'When John McCain was my captive'

[Damocles]

I'm done with you on this one.

If you want to pretend that Obama is responsible for the content of any and all 527 ads that come out against McCain because he was able to convince his big money donors not to give money to two prominent 527 groups please feel free to do so. I wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your hackitude.

Again. Obama has shown a remarkable ability to control the message by controlling his donors, this can work against him later if he loses that control. Even if you pretend that it wouldn't.

As for "done with me" it is because you continue to ignore what I have said to fight a strawman, and your argument is therefore weak.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again. Obama has shown a remarkable ability to control the message by controlling his donors, this can work against him later if he loses that control. Even if you pretend that it wouldn't.

As for "done with me" it is because you continue to ignore what I have said to fight a strawman, and your argument is therefore weak.

I'm not ignoring what you are saying. I'm simply pointing out that what you are saying is unadulterated horseshit.

Obama doesn't control the message of any 527s anywhere. Never has, never will. Ever. You keep pretending otherwise because you're a hack.

That is all.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not ignoring what you are saying. I'm simply pointing out that what you are saying is unadulterated horseshit.

Obama doesn't control the message of any 527s anywhere. Never has, never will. Ever. You keep pretending otherwise because you're a hack.

That is all.

It is not. He has been remarkable in his control of the message from his campaign, it is his goal to keep that control, as his campaign understands that loss of that control will be detrimental to his campaign.

What is "horsepoop" is your insistence that it would not matter if he lost that control. Your argument is weak, because you refuse to see any 'weakness' even when it is currently a strength.

 

[Bonestorm]

It is not. He has been remarkable in his control of the message from his campaign, it is his goal to keep that control, as his campaign understands that loss of that control will be detrimental to his campaign.

What is "horsepoop" is your insistence that it would not matter if he lost that control. Your argument is weak, because you refuse to see any 'weakness' even when it is currently a strength.

My insistence is that Obama has no control over 527s in the first place so debating what would happen if he "lost control" is irrelevant.

He can control the message from his campaign and he can exercise some control over his donors, but he has no control over 527s or their message. He cannot "lose control" of 527s and their message.

If the 527s do stupid shit, they do stupid shit, and it may be detrimental to his campaign but not because he failed to "control" them when he could as you originally asserted.

That is all.

 

[Cypress]

Total BS. I was not a "swiftboater". I argued against their attacks because I believed that Kerry would gain support from attacking a veteran, just as I know McCain will.

The closest I got to it was saying he wasn't in Cambodia in Christmas, while agreeing his logs showed he was there in February.

To be fair, you weren't a swiftboater in the way Dixie and WRL were.

Your MO is to fly under the radar, and set up a case for plausible deniability.

I'm almost postive you questioned the veracity of some of Kerry's claims of missions to cambodia, I'm almost positive you offered some level of sympathy directed towards false swiftboat lies about how kerry earned some of his purple hearts, and I'm positive you were blabbing about how Kerry should release his medical records to prove he didn't lie about his purple hearts. Which is exactly what the swiftboaters were cynically harrassing kerry about. Why exactly did kerry have to prove anything to swiftboat liars, but McCain gets a pass for proving his toruture allegations?

No, you weren't among the most horrid of the swiftboat apologists. But, be honest: I don't think you weren't exactly crestfallen that swiftboat lies helped sink kerry.

 

[Cancel7]

"Your MO is to fly under the radar, and set up a case for plausible deniability. "

I have to say Damo, that describes you pretty well.

 

[Damocles]

My insistence is that Obama has no control over 527s in the first place so debating what would happen if he "lost control" is irrelevant.

He can control the message from his campaign and he can exercise some control over his donors, but he has no control over 527s or their message. He cannot "lose control" of 527s and their message.

If the 527s do stupid shit, they do stupid shit, and it may be detrimental to his campaign but not because he failed to "control" them when he could as you originally asserted.

That is all.

Total rubbish. Pretending that donor levels has no bearing on the 527s is just pretense with no basis in reality. He currently is controlling the message admirably, it will harm him if that control is lost. It is something I get from reading articles with quotes from his campaign, not from magic.

I think it is sad that you can't see past your strawman to the larger picture that I speak of, but that is what is happening. You don't want to hear it, so you won't understand it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Total rubbish. Pretending that donor levels has no bearing on the 527s is just pretense with no basis in reality. He currently is controlling the message admirably, it will harm him if that control is lost. It is something I get from reading articles with quotes from his campaign, not from magic.

I think it is sad that you can't see past your strawman to the larger picture that I speak of, but that is what is happening. You don't want to hear it, so you won't understand it.

Please describe my strawman.

You keep insisting that Obama's ability to prevent his donors from funding two 527 groups means that he has control over what any and all 527s do. It's horseshit, of the finest variety, as I said previously.

And I'm not suggesting that Obama doesn't have good message control. he does. And I'm not pretending that donor levels have no bearing on 527s. They do.

Once again, all I am saying is that Obama cannot and does not control the 527s and should not be held responsible for what any random 527 group does simply because he prevented his donors from funding two of the bigger 527 groups. You contend otherwise. Your contention is wrong.

You are either too clever by half or exceedingly dim-witted. I've long suspected the former, but am increasingly leaning towards the latter.

 

[Damocles]

Please describe my strawman.

You keep insisting that Obama's ability to prevent his donors from funding two 527 groups means that he has control over what any and all 527s do. It's horseshit, of the finest variety, as I said previously.

And I'm not suggesting that Obama doesn't have good message control. he does. And I'm not pretending that donor levels have no bearing on 527s. They do.

Once again, all I am saying is that Obama cannot and does not control the 527s and should not be held responsible for what any random 527 group does simply because he prevented his donors from funding two of the bigger 527 groups. You contend otherwise. Your contention is wrong.

You are either too clever by half or exceedingly dim-witted. I've long suspected the former, but am increasingly leaning towards the latter.

I do not insist he has "control over the 527s" other than he is controlling the donations they are getting. Through that method he works to continue to control the message because if he does not he knows that his campaign will suffer for it. Pretending that I am saying that means he has "total control over 527s" is preposterous strawman fighting.

As for the sorry attempt at ad hominem at the end there. I totally expect that from you. I don't think I've ever participated in an argument with you without them.

 

[Epicurus]

This is why intelligent people should only debate idiots.

Could you imagine an argument more boring than this one? No, I submit that you cannot.

"RUBBISH, MY ARGUMENT IS THIS."

"WHAT TRIPE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS A STRAWMAN"

"A STRAWMAN? BY WHAT MEANS?"

"BY ALL MEANS, SIR!"

 

[Bonestorm]

I do not insist he has "control over the 527s" other than he is controlling the donations they are getting. Through that method he works to continue to control the message because if he does not he knows that his campaign will suffer for it. Pretending that I am saying that means he has "total control over 527s" is preposterous strawman fighting.

As for the sorry attempt at ad hominem at the end there. I totally expect that from you. I don't think I've ever participated in an argument with you without them.

Huh?

Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
He will, just like Bush did about Kerry.

The difference is in the demonstrable level of control Obama has over the 527s. If they decide to run with it regardless it will hurt Obama after his recent display with said control.

You're nuts. This is the post that started this whole excursion. You flatly asserted that Obama has a demonstrable level of control over 527s. Donors didn't enter the equation until I called out your bullshit. Yet, you refuse to back down.

As for ad hominem attacks (getting in all the lingo on this thread. strawman, ad hominen) I only resort to them when faced with someone who is full of shit and refuses to admit it. Such is the case here.

 

[Damocles]

Huh?




You're nuts. This is the post that started this whole excursion. You flatly asserted that Obama has a demonstrable level of control over 527s. Donors didn't enter the equation until I called out your bullshit. Yet, you refuse to back down.

As for ad hominem attacks (getting in all the lingo on this thread. strawman, ad hominen) I only resort to them when faced with someone who is full of shit and refuses to admit it. Such is the case here.

Where does that say "perfect" control?

I stated where I believe that control comes from (donations) in later posts when you asked what I meant, you later suggested that donations were what he controlled too...

Shocker... what you suggested is exactly how I had said that he had an amazing amount of control....

Then you proceeded to pretend that I have argued what I have not. That is what a strawman is.

You suggested that I believed what you wanted to argue about, then proceeded to argue on that point regardless of any level of explanation offered thereafter, blissfully pretending that no conversation was taking place other than what you imagined I had said.

So, when asked for a deeper explanation I provided it, you just refused to comprehend it and pretended it never happened and kept repeating this inanity as if that further conversation never existed.

 

[Damocles]

As for ad hominem attacks (getting in all the lingo on this thread. strawman, ad hominen) I only resort to them when faced with someone who is full of shit and refuses to admit it. Such is the case here.

Total bull testicles. It is a consistent theme of your arguments when you are faced with what you refuse to comprehend. It isn't that you can't comprehend the explanation, it is that you refuse to believe it was ever presented.

 

[Bonestorm]

Where does that say "perfect" control?

I stated where I believe that control comes from (donations) in later posts, you later suggested that donations were what he controlled too...

Shocker.

Then you proceeded to pretend that I have argued what I have not. That is what a strawman is.

You suggested that I believed what you wanted to argue about, then proceeded to argue on that point regardless of any level of explanation offered thereafter, blissfully pretending that no conversation was taking place other than what you imagined I had said.

So, when requested for a deeper explanation I provided it, you just refused to comprehend it and pretended it never happened.

So we are in agreement then. Obama doesn't control 527s and thus shouldn't be held responsible for the content of their advertisements. His efforts to undermine the ability of 527s to run ads by requesting that his donors refuse to contribute to them is laudable but by no means perfect and he should not suffer if his efforts are imperfect.

That was easy.

 

[Damocles]

So we are in agreement then. Obama doesn't control 527s and thus shouldn't be held responsible for the content of their advertisements. His efforts to undermine the ability of 527s to run ads by requesting that his donors refuse to contribute to them is laudable but by no means perfect and he should not suffer if his efforts are imperfect.

That was easy.

We are only partially in agreement.

He controls the larger portion of the flow of cash to them, thus controlling his message. If he loses that control, I believe it will be detrimental to his campaign regardless of whether there should be blame. It is part of the risk of that first visible success.

It has been what I have been talking about the entire time.

So "should not" isn't what I am speaking of...

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh control but not perfect control. Same old Damo wiggle.

 

[Epicurus]

Damo has succeeded in making this argument so boring that even he has lost interest.

 

[uscitizen]

Damo has succeeded in making this argument so boring that even he has lost interest.

That is his way when he is losing.

and he is pretty darned good at it too.

 

[Damocles]

Damo has succeeded in making this argument so boring that even he has lost interest.

M'eh.

I just have work to do.

 

[Cypress]

blackpanther and cypress are two lowly pieces of shit.
Obama is going to beat McFossil like a rented mule without stooping lower than any civilized human would. You both deserve an ass whoppin and I hope you get it.

Piss off shorty.

Do you know how many millions of times I've had Dixie, WRL, you, or superfreak tell me, desh, BAC, and others to stop being mean to republican politicians over the last few years? And it always comes with the warning that it will "backfire" and cause Bush's poll numbers to go up and it will benefit the republicans.

Guess what shorty? Ever since the liberal net roots and liberal activists learned to fight like republicans (dirty and mean) in the last few years, and ever since the Bush-bashing has become relentless and non-stop, Bush poll numbers have done nothing but crater. And the republican party has become nothing short of a joke. Lifelong republicans in cyberspace and elsewhere have had to resort to claiming that they're "independents", that they "never really liked bush", and they have been shamed into running away at full sprint away from bush and republicans.

You know what I think shorty? I think when republicans tell you to stop being mean, it's because they don't want the tactics they've successfully used for years turned against them. To them, Bill Clinton was a cocaine-running, Vince Foster-murdering criminal; Al Gore was a serial liar; John Kerry was a fake war hero who lied to get medals; Barack Obama is a radical black muslim or a racist black christian. Depending on what day of the week it is.

Yeah shorty. Republicans don't want their own tactics used against them. 90% of them were cheering the swift boat liars on. And the other 10% didn't raise a finger to object to it, or stop it. Out of earshot of liberals, that 10% was yucking it up with fellow republicans about fake purple hearts, or at a minimum secretly praying that the Kerry smears would give Bush another shot for a second term.

Stop being mean to republicans? Surely you jest, shorty.