posted by Winston Smith at
4:58 PM
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Previous Posts
- A Blog DynamicConservatives screw everything up al...
- Fun With EquivocationThomas Sowell EditionorDumb A...
- Bush's "Careful Word Choice"Or:More on the Dumbest...
- Predictions About Hinderaker's Next PostObama has ...
- John HindrakerThe stupidest man on the entire inte...
- Goddamned IdiotsCook2712 EditionBehold, a moron.In...
- Occasional Lincoln QuoteNeither let us be slandere...
- Henry Blodgett: Don't Bail Out The AutomakersShort...
- Larry SummersDrum rounds up some pro-Summers bits....
- McAuliffe to Run for Governor of the OD?Dude. Ther...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
22 Comments:
You have no idea what President Obama will do about anything. Not one thing. will he raise taxes, or will he lower them? will he support the corporation money or Say no? Quit in Iraq or hang on? What will he do about Iran? You have no idea. You elected a pig in a poke and now you just try to put lipstick on him. You don't have a clue about what he'll do and then all you write is that everybody else is stupid. You won the election so stop crying about every body else. Hope. Thats all we have left. Maybe Obama isn't as stupid as the people who voted for him. Thats what "I" hope.
But you have no idea what Obama will do.
About anything. Be honest.
Ye Gods, Anonymous is nothing sacred? Not even squirrels dancing to Michael Jackson????
Oh, the humanity!
And the squirrelanity!
Oh and: if you sit down and use that mighty brain of yours and put on your thinking cap and think really, really hard you might be able to figure out what's wrong with what you wrote above. Even somebody stupid enough to vote for McCain should be able to figure it out. Think of it as a little logic problem to build your reasoning power...
You did it again, said something's stupid but won't say why.Now you said I'm stupid. I can "discuss" but first you have to say something real. Just admit you don't know what Obama will do about anything but you voted for him anyway because that's the fact and thats all I was saying. Because if you know, I'd really like to know too and so would the whole country. Say something besides everybody is stupid except you. I dare you. Gut check.
Hi Anonymous,
I originally was planning on voting for McCain this election, but by the end I felt more sure of what Obama would do as President than McCain. I'll put out my reasons and you let me know what you think.
I'll start with the negative reasons (why not McCain). The two big events that convinced me that McCain was an impulsive (though not necessarily malicious) decider were the Palin choice and the campaign cancellation during the economic stimulus debacle. Palin first: while I am convinced that Palin was an irresponsible choice for VP (and I can get into that more if you would like), it also seemed from reports inside the campaign that Palin was something of a last-minute choice by McCain himself over some objections by his advisers. On both counts (the irresponsibility of the choice and its last-minute-ness) I felt that the decision spoke negatively about McCain's ability to make important decisions.
As to the suspension of the campaign: this was a major move that seemed to me pretty clearly to be a gimmick, given the fact that McCain had already admitted long ago that he didn't know much about the economy and given that enormity of the situation indicated to me that one individual senator wasn't going to be able to do much good.
Both of these major choices struck me as erratic. I know this word became freighted with suggestions of ageism during the campaign, but I do not intend to use it with any of those suggestions. These bad decisions seemed to me more an issue of temperment than age.
By late August, it was Obama, and not McCain, who was giving substantive policy answers. McCain seemed only to want to talk about his personal heroism, patriotic platitudes, vague generalities of "reform," and to make (what seemed to me) pointless references to William Ayers. He wasn't saying anything substantive as far as I could tell beyond, "Let's get rid of earmarks!" But he would never respond to the eminently reasonable concern that earmarks make up such a minute portion of the budget that they would in no way be able to pay for his tax cuts.
Obama, on the other hand, showed himself to be a steady and reasonable decision-maker who had a clearly articulated plan of where to take the country. Obama's website gave some very specific policy descriptions, and his plan for health care, energy, the prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tax policy, and volunteerism all seemed detailed, clear, and reasonable to me.
Now, the problem is that we have a huge economic crisis on our hands, and both Obama and McCain obfuscated when pressed in the debate about how it would affect their plans as president. Obama's obfuscations, however, seemed more realistic than McCain's: McCain was talking about an across-the-board spending freeze, which seemed pretty drastic (and erratic) to me. Obama, on the other hand, merely said something about how he could not be certain about how it would affect his priorities until he was actually in the driver's seat.
So, I guess I'm saying I both know and don't know what Obama will do as President. What I know are his plans for taxation, war-efforts, diplomacy, volunteerism, and health care. What I don't know is how these priorities will be affected by the economic crisis, but I feel confident by his behavior during the campaign that he will handle this crisis in a reasonable and measured fashion. But I knew less specifics about any of McCain's plans (and usually I disliked the specifics I did know - see the mention of earmarks above), and his erratic decision-making process indicated to me that the uncertainty of the economic crisis would be made even worse by an unsteady hand at the wheel.
Now I want to make it clear that I do not dislike John McCain. I am disappointed in many of his decisions, but I think that McCain strikes me as someone who is not a good decision-maker under pressure. I am a slow decider and tend to make bad decisions when I have to make momentous choices on the spot. This is not some kind of elitist attack. But I don't think that I or McCain would make a good President - I think that Obama would.
I hope this post goes a little bit further in trying to explain why at least one person decided for Obama in favor of McCain.
Anonymous -
If you were actually interested in why Obama was chosen by WS over McCain, the reasons have been laid out over the course of many, many, MANY blog posts made during the past year or two.
If you really want to know, you'd do some easy research. I think one of the points that has been made here as of late, with which I strongly agree, is that it's not a great idea to continue to provide the same arguments again and again to people who just don't want to change their minds.
It's just a waste of everyone's time.
Anonymous -
If you were actually interested in why Obama was chosen by WS over McCain, the reasons have been laid out over the course of many, many, MANY blog posts made during the past year or two.
If you really want to know, you'd do some easy research. I think one of the points that has been made here as of late, with which I strongly agree, is that it's not a great idea to continue to provide the same arguments again and again to people who just don't want to change their minds.
It's just a waste of everyone's time.
I don't know why that posted twice. Sorry about that.
In principle, I think you are right, Mystic.
The problem is that it is extremely difficult to identify a person who really in principle refuses to change their mind. It's pretty clear, for example, that Anne Coulter is not interested in weighing evidence and changing her mind about anything. But it's much harder to make such a judgment about some random internet poster.
Of course there are trolls out there. The problem is that it's sometimes difficult to distinguish them from non-trolls. It is possible that Anonymous is an insincere troll and it is possible that Anon is a sincere poster. How would we tell the difference?
A sincere poster who was either a new or an intermittant reader here might not have followed all of the MANY blog posts made over the past year or so. Such a concerned person's post, I assert, might look exactly like Anon's post above.
Given the intdeterminacy of Anon's motives, I suggest taking it seriously. The worst that can happen is that those who respond have an opportunity to sharpen and condense an explanation of their position.
It would really help me not look like a moron if you replied, Anonymous.
LOL Spencer
So cute how Spencer tries to reason with these people.
Blah blah blah, Mystic. I did read the posts. Spencer is Ok. I don't think people who voted for Obama are stupid, not all of them anyway. But Winston Smith says I'm stupid for voting for Mccain. Whatever. Now you can't attack Bush and McCain anymore. It's Obama's ball. I think he already threw some interceptions and some people pretend he didnt.
What interceptions do you have in mind, Anonymous?
They were in the article that Winston Smith said was stupid. I read the posts. Plus Obama said stupid people are clinging to guns and religion. How disrespectful. Anybody else would have lost the election for that. But people voted for his slogan not him. I hope he's a good president because the election is over but nobody knows what he'll do. No more slogans.
Dude, seriously. This is obviously a joke. I'm not sure who this is, but it's totally not serious.
It's Anonymous who said that everyone who voted for Obama is stupid (you can look it up, upthread); I, of course, have never said that everyone who voted for McCain is stupid.
This is some kind of joke/test from...who? Mighty Armenius? Jim B? Matthew C? Who...who?
Winston Smith, you said Even somebody stupid enough to vote for McCain should be able to figure it out. It's right there.
OW! Right you are, A...though it was in response to:
Maybe Obama isn't as stupid as the people who voted for him.
Basically, it was just a way of saying "f*ck you" right back.
This guy is unreal.
I miss Tom... :)
-not the illiterate anonymous
Basically, it was just a way of saying "f*ck you" right back.
Fine, but reading comprehension should include what YOU wrote. And most of your posts say Obama critics are stupid. Thats what started it. See if you can write without calling other people stupid. You call people stupid every day. Obama has the ball, if he fumbles it it's his fault and nobody elses. Now he wants Hilary Clinton of secretary of state. Ok. That's either good or bad but at least we know who she is more than slogans. I'm real, you all just don't like it when people read what you say and catch you. And I'm literate too, thank you very much. It's what you say not how you say it anyway. But Spencer, your Ok and I don't think everybody who voted for Obama is stupid. I just think a lot of people didn't think about it much and they voted for the slogans. i know people who liked Hilary and didn't like Obama. Some people always vote Democrat and that's the fact, so what. The Democrats should have voted for Hilary and not a mystery man.
No, no, no. You're just not very good at this, A. Here's the way it went--not that I have the time to try to straighten you out and correct your shaky reading comprehension every single time, mind you.
Me: These specific Obama critics are stupid (which they are, as is shown).
You: All Obama supporters are stupid.
Me: Well O.k., then: all McCain supporters are stupid.
So, you see, your claim can't be "F*ck you right back." Rather, yours was...oh, never mind. This is a waste of my time, isn't it
Hey, don't you have somewhere else to be? Have you noticed how you never add anything substantive to any discussions around here?
Whatever. Obama screws up and you find some right winger to attack. here's substance. Obama voters. Right the poll is bad and the sun was in my eyes. I can already hear your excuses.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642
READTHIS-"After I interviewed Obama voters on Election Day for my documentary, I had a pretty low opinion of what most of them had picked up from the media coverage of the campaign, but this poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace," said Ziegler.
Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.
In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election -- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
Seriously, man, do you EVER have anything of any relevance to contribute?
The reasons for supporting Obama were far stronger than the reasons for supporting McCain/Palin (or Bush). Nothing here challenges that. Did the media do a bad job? Er, yeah. If the media did a good job, Bush would never have been re-elected. Or elected. (or, rather: quasi-elected).
Seriously. Why not either quit contributing or try to contribute something significant? You've already whined more about Obama, who's never even been in office, than you've complained about the truly criminal and incompetent Bush. This is tedious and absurd.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home