Irony alert at the Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

Pity Dave Mindeman.

Mindeman writes for the Minnesota Network for Progressive Action blog, and Eric Ostermeier's study raising the possibility of selection bias at PolitiFact apparently hit Mindeman pretty hard.

See what Mindeman wrote on Feb. 12 as an item under the title "If Something's Wrong - It's the Liberals' Fault":

(L)ocally, Eric Ostermeier (Smart Politics Blog) just can't allow for the possibility that Republicans are often caught being a little light on facts by watchdog media. So therefore, it has to be the liberal bias of the watchdog groups themselves.

Mindeman claims that Ostermeier "can't allow for the possibility that Republicans are often caught being a little light on facts."  Is it true?

Ostermeier:

One could theoretically argue that one political party has made a disproportionately higher number of false claims than the other, and that this is subsequently reflected in the distribution of ratings on the PolitiFact site.

Contrary to what Mindeman claims, Ostermeier does allow for the possibility that Republicans often caught being a little light on the facts.  Which, of course, makes Mindeman's statement a little light on the facts.

Ostermeier even replied to an earlier post from Mindeman and explained it personally:

Eric Ostermeier @ www.smartpoliticsblog.org

02/11/11 16:29

> Could it be possible that the Republicans
> make more outrageous and indefensible
> assertions?

FYI: this very possibility was in fact addressed in my report:

"One could theoretically argue that one political party has made a disproportionately higher number of false claims than the other, and that this is subsequently reflected in the distribution of ratings on the PolitiFact site."

Mindeman apparently can't accept the possibility that Republicans don't really dominate prevarication the way PolitiFact presents it.

Pity Dave Mindeman.

It's hard to find good badness for the Sith Blogroll ... (Updated)

Newest Sith Blogroller "Comments from Left Field" is displaying an interesting tendency in the early going--a tendency to base conclusions on thin evidence.

First, last week's big prison break in Kandahar was supposed to be the final proof (if more was needed!) that the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan, as I documented here alongside some of the evidence of the Taliban having a very tough go of it overall.

Today, Kyle E. Moore did the same sort of thing ("Kathy" was responsible for the Taliban post) in stating that a forthcoming book would provide the final proof that the GOP's entire election strategy would focus on smearing Barack Obama. Seriously.

Just in case the countless attempts to smear Obama thus far haven’t convinced you yet, a book scheduled to be released this August should make it abundantly clear that the right’s entire strategy for putting McCain in office is to positively bury Obama in mud.

Reality-based?

Moore goes on to challenge conservatives to make a positive case for McCain. In the comments accompanying Moore's post, I pointed out that Obama's legitimate weaknesses rightly help make a positive case for McCain. Moore apparently does not wish to countenance the possibility that Obama has legitimate weaknesses, as evidenced by his insistence on using the term "smear," which carries the connotation of slanderous attacks.

The key point about Obama, it seems to me, is that he doesn't really have any legitimate reputation. Any reputation he brought into the election (other than his reputation of limited experience) was based on the skinniest of track records. Moore's message might as well be don't challenge the image that Barack presents of himself--'cause that's wrong!

Moore ends up following the campaign playbook that some conservative bloggers have suggested Obama is peddling: Dealing with issues other than hope and change (or the like) are merely distractions from the campaign.

Moore apparently wants Obama to have his image the way he chooses it, and let that image be pitted in the campaign against that of McCain.

And if Moore decides to attack McCain ("it is yet another example of John McCain looking like a simpleton compared to Obama regarding the economy"), well, that's not really a smear because it's, like, true and stuff!

***

Update:
Quoth Moore:

So when can we expect the McCain hit book to reach the stands?

clipped from www.amazon.com

How about yesterday, or thereabouts?


Hat tip to the left-fielders anyhow--I was overdue in adding the "Right-wing attack machine" tag with which to categorize posts.

Reality-based community still having trouble facing reality

The self-described "libhomo" dropped by to voice skepticism about reports that violence in Iraq is diminishing.

The line is that the reports all come through official government channels, either controlled by the United States or by our puppet government in Iraq.

Reporter Michael Ware reeled off plenty of criticism of the surge strategy.

Here's Ware earlier last month:


For those not inclined to watch the video, this is how Ware starts out:

Well, I have to say it truly is a blessing what the Iraq that I have returned to.
(CNN)

It is logical to expect that a real decrease in violence in Iraq results in a person like Ware rendering that type of assessment.

The alternative involves conspiratorial thinking that makes Ware the puppet of the administration despite his near-constant criticisms of the administration.

*****

Was Bush right or was he misquoted?

The wisdom of the Daily Kos on the gaffe that wasn't a gaffe.

They ask if Bush was right or was he misquoted.

Right about what?

The accompanying poll provides a strong indication that the Kos blogger doesn't have anything substantive to say on the subject.

Understood properly, Bush is right that somebody made an interesting comment about the lack of a Mandela-like personality in Iraq.
Understood via the fugue of the Fever Swamp, Bush was wrong that Mandela was dead because Hussein killed every one of the Mandelas. Apparently some of the Mandelas escaped.

clipped from www.dailykos.com Was bush right or was he misquoted ? bush was misquoted by the left winged liburul press.. 1 vote - 2 % g w bush has a very dificult job, thinking and stuff... 22 votes - 47 % This is just a South African plot to discredit g w bush 0 votes - 0 % Well, if bush says Mandellas dead maybe he is.. 1 vote - 2 % He was thinking of Mandellas wife, ah, ah what's her name..Ah 0 votes - 0 % Foolme once and shame on me, ah, fool me again and, ah, ah, youse cant fool the decider 13 votes - 28 % I cant decide.. 0 votes - 0 % Ivy League aint all that it's made out to be.. 6 votes - 13 % Hugo Chavez, the praknster is behind this.. 3 votes - 6 % 46 Total Votes Poll submitted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:43:25 PM PDT Back to g w bush at his best pronounces that Nelson Mandela is dead ? .

Seems like the big thing for lefty blogger is to try to be John Stewart or Stephen Colbert.

If You Can't Say Anything Good Department

I'd like to congratulate the 2 out of 32 at the Daily Kos who appeared to express a firm inkling that the supposed Bush gaffe about Nelson Mandela being dead wasn't really a gaffe at all.

Numbers subject to change as the commentary thread grows.


*****

Forcing the reality-based to face reality

A visitor calling himself "Duane" apparently thinks that Rep. Engel's comments about General David Petraeus were somehow reasonable.

I don't intend to go back and forth endlessly with Duane in the comments section. I'll address every argument Duane presents, but only if he can keep himself on topic.
After I had pointed out that Duane was treating Petraeus' op-ed comments as though they were predictions (when they weren't), Duane came back with this:

I noticed that you made no comment on Rumsfelds "6 month" PREDICTION. I also noted that Petraeus offered no timeline. If they had told Americans at the beginning that this would last 5+ years they would have run them out of town. If three years of "on track" has not allowed us to remove troops then your track is endless. You are like the out of work brother-in-law that moves in for a "few months" and five years later you are still looking for a job and just need another loan until you get going. All the things that the White House predicts if we pull out, chaos, violence, factional fighting, etc. are happening NOW. We have spent 3400 lives and half a trillion dollars and they have less electricity now than when Saddam was in power. Millions of Iraqis with skills, money or out of desperation have left the country. The Sunni's have completely withdrawn from the central government. Sectarian violence may be down in some areas because they are becoming purely Sunni or Shiite. Not counting car bomb deaths? Assasinations don't count if they are shot in the front of the head? The GAO report bears no resemblance to the Petraeus report?? Just give us 6 more months he says. How about we redeploy to the border and see if the horrible consequences they keep talking of happen? How about listening to the 65% of Americans AND Iraqis that want us out of there?
Duane | 09.13.07 - 10:05 am

1) I pointed out to Duane that the 6 month prediction looked perfectly true. More on this later.
2) Duane offered that he noted that Petraeus offered no time line. How that is supposed to help his case is anyone's guess.
3) Duane opined that if Americans had known the war would take 5 years they wouldn't go along with it. I don't have such a dim view of the average American, though it wouldn't surprise me if liberal circles were substantially filled with people who will give up if the war looks difficult or unpleasantly long. That's an aspect of American culture that bin Laden picked up on, though I trust he's wrong about it.
4) Duane thinks that if three years of "on-track" doesn't result in bringing (how many?) troops home then the track is endless. That doesn't follow. If the track takes 100 years instead of 5 then the track has an ending, obviously. If Duane was merely indulging in hyperbole then he doesn't really have a relevant point--especially with regard to Petraeus' reliability.
5) Duane's out-of-work brother-in-law analogy is inane in this context. Is he supposing anti-war Democrats as the ones giving money to pro-war Republicans? Or is Iraq the freeloader? In the former case, our system of government only works if the minority accedes to cooperate with the laws passed by the majority. In the latter case, Iraq is a multi-faceted entity with immense global strategic importance. The brother-in-law analogy isn't apt where the brother-in-law is of vast strategic importance. If you're smart you'll invest quite a bit in that brother-in-law.
6) Duane thinks that the feared result of a pullout are already happening. Duane apparently has zero sense of scale. Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are each likely to move to fill a power vacuum in the wake of a U.S. pullout. Is it possible that peace will break out spontaneously in the wake of a U.S. withdrawal? Only in the strict logical sense that also makes it possible for a cow to balance itself spontaneously on top of the Eiffel Tower.
7) Less electricity? Can Duane explain the relevance to Petraeus' testimony? The power grid problem stems from downgraded infrastructure inherited from Hussein plus deliberate attacks by insurgents. The insurgents probably hope that Americans will regard the war as unwinnable if they deprive their own people of electricity.
8) Yes, many Iraqis have fled the country. What does that have to do with Petraeus' testimony before Congress?
9) The Sunnis withdrew from the federal government, but have now returned. Al-Maliki achieved significant progress in compromise deals in August. Not that it's relevant to Petraeus' testimony, from what I can tell.
10) Duane offered that sectarian violence may have subsided because fewer integrated neighborhoods remain. Well, that's a step in the right direction, Duane, allowing that sectarian violence may have decreased.
11) See story linked just above regarding execution-style killings and car bombs.
12) The GAO report relied on civilian attack data through July 2007, the first month that the surge troop levels first hit their target. See page 10 (.pdf). If Duane wants to assert differences in the reports, he should be specific.
13) Redeploy to the border? Which border? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia (they love us there)? Syria (they love us there)? Iran (they love us there)? Turkey? How about Okinawa? And if the violence gets worse you want to go back in when you left because of the violence? Pure genius.
14) We don't listen to the 65 percent (provide a reference any day, now) because they tend to reason like you do. Many people holding to a stupid idea doesn't make it less stupid. The Iraqis appear to be a bit smarter than you paint them, according to this ABC/BBC graph.





Duane followed up with a prediction from General Casey, apparently hoping that the accompanying story would be taken to contradict Petraeus' op-ed assessment. Could you be specific, Duane?

As for predictions, saying that training is "on track" indicates there is a timeline. If you don't meet that goal then either your "on track" statement was wrong or something changed to throw the plan off track. If there is evidence of substantial, measurable success in Iraq I would say the ball is in your court to show it to me. As skeptical as I was about this war I never dreamed we could make it worse for the average Iraqi than they had it under Saddam.

If it indicates a time line, Duane, then why did you earlier note that "Petraeus offered no time line"? Sure, there was an implied time line for the training of Iraqi security forces. Something threw the plan off track. I thought I had already mentioned the attack on the Golden Mosque.

Duane, I don't care if you can't see the progress in Iraq. I don't pretend to be able to open thoroughly closed minds. But I do care to see you support your implied defense of Rep. Engel. You're not up for that, are you?

AP reporter Robert Burns on the surge

BAGHDAD (AP) - AP Video The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.

In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists and intelligence officers, it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year.

(Breitbart.com)

I wonder what the reality-based community has to say about this?

Other than "Grumpy Old Man" in the commentary section at "Shakesville" (formerly "Shakespeare's Sister").

And Bryan, would you please explain in detail just how the surge is working so wonderfully as I see people being blown to bits every ******* day in Baghdad.
(Haloscan, Shakesville)

Hold onto those tinfoil hats! This could be a rough ride!

"Fake but accurate" legacy continues in the Reality-Based Community (Updated)

clipped from shakespearessister.blogspot.com

The lefty blog "Shakespeare's Sister" includes this photo along with a story intended to portray George W. Bush as a (violent) bully.

Bush did play Rugby at Harvard, and the photo looks real. But what about the caption?

clipped from www.snopes.com

Snopes.com vouches for the legitimacy of the photo, and tracks the top photo to a 1969 yearbook. And if the photo appeared in a yearbook, then it wouldn't be too surprising to see a caption loaded with editorial content, much less a caption plainly intended as a joke.

As Snopes.com noted:

We don't know for sure which of these captions is genuine and which might have been the product of digital manipulation. The use of the term "Thursday's contest" in the second photo's caption implies the picture was taken from a school newspaper, so it's possible the same photo might also have been used in a yearbook with a different caption and thus both are genuine.
(Snopes.com)

Update: After the "fake but accurate" CBS documents fiasco, I can't believe I missed this. Take a look at the caption on the top photo. The text is fully justified, meaning that either typesetting or a program has elongated the spaces between the words to fill out the entire space from one edge of the photo to the other. The "G" from "George" aligns with the left margin and the "t" in "right" aligns with the right margin. The space between each word is equal. The sans serif type is another interesting feature. If the font can be identified, I wonder if a common modern program can exactly mimic the caption?

Visiting a "reality-based" community

Late last year, I started a separate blog to serve as a repository for long entries debunking some of the utter nonsense I encounter at various (mostly liberal) blogs.

At one site (which includes a blog and a message board), "People for the Old American Century," I found a page that supposedly debunked right-wing talking points--and it was some funny stuff.

The list of talking points was long and amateurishly refuted that I decided to do an extensive job on it. As I neared the end of the project, I decided to visit the message board and strike up some conversations.

I'll note here at the outset that the message board is explicitly not set up to entertain debate. The folks who run the site have that posted fairly clearly.

I started out with a self-introduction in which I mentioned that the talking-points page (called "Counterspin") had initially attracted my attention--I let on that I was less than impressed.

POAC (apparently T. J. Templeton): Hi, Bry. I'm the person who collected those talking points and refuted them for that web page. Is there any certain one you'd like to contest with me?

The reply made it seem like they were open to the idea of debate, though there had been a bit of confident banter from other regulars leading up to the exchange I'm transcribing here.

Bryan: Most of them, actually. I've done research on about 15 of the entries at this point, and I've found one in that number that I think does a reasonable job of refuting the talking point.

One of the questions I keep having when I'm doing my research is ... where did the supposed talking point come from? I think it would improve that page if you linked to a source for each of the talking points.

This area isn't for getting to the nuts and bolts of discussion, obviously. My findings are posted to a blog, so I can send you the link so you can start topics to defend your work, or I can bring one up from time to time in the discussion area if you would like.

My original plan was to let these things come up naturally, but if you're keen to deal in the criticism of your work just let me know how you'd like to go about it.

Their turf, their rules. I had no intention of pushing the issue if T. J. didn't want to get into it (though I'm not saying I wouldn't have found ways to question the assumptions of the locals while I was visiting).

In T. J.'s next reply, he gave a generalized description of where the talking points came from ("flying monkeys," RNC talking points and talk radio).
And he continued:

Working in the alternative media field as I do, it doesn't take much effort to notice what's a talking point and what isn't.

Any way (sic), you say that you've done research on about 15 of the entries at this point, and have found one in that number that you think does a reasonable job of refuting the talking point. So give some examples.

I took that as an invitation to post an example of what I thought was a reasonable job along with at least one example of one that wasn't a reasonable job. So I started a thread in a political forum at the site, giving the two examples as requested.

Bryan: The worst (though it may be close):

In treating the supposed talking point that "Peak Oil" is just a myth, it was shown that the Saudis supposedly admit Peak Oil--but not in so many words. The linked article related Saudi projections that oil production would fail to keep pace with consumption. From what I can tell, this reflects a misunderstanding of the concept of Peak Oil.
http://badblogsblood.blogspot.com/2007/06/poac-xi-peak-oil.html

The best so far:
Defending Louisiana's Governor Blanco from charges that she did not properly ask for assistance. The defense was apt enough. It just seems to miss the substance of the usual criticisms of Blanco. And that may be the fault of whoever promulgates the so-called talking point. It wasn't one I was familiar with, anyway.
http://badblogsblood.blogspot.com/2007/06/poac-xiii-governor-blanco-and-katrina.html

And that's when the hilarity really started. A regular going by "sky of mind" led off.

sky of mind: OK, but I would really like to see more detail, even though this is on the correct track and is discussion.

I had hoped that the URLs would have helped with the lack of detail. In any case, I didn't want to go overboard with the OP.
Templeton (POAC) wasn't far behind, first offering an explanation for the "worst" entry ...

In the context of Hubbert peak theory, peak oil is when the peak of the world's conventional petroleum ("crude oil") production rate is reached. After this date the rate of production is predicted to enter terminal decline, following the bell-shaped curve predicted by the theory. If you read the article that's what is described.

... and then on the "best" entry:

That's probably because the page isn't about defending Governor Blanco from her usual criticisms and it is about debunking falsifications that are repeated on outlets like FOXnews.

I was glad we agreed on what peak oil meant. But in spite of Templeton's claim to the contrary, the article did not talk about any terminal decline in crude oil production. This is absolutely the closest thing to a peak oil claim in the story:

The world's biggest oilfield, Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, has been producing for more than 50 years and is showing signs of age, with increasing amounts of water leaking into the oil, according to technical papers by Saudi Aramco engineers cited in a new book, Twilight in the Desert.

The only other thing in the ballpark is a section where the Saudis said it would be hard to top 15 m b/d. Templeton apparently supplied the rest with his or her imagination.
I'm still a bit puzzled why Templeton defended the "best" entry by essentially repeating the point I had already made. Defensiveness, maybe? Not much later, Templeton went off the deep end in a follow-up reply.

Oh Geeze Bryan, I read some of your blog. I think there's a reason why you have no traffic and according to Alexa, only google links to you. Your refutation of almost everything I have read has either been a nit-picking technicality or just plain old cognitive dissonance. Can I give you some advice? Go after falsifications in right-wing blogs. They're are (sic) rich with them and you won't have to stretch and spin so much when you try to make a point. Also, if you aren't privy enough to even know what the talking points of the day are, maybe you shouldn't go around trying to play "gotcha" with people who do.

I guess Templeton didn't think it would be a good idea to link to a source for the talking points. I stick with my recommendation, since tales can change in the retelling. I'm interrupting, sorry.

I do want to thank you though, I work to make the site workable for even the most deluded, so I know from your assistance which entries I need to beef up. So I appreciate your help for that.

Almost sounds sarcastic, doesn't it?

A good example was how you claimed I didn't disprove "nobody anticipated the breaching of the levees". So I beefed that one up with Mediamatter's (sic) extensive list of examples of foreknowledge of the breaching of the levees.

Showing how MediaMatters also fails to make that case might serve as an eventual update on POAC at my other blog.
I stuck to my guns, since I know I made a good case in each instance, and I avoided calling names. Here's a sampling of the responses leading up to my being banned by the following morning.

sky of mind: Same thing [breach vs overtopping of a levee--BW]. The levees failed and New Orleans was flooded.

sky of mind (different post): I have a question or two for Mr. Bryan. What is your personal opinion of Mr. Bush, his administration, and his policies?

POAC: Bryan, I'm not going to waste my time critiquing your blog. That's your gig, not mine.
But a quick example:
My talking point: No one expected the levees to fail.
My debunking: Numerous pieces of evidence from various reputable sources citing that everyone knew the levees would fail in category 4 or 5 hurricane.
Your rebuttal:
"Sounds like you're conflating a breach of the levees with an overtopping of the levees."

I do have to cut in, here, since this might be the funniest response in the whole lot.
The original debunking was a single article in the Houston Chronicle, and it didn't mention anything at all about the levees failing, though it's possible to infer it from statements regarding cataclysmic outcomes and the like. Templeton's claim of "numerous pieces of evidence" is apparently based on the addition of material from "Media Matters" that were mentioned as a late addition to the entry. On top of that, the statement offered as my rebuttal was a comment in reply to "sky of mind." This is a perfect example of the type of slipshod reasoning that Templeton brings to his/her work.

The next entry picks up after Templeton has listed all the sources he/she borrowed from Media Matters after I showed how pathetic the original attempt had been.

POAC: If that;s not goofd up enough for you, well, something tells me you're kind of like all those things you call me on your blog.

I don't normally make fun of the spelling of others, but the pun in the typo was irresistible, so I did say the entry was "goofd" up enough for me.

POAC (same post): What's it like to have your right wing reality challenged and having to engage in such efforts to try to keep all that misinformation categorized in your head as "truth". That's gotta be tough.

sky of mind: "But let's not get too far diverted from POAC's attempt to show that Social Security isn't in trouble."
I don't believe anybody has stated that Social Security doesn't have any solvency issues. The question as stated by many, is it wise to let Bush Privatize social security?

POAC: He has to put words in my mouth to debunk them, falsely framing the conversation. Intellectual dishonesty, a common trait of the wingnut.

sky of mind: Yeah, that's similar to the wingers claiming we support terrorism because we voted for Gore in 2000, or that we fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here.

It's true that the POAC site did not argue that Social Security wasn't in trouble--but on the other hand my critique, aside from that one comment, dealt only with what POAC did provide in argument. Taking the comment out of context provided a distraction and an excuse to engage in more ad hominem attacks. Yippee.

happymisanthropy: Wow. That's the dumbest thing I've read in hours [difference between "breach" and overtopping"--BW]. First of all, the difference is irrelevant because the consequence is identical. Second, it's really unlikely that an overtopped "levy" would NOT fail.

happymisanthropy (new post): Is that the best you have, Bryan?

POAC: Stop dancing around and address the issues and questions posed to you or be banned. You're wasting our time, space, and bandwidth. Intellectual dishonesty isn't tolerated here.
You claim you could present how the counterspin page was unremittingly preposterous and yet all you've done is parse the differences between "topped" and "breached" when the talking point was concerning their failure. Your breached/topped ******** is a red herring. I've specifically and directly responded to your attempts to discredit me, now extend to me the same courtesy. And don't act stupid and ask me to repeat them. Scroll up.

POAC (different post): Note to our resident conservatives: This is precisely why you received the crappy welcome you did when you first arrived. 9 times out of 10 when someone calling themselves a "conservative" enters and claims they want a rational reasoned discussion, this is what we wind up with.

sky of mind: Heh, dude, less than 30 minutes before that storm made landfall it WAS a s CAT 5 hurricane [incorrect--BW], and as a CAT 5 Hurricane it was pushing a storm surge equal to a CAT 5 hurricane, which was still in front of the CAT3 katrina that made landfall.

Got all that? It's part of the New Physics, if I'm not mistaken.

sky of mind (later on in the same post): You're a desperate little human. Go back to church.
If you don't get banned very soon, you will be ignored. And in my opinion, that's worse. Especially for one that craves attention.

POAC (still defending the supposed "peak oil" story): The point of the article was that the oil supply will plateau and then decline.

POAC (different post, still trying to erase the distinction between breach and overtop): I'll repeat myself: Bryan, let me explain something to you. I work in the alternative media industry. I monitor these things for a living. You type bitter little diatribes and take pictures of little trains [a reference to material on a backup site/experimental blog of mine--BW]. If you don't know something is a talking point the problem may be on your end. The fact is, that for days following the Disaster in NOLA, the wingnuts were parroting that all over the net and on talk radio.

sky of mind: Give it up boss.
This guy doesn't even know what a Talking Point is, how the hell is he gonna manage anything even more difficult? What is unremittingly preposterous is the notion that this guy can actually put whole sentences together, let alone attampt (sic) to have a lucid thought and then discuss it reasonably as he stumbles from point A to point B.

POAC: I think I have it figured out. He's a wanna-be bully. He wants to pick on people, but he can't do it in real life. He's a puss. But on the internet? Super tough guy. Why he can type all night with his stubby cheeto stained fingers about how stupid everyone else is.

I admit that one freaked me out a little bit. How did they know I eat Cheetos?

I was going to move on to other comments, but this stuff is just too hilarious.

POAC (ramblin' on, same post): Correction: not everyone. He has to go after the liberals! Yeah! Cuz everyone picks on the liberals. He reads it on the right wing blogs, he sees it on FOX, he hears it on talk-radio. We can blame everything on liberals. Liberals are so stupid. And he wants to join in. He needs an outlet. He needs to feel superior. He's lonely. Not particularly attractive. Has an unpleasant smell and personality. His affection for miniature trains and an affinity for a blog called Captain's Quarter's (sic) has him thinking that maybe he's gay. Yeah, so he's gotta go out and pick on someone.

Karen: Oh, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan! I'm SO disappointed! I had hoped for a debate worthy of POAC, instead I got to read through arguments so rediculous (sic) and pathetic that they didn't stir me to any kind of passion.

Jubal: Bryan, I honestly believe you are a true conservative. You say so, and I have no reason to doubt it. But I haven't seen it yet. I've seen a snarky little sniper who would argue that a particular person in Dresden was actually killed by a car that went out of control, proving that it was traffic accidents and not incendiary bombing that killed all the Dresdeners.
You're also a crashing bore. Why don't you do conservatism a favor and castrate yourself?

There was plenty more in a similar vein, but you get the idea.