You may have realized by now that I love highlighting local examples of the things I talk about on the national scene, and here's the latest one. I happened upon Scio's entry about the last Presidential debate, an entry that also caught the attention of a liberal bigot when Scio wrote: "McCain let Obama get away with blaming Republicans for the current financial crisis."
Someone who goes by "Kirk" apparently feels that Republicans are, in fact, directly responsible, and he started in innocently enough with: "I think maybe some history is necessary here…"
And like anyone who's not liberal, I love being enlightened.
So I excitedly dove into Kirk's attempt at elucidation. Unfortunately, while his reference may have some tangential bearing, it had nothing to do with any actual Republican responsibility for the current mess. He talked about Glass-Steagall, and how Reagan started the "raping process by making interest rates unlimited" and how he "perpetuated it by giving us the insidious adjustable rate mortgage."
Reagan did all that? Holy cow! Where was the Democrat controlled Congress at the time…? Not to mention that Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with introducing adjustable rate mortgages.
Then Kirk added: "These things lead, by the way, to our previous major financial crisis in the 80s." He didn't elaborate, but if true, were no lessons learned by the (again) Democrat controlled Congress? Mon Dieu!
Still Kirk, as liberals do, was just building his Blutto-lite momentum, as he turned to the association between Obama and William Ayers which Scio had also mentioned.
No, he wasn't concerned that Obama lied about how close he'd been to Ayers or that Ayers is both guilty of terrorism and unrepentant, or about Ayers' attack on the Pentagon and the fact that his wife was once on the FBI's Most Wanted list. What concerned Kirk was: "No one on the Right seemed upset that the Bush family was pals with the bin Ladens."
Even if true, note that he was referring to "the bin Ladens," not THE bin Laden! Apparently Kirk felt that because the magnitude of the destruction bin Laden wrought was so much greater than that of Ayers, it overwhelmed the degrees of separation between -the President- and -the terrorist-.
Nevertheless, none of that makes Kirk an evil bigot…
What follows does:
Kirk then immediately became agitated that, as he put it, he was being "roundly ignored." Just his comment about Reagan vis-a-vis adjustable rate mortgages was enough to warrant blanket disregard, but instead of leaving as you or I might do, he did what liberals do in such circumstances – he threw a temper tantrum.
And of course that immediately wiped out his hope of being regarded as an intellectual, a desire he clearly held as manifested thusly:
"Been brushing up on your debate rules, have you, Scio… It is indeed possible for a lack of response to be scored as a concession. It's usually tempered by other factors, though, such as time and relevance. I do appreciate that you picked it up on your side, as well."
See, he used "indeed." It's a trick I use myself except that I know you see right through me.
Anyway, back to Kirk's tantrum…
What he said next might just be regarded as a child lashing out, but Kirk's only a child in his own mind. Granted he hasn't grown up, but he clearly also hasn't been affected by, and maybe even cognizant of, the restraints of his own beloved political correctness.
Having gone from pseudo-intellectual to uncontrollably exasperated in mere seconds, Kirk said this:
"Go ahead and keep thinking you know better than the rest of the world and vote for an ailing septuagenarian…"
With that, Kirk became what I call 'a common house pig." You know that critter better as a bigot.
Underlying everything Kirk said previously was his loathsome loathing of someone who can't help being what he is, no matter that there's no evidence that McCain is in any way ill.
I believe Kirk was disappointed that, because McCain has amply demonstrated otherwise in two debates, out little bigot couldn't add "Dementia-riddled."
Now I hope you understand just how outrageous Kirk's characterization of McCain is. because the other participants in the thread didn't seem to. How about we go to liberal blogs, throw our own tantrums and tell them to go ahead then and vote for a chain-smoking black?
I told Scio that Kirk was a very bad guy. I hope he doesn't think that's an exaggeration.