HO HO HO I am loving this INTERNECINE STRUGGLE between the two self-annointed leaders of the Libpoosie Intelligentsia. Who will emerge from this coup d'etat as the victor and stake his rightful claim as KING OF THE CLOWNS?
since you want to continue - I'll humor you. The reporter - Deborah Solomon, also of the Tribe - just asked him a question. It's a jokey question - don't you agree? Unless you are arguing that the reporter is indeed concerend about the paucity of conservative Semitic Senators..which i find unlikely. Reporter gets a response, which i believe is sarcastic - which you believe is not. Well the reporter is there, so I assume the repoter has a better idea as to the tone, agree? Now let's assume that you are right, Specter is speaking truly and seriously. This is a major story - HUGE Specter is advocating tipping the balance of the Senate right back the other way . A fluff piece in the NYT sunday mag just reeled in the big one.....Specter's switch was a two face, insert your original post, comments from daily kos, etc etc etc. ....where's the follow up question? If I were the reporter, I would say something along the lines of "WTF Senator, you are saying that this was all a ruse and that you're willing to reverse the 60 seat majority again? On what grounds do you call for the election to be overturned, etc etc etc? " Is this what happened? No. Reporter moves on to throwing in a goofy line about Jerry Seinfeld. Then asks question about Clarence Thomas hearings, then moves on to Bob Dole Viagra questions. So not only do we have to assume that he was not joking, we have to assume that the reporter is unaware of the ramifications of Specter's statement or is otherwise choosing not to pursue a huge story (or alternatively, that she did and her editors edited out her follow up questions). In the words of KingCheetah.....
Gobbledygoop -- I believe you once promised Clutch that you would never respond to The_Conquistador. In essence, you were falling on your sword, recognizing that you are simply no match for His Excellency. Have you once again proven that you are not a man of your word? ZOL IS ASHAMED
Interesting question and worthy of debate. I will take the position that the Kangaroo, with a considerable amount of hair/fur, is not Batman Jones.
I'll put $50 in the Tip Jar if Toomey doesn't win, assuming Ridge doesn't run. If Ridge does run, bet is invalidated.
I actually didn't want to continue. I just said I'd oblige you if you did. I find this argument boring. This is the crux of the whole thing. I don't believe either. I have no idea if he was being sarcastic or joking and I never said he definitely wasn't. I was reporting a news story which I saw on Drudge, HuffPo, The Page and Political Wire. You responded by saying how stupid it was not to realize he was joking -- which nobody in the world but you did. My only argument was with the idea that anyone who didn't get the joke was an idiot -- when nobody knows to this day if he was joking. He never said he was and neither did any of the sources that ran his retraction. I frankly don't care if he was joking or not. I just thought you were being a dick.
Page 1: It wasn't a joke; it was a mistake: (this was the post that started the argument between y'all) Page 2: It wasn't a joke, it was a mistake.
Major was the first to point it out, as did a number of commenters on the daily kos outrage threads - I haven't investigated beyond those bounds, but I doubt I'm the only person in the world to have had that reaction (including, apparently, the reporter, who was actually present for the conversation)
^You're right, Major. My bad. If you see post 27 though, you'll see that I allow for the possibility it was a joke. Regardless, it was a mistake. I stand by my basic point though, which is that when every major news source is reporting it as though it is not a joke, it's not exactly reactionary and foolish to think it's not a joke. Further, when every news source is reporting the retraction as a retraction (and, again, not an apology for making a dumb joke), it is still not reactionary or foolish to believe those various news sources in reporting it as other than a joke. Bottom line: I reported a news story and Sam called me a fool for (a) doing it and (b) believing it. That's dickish, that's all.
I just went back to re-read that post. I said that as a direct lead-in to a breaking news story in which Specter said it was a mistake. Prior to that story, everybody was speculating and everybody but you and Sam was saying he was serious. Then Specter responded and said it was a mistake, so I posted that it wasn't a joke, it was a mistake. Hardly controversial stuff. The argument wasn't started by me posting a link to Specter's response and echoing his words in my own post; it was started by Sam's insatiable appetite for acting superior.
