Squublog

(An exclusive debate you won't want to read anywhere else. Or here, even.)


Hilary: I am very impressed with myself.

Obama: I hope.

John McCain: I am really old.

Hilary: I'm not going to be able to agree with that. I have years of experience.

John McCain: I was a POW, I was tortured, and I'm really old.

Obama: America hopes!

John McCain: Hogwash.

Hilary: This country needs more than empty platitudes.

Obama: I can't bowl at all, really.

John McCain: Not only am I really very old, I'm also a white man. I fought in the war.

Hilary: I dodged exploding children in Rwanda.

John McCain: Hogwash.

Obama: I can feed a calf out of a bottle, but I really can't bowl.

Hilary: They were blowing up all around me. Barrack Obama has no idea how to pick up a telephone after midnight. I'd be willing to bet that even if it's just after 10pm he wouldn't know how to answer a telephone.

John McCain: We didn't have telephones back in my day. You bunch of communists.

Obama: Yes we can!

Hilary: Isn't that a David Crosby album?

Obama: No, it's not. Not even close.

John McCain: Bill Cosby? You think Bill Cosby's been in a Turkish prison?

Obama: America hopes!

Hilary: Remember that time when I was being attacked by snipers?

John McCain: They named the McChicken Sandwich after me! I have experience! They could roll you two kids up together in a ball and you'd still have less experience than me! Hundreds of years!

Hilary: Is that your age or how long you want us to stay in Iraq?

Howard Dean: YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeArrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Obama: What the hell? Oh, I mean, my grandmother is very, very white.

Hilary: How'd he get in... is this in the script?

John McCain: We will stay in Iraq as long as it takes.

Obama: I'm the only person in America who didn't support this war right from the start.

Hilary: You didn't even HAVE a phone when we started this war. What would you know then about answering it at 3 in the morning.

Obama: I gave a speech. In Chicago. Nobody recorded it. That's the last time in America that anybody was able to say anything and not have it recorded on somebody's cell phone.

John McCain: Cell? Cell? You think you know about a cell? Try a five by five concrete bunker on for size. For five years.

Obama: America hopes you know what a cell phone is.

Hilary: My teeth are extraordinary. You don't even have teeth at three in the morning.

*Pause*

Obama: Oh, you were talking about me? I thought you were talking about Senator McCain.

Bill Clinton: *laughing* I used to drunk-call Hillary all the time at three in the morning. Man she hated that.

John McCain: I have a lot of teeth! I'm old and I still have teeth.

Bill Clinton: Sometimes Monica used her teeth just a little too much, if you know what I mean.

Hilary: Seriously, Bill. Jesus Christ. wtf?

Yikes. I can now feel fine ignoring all of my other objections to Ron Paul, expressed in the post wherein I also said that I liked him. A post over at Cynical-C Blog has the video; I've transcribed the basic text of what he said here in response to a questioner's asking him whether or not he believes the theory of evolution to be true.

"Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the Presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And uhm, I, uhm, I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory [...]

I think the creator that I know, you know, created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner and all... I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side [...] I would think it's an interesting discussion; I think it's a theological discussion..."

A friend of mine pointed me in the direction of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul maybe a month ago. This week, Michael Blowhard tossed out a few open-ended questions about him (or the controversy surrounding him, not sure which;) more or less links to a few things.

I watched some or all of the online interviews between he and John Stossel last night. I'd previously read a little bit about him when my friend mentioned him. I've got some contradictory things to say, and some observations.

First, I like the guy, from what I can see. He stands for a lot of ideas that I think are good ones. Small government, smart spending, getting the government out of the business of regulating what we do in our spare time (drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, marriage in general, religion, etc.)

On the other hand, though, he's talking a lot of smack. He's always thought the Iraq war was a mistake. However, he's pretty adamant that we shouldn't be messing in foreign affairs anywhere. Our military should not be stationed anywhere where there isn't a just war going on that we've been forced to enter based on being attacked (I think he's basically saying the only 20th century wars we should've ever been in in is WWII, since in that one we were attacked, and Afghanistan, although he says we did that wrong.) He goes on from there, wanting to get rid of... well, everything except the military itself, road crews, uhm... courts for property rights and prosecution of people who hurt other people... maybe something else. Thinks education should be privatized; thinks pretty much EVERYTHING should be privatized.

What do I think about that? I have no idea. Theoretically it's interesting. In practice -- can you imagine? I can't. What the hell would really happen if we stop having laws against drug use and prostitution and stop having the government have anything to do with education, not to mention the withdrawing from NATO, and pulling our military out of everywhere? No clue.

Here's the thing: this guy's running as a Republican. He's so far from anything I can connect with most of the Republicans in our government today that I don't even get how he's trying that route. No way this guy would ever get the support of the religious sector who back the Bushies. It's an obvious non-starter.

Yet there are those people to whom Michael Blowhard linked who are somehow trying to blame the media for... something. It's a conspiracy theory again; the first link in that post is to a video on youtube that just screams lunatic fringe. I've got no idea whether you'd call that guy a right-wing nut or a left-wing nut, but it doesn't matter. At the end of the tirade he starts talking about the Israel-controlling-everything thing and the Rockefeller... whatever. That same shit I used to read from Nancy Luft, the internet schizophrenic who'd show up somewhere, post some screeds about satellite mind control, the rich white-man's mafia, and the Rockefellers, then disappear again.

I'm also reminded in all of this of Howard Dean. One of the commenters on the 2Blowhards post said, "The fact that Ron Paul is the most popular candidate on the internet means that he is the best candidate in the race." I can't imagine there weren't people saying that about Dean back at the start of the 2004 election cycle. To me this sort of statement ignores the obvious demographic element. People going hogwild supporting this guy online are online people. I doubt very much that the older demographic who aren't so much into youtube and facebook would be falling all over themselves about legalizing drugs and prostitution if only they could see his interviews on TV. Not that I have any data, there. Just a hunch.

What's my point? Not sure. The parallels with the way the Dean thing went are striking to me, although I don't know that much about that. The fact that this guy is ideologically aligned with me in a lot of respects, while being a Republican, is bizarre to me. Just points out what I've always thought - there isn't going to be an electable candidate from either party who says much of the stuff I agree with. But again, I couldn't support this guy, if I thought he actually had a chance, because I think he's got to be slightly nuts. Just slightly, mind. It's refreshing to see him answer things so honestly so often, but it doesn't seem realistic of him. And I'm just not prepared to get behind someone who's really trying to throw out most of what our country has become, even if he's right in saying that it's not what it was supposed to be when it was founded. There are certainly some things I think should be changed RIGHT NOW, but I just can't imagine doing it all.

Which leads to probably my final observation, what I took away the first time I watched video of him online: he doesn't come across as Presidential. I really don't know what that means, exactly; no doubt it's a bias on my part. But it feels like something that a lot of other people would probably agree with. Again, this really just goes towards his electability. I'm not saying it as an objective statement that he wouldn't make a good President, just that my gut tells me that in that respect also he'll never get elected to that office.

Dear President Bush, the NIE, presidential candidates, Iran, Russia, China, the Tories, the News Media, and anyone else with a dog in this fight,

You're all saying exactly the same goddamned thing. Why does anybody pretend any of this even means anything?

- Seriously completely fucking Confused in Omaha

Iran is... was dangerous, is being dangerous, will be dangerous, could be dangerous, will be being dangerous when it's not being dangerous outwardly, should be dangerous, might be dangerous, is still is was dangerous, was being to be going to be dangerous, might could someday want to be dangerous, wanted to be dangerous before being dangerous, became dangerous without knowing it, can be dangerous when it has a toothache, tries to be dangerous in the movies, is a nice dangerousness, every is even are dangerous, should've been not being not dangerous before being again dangerous after already being dangerous.

- from a joint statement issued by President Bush, the NIE, presidential candidates, Iran, Russia, China, the Tories, the News Media, and everyone else with a dog in this fight, tomorrow

Dangerousness is really fuckin' dangerous, man.

- that one dude who always seems to be waiting for a bus

Still, seriously... it's pronounced "NEW CLEE ER."

- pundit 1e17.f4

Well, what if, and I'm just thinking out loud here, so bear with me, but what if we, say, invade Luxembourg?

- Vice President Dick Cheney, still holding the report in his white-knuckled hands

No, wait, that doesn't... how about Poland?

- Vice President Dick Cheney, still holding the report in his white-knuckled and numb hands, a few minutes later

Woah, no, that's crazy talk... how about we go back to the Russia thing? You know, cold war, all that?

- Vice President Dick Cheney, finally putting the report back down on the desk

Oh, no, shit, what am I saying. China. North Korea. All those guys. Right? Who's with me?

- Vice President Dick Cheney, picking up the report again and idly flipping through its pages


UPDATE!!!
General Endercrunt Slumbwatt issued the following statement, either in defense of or opposition to the position that may or may not be held to be different from the position of someone else as held by someone:

"We like to give the appearance of military capability although the radicalization of the terrorist forces vis a vis the support of rogue nations such as Iran and/or the heretofore previous to now primarily distorted view of the required ground forces pertaining to the absolute necessity of requiring dialog or at least a show of military force we require some actual perception that we are actually showing some face to the enemy such that the troops do not get discouraged, or the enemy does not display similar schemes of unification in the face of this swelling of support from numerous countries and the sanctions employed by the security council."

Hey guys,

Could you maybe, like, stop talking about immigration for a minute?

Thanks,

I

Hey Pakistan,

Wtf?

- I, Squub