?
Oooh, ouch, that wet lettuce must really smart!
(I read these guys, and they’ve got a job to do, ie fill the page, and most times that’s all it is)
Now, when you’ve got something of substance to besmirch the messiah with, get back to us! LOL
#839 -substance? from you
If all you can say about a candidate is that his to good an orator and his fans are a bit scary in their enthusiasm….well. Oh I know there’s also the “substance” thing. This in a nation that twice elected Dubya and was graced by the almighty Quayle (Latin Americans speak latin) as VP.
Got to say Diogenes (you old cynic you) that I loved them VP odds! I love the idea of Cheney being available as a bet. If McCain chose him they would have to consider the alzheimers diagnosis.
I also like the idea of Kucinich as VP. If (God forbid, but it’s a possibility) Obama was shot by some mad cracker then that would deliver the US its most left-wing President ever – with a hot first lady with a tongue stud!
he’s too good an orator…In the immortal words of Michael Palin “I’m sorry In have a cold”.
847
Robert Bollard
Yeah, for a nation that’s had the misfortune to have an speech deficit in the Whitehouse for 7 years, slagging Obama for the audacity to inspire with language does rather come as a surprise, eh what?
If I was an American I’d be in a trance just listening to the possibility of having a POTUS who can not only string together great sentences, but can argue the details of policy, bring out the vote, out campaign the Clinton machine, and still be funny and self-deprecating.
yeah, let’s not waste this opportunity to slag off, eh? LOL
Diogenes, you misunderstand the term historical logic in cushioning ESJ
The fact is ESJ asserted bama was a typical ‘snake oil salesman’ , typical of declining Empires & the masses in those declining Empires to whom ‘snake oils salesman ‘ appealed. Historically this is nonsense.
For the argument to be LOGICAL , such inspirational leaders (‘snake oil salesman”) do not appear at ANY OTHER TIME.
This is also nonsense.
So based on “History” plus “Logic” , ECJ’s argument was doubly nonsense ,
hence the term..historical logic for a double fool.
the fact the ECJ argument was an attempt at ‘swiftboating’ made it triply absurd