It's kind of a dazzling display of the old "baffle 'em with bullshit" technique. I'm a smart guy, and I know those of you who read this are smart guys and gals. But I defy you to understand this sentence without reading it three times:
So the biggest free-fall in history has George Bush losing 2 points among a demographic which proportionally voted for him in reality one point lower last November than where he shows now.
This though, is what I love.
UPDATE: CQ reader and night owl Kyle H. just saw Conan O'Brian use the 2% polling number on his show. Welcome to the birth of an urban legend, yet another one from the fertile womb of Katrina.
"Urban legend." Yes, if not for the Washington Post, Conan O'Brien and their ilk, them uppity black folk would realize they have nothing to complain about, especially not in the wake of Katrina, and George W. Bush is in fact a brilliant president.
10 comments:
I noticed neither you nor ODub posted the correct figures which were updated by the WaPo (12%).
Nah, too much copying and pasting to bother, eh?
Perhaps not. We do, however, both sign our names to our comments, which seems to me a decently godly thing to do.
Nah, just too lazy to sign in.
So basically your attitude is I was "rude" to point out the correct numbers, and since I'm a Christian I can't have a sense of humor about a cat-eating snake? I must say your view of Christians is very narrow-minded, especiall for a "progressive".
BTW, the updated numbers are very salient because 12% is roughly the same % of blacks who voted for Bush in the last election: therefore, his support amongst blacks really hasn't dropped at all.
There now. I signed in my Blogger profile. All better now?
No, basically my attitude is you were rude to call Oliver Willis "ODub" and to imply that the reason I hadn't posted the updated numbers was that I was lazy.
I must have missed those teachings of Jesus--turn the other cheek, call people names and otherwise cast stones.
Incidentally, as I'd never linked to that Washington Post column in the first place, I'm not sure why you thought I should be keeping an eye on it.
As for my view of Christianity, well, one definition is "showing a loving concern for others, being humane".
That, to me, is impossible to reconcile with finding humor in someone who's already lived through a tropical storm losing a pet in such a terrible fashion.
That said, well done for coming back and owning up.
As for my view of Christianity, well, one definition is "showing a loving concern for others, being humane".
Well, I'm glad you're not in charge of deciding what's "Christian" and what's not. You seem to think that Christians should be stodgy, rigid, humorless Bible-thumping automatons.
Wow. An unfair ad hominem from a liberal. I'm dumbfounded.
As for calling Oliver "Odub": You obviously have not read his site for very long because that is how he referrs to himself from time to time. That is how his supporters occasionally refer to him as. THERE IS NOTHING RUDE ABOUT IT.
As for implying you were "lazy": you were too lazy to link to the WaPo article, instead trusting Oliver, so why not?
ARE YOU REALLY THAT THIN-SKINNED?
I don't think you are, I just think you used it as an opportunity to impugn me as a Christian.
Sorry, Charlie: I know whereof I stand.
When you reduce people to caricatures it makes them a whole lot easier to hate, doesn't it?
Comments are neither unfair nor ad hominem just because they make you feel bad.
Actually the definition came from dictionary.com, which I believe is derived from the American Heritage Dictionary. A book that *is* in charge of deciding what words mean.
In any case, "showing a loving concern for others, being humane" does not equal "Christians should be stodgy, rigid, humorless Bible-thumping automatons" in my book. Men like the late Charles Schulz and former President Carter--who are my idea of Christians--do not fit that definition.
I've been reading Oliver Willis' site almost daily for almost a year now, and the Odub thing is news to me. Oddly, searching the site finds no instances of him using it. Niether does a Yahoo!
search for it alongside his name.
The later did, however, turn up about 16 or 17 instances of conservative bloggers using it. Usually in posts that don't have a lot of love for Mr Willis.
So you can see why I might think it's kinda rude. Using diminutive nicknames is a form of passive aggression.
And by the way, Charlie, you can't "know whereof you stand." "Whereof" means "Of what." The expression is "I know whereof I speak."
I also note you're now changing your story--before it's that you were not rude, now it's that it's *okay* you were rude.
Thin-skinned? Maybe. I don't like anonymous rudeness, hypocrisy, or people who laugh at the misfortunes of the weak and powerless.
I'm funny that way.
I've been reading Oliver Willis' site almost daily for almost a year now, and the Odub thing is news to me.
That's because he's reincarnated his site several times and most of the archives are unavailable. I tried following some permalinks from Instapundit and they all led back to his current home page.
"Odub" is short for "O Dubya (O.W.) and he has used it to describe himself.
Thin-skinned? Maybe. I don't like anonymous rudeness, hypocrisy, or people who laugh at the misfortunes of the weak and powerless..
ROFL!! For crying out loud it was a cat, you blithering idiot. I thought it was funny and I'll laugh if I choose to, so forget you buddy.
As for "hypocrisy" and "rudeness": pot, meet kettle.
Oh! I'm sorry. Did I say "blithering idiot"? Oh my, how "un-Christian" of me.
How about "judgmental moron"?
Or "blank fool"? Better?
No?
I've said all I intend to say because of Proverbs 26:4.
You'll figure it out.
BTW, I've initiated a preemptive comment ban against you at my blog. I do not tolerate fools , and since you insist on hurling insults and have shown yourself to have a "holier than thou" attitude you don't deserve to be heard in my neck of the woods.
I'm just funny that way.
Let me get this straight--you come to *my* blog and are insulting. I respond.
And now you're telling me I don't deserve to be heard in *your* neck of the woods?
That wouldn't even be a neat trick if I'd ever *tried* to be heard "in your neck of the woods."
Because, it means I can now withdraw with style from the chaos. Secure in the knowledge that I'm the type of guy who let his critics have a full hearing, and anyone looking on can decide for themself.
You're the kind of guy who clamps his hands over his ears and goes la-la-la. Whenever he hears something that he doesn't like.
As for not tolerating fools, well, as Mrs. Parker once said on a similar occasion:
"That's strange, your mother did."
Post a Comment