Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
I absolutely agree with what she said. Obama launched his campaign at Bill Ayers house, and he's an admitted terrorist.
considering obama inherited a country in a shitty state...i am willing to give him another go in the office. i mean any half-brain intelligent person knew he wasn't gonna fix country's mounting problems in one term. i mean if he was able to then that would have been quite monumental
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
I absolutely agree with what she said. Obama launched his campaign at Bill Ayers house, and he's an admitted terrorist.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Infers Republicans hold a moral high-ground for not making dirty insinuations. Agrees with Sarah Palin, a major political figure of his party, when she infers that Obama is just kind of into terrorism.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
I absolutely agree with what she said. Obama launched his campaign at Bill Ayers house, and he's an admitted terrorist.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Infers Republicans hold a moral high-ground for not making dirty insinuations. Agrees with Sarah Palin, a major political figure of his party, when she infers that Obama is just kind of into terrorism.
It's not even funny. It's sad.
You may want to go look up what slander means. Specifically, you may want to pay very special attention to the part where something can't be slanderous if it is true.
What Sarah Palin said was true, and I find it hilariously telling that you didn't even contest my previous explanation. In contrast, Romney is not a felon, Paul Ryan did not roll granny off of a cliff (I'm willing to cut democrats a break for literary license here), and Romney has not killed any guy's wife. I'm kinda surprised that you're unable to see the difference.
EDIT: If you wanted to pick a good example of conservatives arguably crossing the line, you should have picked the birther thing. However, that's distinguishable on two grounds. First, it's not something that has been endorsed by the republican party at large, and, second, it's still not as bad as calling Romney a felon or a murderer.
On August 22 2012 14:23 Souma wrote: Speaking of which, is there any genuine interest coming from any of the candidates to legalize marijuana?
Obama has actually been cracking down hard on marijuana lately. Then again, he's been one of the toughest presidents on illegal immigrants before then proposing immigration reforms, but considering that the DoJ has been going after medical dispensaries it's not likely that he's secretly pro-pot. Going after street dealers then advocating tolerance for medical marijuana and pushing for rescheduling would be the analogous course of action, and he ain't doing that.
It's a little sad that the Democrats are lowering themselves to these petty ads and character assassination, but lets not pretend that the Republicans don't do this. I've seen a lot, and I mean a lot of ads from Republican candidates attacking their rivals, both Democrat and Republican, in various elections. Underhanded tactics seem the norm in these things too - Swift Boat aside (seriously, how did draft-dodging, cocaine-snorting Bush manage to attack the fucking decorated war veteran for his record!?), anyone remember McCain getting pounded by his rivals when rumours 'appeared' from nowhere that his adopted child was his secret mixed-race love-child? And why did it take so fucking long for any Republican to come out and say 'Alright, this Birther thing is crap and it's detracting from the real issues that this election should be about'? Honestly, it looks like the Democrats and Obama in particular are lowering themselves to a level the Republicans have been sniping from for a long time.
Personally I loved watching the contest between McCain and Obama - he refused to lower himself and his campaign by indulging in crap like 'Obama is Hitler/the Anti-christ etc' that seems to pervade a significant swathe of his party's demographic. He even called one lady on it during a rally, saying he disagreed with Obama on many things but he wasn't necessarily a bad person. It angered a lot of his supporters and colleagues because they wanted to see the mud-slinging they were used to seeing. To be honest, if McCain hadn't made such a crazy choice in running mate he might have taken it and probably would have done well - no idea if he would have done better or worse than Obama, but he probably would have been a good president. I do have to wonder if the hysteria I've seen from Republican supporters concerning Obama would have been evident in Democrat supporters in rallies...
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
I absolutely agree with what she said. Obama launched his campaign at Bill Ayers house, and he's an admitted terrorist.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Infers Republicans hold a moral high-ground for not making dirty insinuations. Agrees with Sarah Palin, a major political figure of his party, when she infers that Obama is just kind of into terrorism.
It's not even funny. It's sad.
You may want to go look up what slander means. Specifically, you may want to pay very special attention to the part where something can't be slanderous if it is true.
What Sarah Palin said was true, and I find it hilariously telling that you didn't even contest my previous explanation. In contrast, Romney is not a felon, Paul Ryan did not roll granny off of a cliff (I'm willing to cut democrats a break for literary license here), and Romney has not killed any guy's wife. I'm kinda surprised that you're unable to see the difference.
EDIT: If you wanted to pick a good example of conservatives arguably crossing the line, you should have picked the birther thing. However, that's distinguishable on two grounds. First, it's not something that has been endorsed by the republican party at large, and, second, it's still not as bad as calling Romney a felon or a murderer.
Hilariously telling that I don't defend Obama for NOT being a terrorist, because he is friends with a college professor from his home city?
"Palling around with terrorists," is inferring something extremely sinister. It is not a statement of fact, it is sensational rhetoric. I do not need to argue whether Bill Ayers is a terrorist, or whether he is good friends with Obama, because it is completely meaningless either way. Nothing is there to show Obama has any sympathy towards terrorism or enjoys befriending terrorists. It is ridiculous.
You blamed Democrats for inferring despicable things, but you have no problems with Sarah Palin inferring Obama somehow enjoys terrorism. But instead of just accepting that bit of hypocrisy, you actually seek to justify it to me -- guilt by association garbage, where I'm supposed to defend Bill Ayers like it matters. Please be more self-aware, because I know you're not stupid.
Obama did not call Romney a felon. There is no DNC or Democratic CPAC funding TV advertisements claiming Romney is a felon. We are comparing something your actual Vice Presidential candidate said... to what? A youtube commercial?
There is no doubt both sides sling mud and dirt. But you can't argue for your party's moral high-ground and then seek to justify Sarah Palin's rhetoric for being "factually accurate". How audacious do you have to be before you realize you're making ridiculous statements? I understand party loyalty, but when you're so loyal that you say such things... who're you helping?
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
I absolutely agree with what she said. Obama launched his campaign at Bill Ayers house, and he's an admitted terrorist.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Infers Republicans hold a moral high-ground for not making dirty insinuations. Agrees with Sarah Palin, a major political figure of his party, when she infers that Obama is just kind of into terrorism.
It's not even funny. It's sad.
You may want to go look up what slander means. Specifically, you may want to pay very special attention to the part where something can't be slanderous if it is true.
What Sarah Palin said was true, and I find it hilariously telling that you didn't even contest my previous explanation. In contrast, Romney is not a felon, Paul Ryan did not roll granny off of a cliff (I'm willing to cut democrats a break for literary license here), and Romney has not killed any guy's wife. I'm kinda surprised that you're unable to see the difference.
EDIT: If you wanted to pick a good example of conservatives arguably crossing the line, you should have picked the birther thing. However, that's distinguishable on two grounds. First, it's not something that has been endorsed by the republican party at large, and, second, it's still not as bad as calling Romney a felon or a murderer.
Hilariously telling that I don't defend Obama for NOT being a terrorist, because he is friends with a college professor from his home city?
"Palling around with terrorists," is inferring something extremely sinister. It is not a statement of fact, it is sensational rhetoric. I do not need to argue whether Bill Ayers is a terrorist, or whether he is good friends with Obama, because it is completely meaningless either way. Nothing is there to show Obama has any sympathy towards terrorism. It is ridiculous.
You blamed Democrats for inferring despicable things, but you have no problems with Sarah Palin inferring Obama "pals around with terrorists". But instead of just accepting that bit of hypocrisy, you actually seek to justify it to me -- guilt by association garbage, where I'm supposed to defend Bill Ayers. Please be more self-aware, because I know you're not stupid.
Obama did not call Romney a felon. There is no DNC or Democratic CPAC funding TV advertisements claiming Romney is a felon. We are comparing something your actual Vice Presidential candidate said... to what? A youtube commercial?
Republicans do not have any sort of moral high-ground in discourse. You can't argue that and then seek to justify the vile rhetoric Sarah Palin brought to this country. How audacious do you have to be before you realize you're making ridiculous statements? I understand party loyalty, but when you're so loyal that you say such things... who're you helping?
Wow, there's some hackery of the highest order going on here.
Again, what Palin said is true. Go back and read the full context of what she said, because she expressly was referring to Bill Ayers. Guess what? HE IS A TERRORIST. BOMBING THE PENTAGON AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS IS TERRORISM. If you want to argue over whether he's a "pal" of Obama's, be my guest. I suggest that the mere fact that Obama launched his election campaign from Ayers's house is dispositive.
So yeah, you can say that what Palin said is "vile" all you want. However, the fact of the matter is that she was merely truthfully reporting on Obama's "vile" act of associating with someone like Bill Ayers.
Obama did not call Romney a felon, however, Stephanie Cutter (one of his top campaign managers) basically did when talking about his relationship with Bain Capital after he left to go work at the Olympics. The DNC might as well have called Romney a murderer in the Scoptic (or however you spell his name) ad that it ran last month, and Obama's campaign has already been caught lying about whether it knew anything about the guy's story before the ad ran (Cutter was on the conference call earlier this year when the poor fool told his story).
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
I absolutely agree with what she said. Obama launched his campaign at Bill Ayers house, and he's an admitted terrorist.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Infers Republicans hold a moral high-ground for not making dirty insinuations. Agrees with Sarah Palin, a major political figure of his party, when she infers that Obama is just kind of into terrorism.
It's not even funny. It's sad.
You may want to go look up what slander means. Specifically, you may want to pay very special attention to the part where something can't be slanderous if it is true.
What Sarah Palin said was true, and I find it hilariously telling that you didn't even contest my previous explanation. In contrast, Romney is not a felon, Paul Ryan did not roll granny off of a cliff (I'm willing to cut democrats a break for literary license here), and Romney has not killed any guy's wife. I'm kinda surprised that you're unable to see the difference.
EDIT: If you wanted to pick a good example of conservatives arguably crossing the line, you should have picked the birther thing. However, that's distinguishable on two grounds. First, it's not something that has been endorsed by the republican party at large, and, second, it's still not as bad as calling Romney a felon or a murderer.
Hilariously telling that I don't defend Obama for NOT being a terrorist, because he is friends with a college professor from his home city?
"Palling around with terrorists," is inferring something extremely sinister. It is not a statement of fact, it is sensational rhetoric. I do not need to argue whether Bill Ayers is a terrorist, or whether he is good friends with Obama, because it is completely meaningless either way. Nothing is there to show Obama has any sympathy towards terrorism. It is ridiculous.
You blamed Democrats for inferring despicable things, but you have no problems with Sarah Palin inferring Obama "pals around with terrorists". But instead of just accepting that bit of hypocrisy, you actually seek to justify it to me -- guilt by association garbage, where I'm supposed to defend Bill Ayers. Please be more self-aware, because I know you're not stupid.
Obama did not call Romney a felon. There is no DNC or Democratic CPAC funding TV advertisements claiming Romney is a felon. We are comparing something your actual Vice Presidential candidate said... to what? A youtube commercial?
Republicans do not have any sort of moral high-ground in discourse. You can't argue that and then seek to justify the vile rhetoric Sarah Palin brought to this country. How audacious do you have to be before you realize you're making ridiculous statements? I understand party loyalty, but when you're so loyal that you say such things... who're you helping?
Wow, there's some hackery of the highest order going on here.
Again, what Palin said is true. Go back and read the full context of what she said, because she expressly was referring to Bill Ayers. Guess what? HE IS A TERRORIST. BOMBING THE PENTAGON AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS IS TERRORISM. If you want to argue over whether he's a "pal" of Obama's, be my guest. I suggest that the mere fact that Obama launched his election campaign from Ayers's house is dispositive.
So yeah, you can say that what Palin said is "vile" all you want. However, the fact of the matter is that she was merely truthfully reporting on Obama's "vile" act of associating with someone like Bill Ayers.
Obama did not call Romney a felon, however, Stephanie Cutter (one of his top campaign managers) basically did when talking about his relationship with Bain Capital after he left to go work at the Olympics. The DNC might as well have called Romney a murderer in the Scoptic (or however you spell his name) ad that it ran last month, and Obama's campaign has already been caught lying about whether it knew anything about the guy's story before the ad ran (Cutter was on the conference call earlier this year when the poor fool told his story).
Did she, or didn't she?
MIGHT they have? Or DID they?
Jesus Christ.
Sarah Palin didn't actually call Obama a terrorist.
When it comes to Stephanie Cutter, you want to argue the inference she made, only mentioning what she was inferring. But with Sarah Palin, you want to argue only the facts behind what she said, as if "palling around with terrorists" is some sort of simple, factual statement without any insinuation attached to it.
I've pointed this hypocrisy out before. Wonder if it will sink in. "Hackery of the highest order?" I'm just trying to make you accept the fact that your party doesn't hold some moral high-ground when it comes to mudslinging, and all you can answer with is to sling more mud. Pure, pure mud.
But fine, let's talk about Bill Ayers. He is a college professor in Chicago. Obama is a State Senator from Chicago. They have dinners together. They are friends.
So. Fucking. What?
This justifies the Vice Presidential candidate accusing the next President of "palling with terrorists"? That isn't making an undeserved insinuation?
Call me a political hack, that is completely meaningless coming from you. Partisanship has made you completely illogical and impossible to reason with. Double standards in every post you make. "Democrats make dirty insinuations, but please justify to me why Obama is friends with a terrorist."
Basically, you're everything that is wrong with politics in America. Congrats.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
I absolutely agree with what she said. Obama launched his campaign at Bill Ayers house, and he's an admitted terrorist.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Infers Republicans hold a moral high-ground for not making dirty insinuations. Agrees with Sarah Palin, a major political figure of his party, when she infers that Obama is just kind of into terrorism.
It's not even funny. It's sad.
You may want to go look up what slander means. Specifically, you may want to pay very special attention to the part where something can't be slanderous if it is true.
What Sarah Palin said was true, and I find it hilariously telling that you didn't even contest my previous explanation. In contrast, Romney is not a felon, Paul Ryan did not roll granny off of a cliff (I'm willing to cut democrats a break for literary license here), and Romney has not killed any guy's wife. I'm kinda surprised that you're unable to see the difference.
EDIT: If you wanted to pick a good example of conservatives arguably crossing the line, you should have picked the birther thing. However, that's distinguishable on two grounds. First, it's not something that has been endorsed by the republican party at large, and, second, it's still not as bad as calling Romney a felon or a murderer.
Hilariously telling that I don't defend Obama for NOT being a terrorist, because he is friends with a college professor from his home city?
"Palling around with terrorists," is inferring something extremely sinister. It is not a statement of fact, it is sensational rhetoric. I do not need to argue whether Bill Ayers is a terrorist, or whether he is good friends with Obama, because it is completely meaningless either way. Nothing is there to show Obama has any sympathy towards terrorism. It is ridiculous.
You blamed Democrats for inferring despicable things, but you have no problems with Sarah Palin inferring Obama "pals around with terrorists". But instead of just accepting that bit of hypocrisy, you actually seek to justify it to me -- guilt by association garbage, where I'm supposed to defend Bill Ayers. Please be more self-aware, because I know you're not stupid.
Obama did not call Romney a felon. There is no DNC or Democratic CPAC funding TV advertisements claiming Romney is a felon. We are comparing something your actual Vice Presidential candidate said... to what? A youtube commercial?
Republicans do not have any sort of moral high-ground in discourse. You can't argue that and then seek to justify the vile rhetoric Sarah Palin brought to this country. How audacious do you have to be before you realize you're making ridiculous statements? I understand party loyalty, but when you're so loyal that you say such things... who're you helping?
Wow, there's some hackery of the highest order going on here.
Again, what Palin said is true. Go back and read the full context of what she said, because she expressly was referring to Bill Ayers. Guess what? HE IS A TERRORIST. BOMBING THE PENTAGON AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS IS TERRORISM. If you want to argue over whether he's a "pal" of Obama's, be my guest. I suggest that the mere fact that Obama launched his election campaign from Ayers's house is dispositive.
So yeah, you can say that what Palin said is "vile" all you want. However, the fact of the matter is that she was merely truthfully reporting on Obama's "vile" act of associating with someone like Bill Ayers.
Obama did not call Romney a felon, however, Stephanie Cutter (one of his top campaign managers) basically did when talking about his relationship with Bain Capital after he left to go work at the Olympics. The DNC might as well have called Romney a murderer in the Scoptic (or however you spell his name) ad that it ran last month, and Obama's campaign has already been caught lying about whether it knew anything about the guy's story before the ad ran (Cutter was on the conference call earlier this year when the poor fool told his story).
Did she, or didn't she?
Sarah Palin didn't actually call Obama a terrorist.
When it comes to Stephanie Cutter, you want to argue the inference. But with Sarah Palin, you want to argue only the facts behind what she said --- even though this whole argument is about Democrats "inferring" things.
I've pointed this hypocrisy out before. Wonder if it will sink in. "Hackery of the highest order?" I'm just trying to make you accept the fact that your party doesn't hold some moral high-ground when it comes to mudslinging, and all you can answer with is to sling more mud. Pure, pure mud.
But fine, let's talk about Bill Ayers. He is a college professor in Chicago. Obama is a State Senator from Chicago. They have dinners together. They are friends.
Bill Ayers is the kind of egalitarian revolutionary who lives like a plutocrat in his tony Chicago home and has said on record that he wished his bombings had been more successful. But so fucking what, he's a college professor now.
When it comes to Stephanie Cutter, you want to argue the inference she made. But with Sarah Palin, you want to argue only the facts behind what she said --- even though this whole argument is about Democrats "inferring" things.
What was Palin inferring that was inaccurate? She made a statement of fact, that Obama was and is good friends with Bill Ayers, proud and unrepetant former member of the Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that only failed at killing lots of people because American leftist revolutionaries were (and are, look at Occupy) spectacularly incompetent. Judging people by the friends they keep is human nature, fair or unfair.
Or are you just saying Palin was inferring something that she may or may not have actually been inferring? Was she inferring that Obama was a terrorist himself? That's silly.
Stephanie Cutter can meanwhile infer things that are not true period and the best you can do is oh well Sarah Palin said something 100% accurate but she was in my opinion inferring something that wasn't! Okee doke.
It's a bad example, but if you genuinely believe that both parties haven't been childish and inflammatory since previous elections then you are seriously being way too selective about the things you read and watch.
The whole Bill Ayers thing is the perfect example of the rampant liberal bias in the American media. Obama's relationship to Ayers alone should have automatically made him an unviable candidate politically. The only reason why it didn't is because basically no one other than Fox News and talk radio reported on it for what it was, so most Americans were generally unaware of the connection. Can you imagine what would happen if someone found out that Romney had launched his campaign from the house of someone who used to bomb abortion clinics? Do you think that we'd ever hear the end of it in the news? It's absolutely disgraceful.
On August 23 2012 05:27 DeepElemBlues wrote: Bill Ayers is the kind of egalitarian revolutionary who lives like a plutocrat in his tony Chicago home and has said on record that he wished his bombings had been more successful. But so fucking what, he's a college professor now.
When it comes to Stephanie Cutter, you want to argue the inference she made. But with Sarah Palin, you want to argue only the facts behind what she said --- even though this whole argument is about Democrats "inferring" things.
What was Palin inferring that was inaccurate? She made a statement of fact, that Obama was and is good friends with Bill Ayers, proud and unrepetant former member of the Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that only failed at killing lots of people because American leftist revolutionaries were (and are, look at Occupy) spectacularly incompetent. Judging people by the friends they keep is human nature, fair or unfair.
Or are you just saying Palin was inferring something that she may or may not have actually been inferring?
Stephanie Cutter can meanwhile infer things that are not true period and the best you can do is oh well Sarah Palin said something 100% accurate but she was in my opinion inferring something that wasn't! Okee doke.
Let me refer to you the post that started this argument:
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
I don't have to defend Stephanie Cutter's inferences because I'm not the one claiming my party is somehow clean. Both sides sling mud. I can accept Democrats are insinuating that Romney's financial dealing are less than kosher, and perhaps less than legal.
We aren't even talking about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, are we? I'll let that shit-pile speak for itself in answering xDaunts question.
A State Senator is going to have a lot of friends. One of them has a background in political criminality. Terrorism. It doesn't justify statements of him "palling with terrorists".
Oh, and Sarah Palin wasn't accurate. You know why? She used plural. Terrorists. More than one. It suggests that Obama is friends with Bill, not because he's a college professor, but because he just kind of likes terrorists.
Not that it matters. This argument was about political parties making insinuations, inferences. This is just xDaunt completely avoiding a subject he's uncomfortable with by completely avoiding his previous statements and arguing whatever he feels like, post to post. But I find it especially galling in this case, that he's going on about Bill Ayers, as if there was nothing insinuating about that whole manufactured garbage.
I can't believe people are still trying to justify this guilt-by-association crap that was brought up in the 2008 campaign. did it help you then? No. It didn't.
On August 23 2012 05:27 DeepElemBlues wrote: Bill Ayers is the kind of egalitarian revolutionary who lives like a plutocrat in his tony Chicago home and has said on record that he wished his bombings had been more successful. But so fucking what, he's a college professor now.
When it comes to Stephanie Cutter, you want to argue the inference she made. But with Sarah Palin, you want to argue only the facts behind what she said --- even though this whole argument is about Democrats "inferring" things.
What was Palin inferring that was inaccurate? She made a statement of fact, that Obama was and is good friends with Bill Ayers, proud and unrepetant former member of the Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that only failed at killing lots of people because American leftist revolutionaries were (and are, look at Occupy) spectacularly incompetent. Judging people by the friends they keep is human nature, fair or unfair.
Or are you just saying Palin was inferring something that she may or may not have actually been inferring?
Stephanie Cutter can meanwhile infer things that are not true period and the best you can do is oh well Sarah Palin said something 100% accurate but she was in my opinion inferring something that wasn't! Okee doke.
Let me refer to you the post that started this argument:
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
I don't have to defend Stephanie Cutter's inferences because I'm not the one claiming my party is somehow clean. Both sides sling mud. I can accept Democrats are insinuating that Romney's financial dealing are less than kosher, and perhaps less than legal.
We aren't even talking about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, are we? I'll let that shit-pile speak for itself in answering xDaunts question.
A State Senator is going to have a lot of friends. One of them has a background in political criminality. Terrorism. It doesn't justify statements of him "palling with terrorists".
Oh, and Sarah Palin wasn't accurate. You know why? She used plural. Terrorists. More than one. It suggests that Obama is friends with Bill, not because he's a college professor, but because he just kind of likes terrorists.
Not that it matters. This argument was about political parties making insinuations, inferences. This is just xDaunt completely avoiding a subject he's uncomfortable with by completely avoiding his previous statements and arguing whatever he feels like, post to post. But I find it especially galling in this case, that he's going on about Bill Ayers, as if there was nothing insinuating about that whole manufactured garbage.
I can't believe people are still trying to justify this guilt-by-association crap that was brought up in the 2008 campaign. did it help you then? No. It didn't.
...and people wonder why I don't always respond to everything thrown my way. All too often, all I see is delusional crap like this come back my way.
Anyway, to put a bow-tie on this discussion, I'm more than happy to let my previous posts speak for themselves.
We aren't even talking about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, are we? I'll let that shit-pile speak for itself in answering xDaunts question.
What about it? John Kerry lied repeatedly - Christmas in Cambodia? - and that wasn't even their main beef with him. That was just what the media focused on. Kerry throwing back his medals and trashing his comrades as being "reminiscent of Genghis Khan" in testimony to Congress was why they were really pissed off at him.
A State Senator is going to have a lot of friends. One of them has a background in political criminality. Terrorism. It doesn't justify statements of him "palling with terrorists".
If you say so. Well, no. Your characterization of their relationship minimizes it to an incredible degree. Bill Ayers was not and is not some random Chicago radical who Barack Obama happened to know. The man started his candidacy for that State Senatorship in Ayers' living room. Party at Bill Ayers house, donate money to Barack's campaign. The cream of the Chicago radical chic crop attending.
Oh, and Sarah Palin wasn't accurate. You know why? She used plural. Terrorists. More than one. It suggests that Obama is friends with Bill, not because he's a college professor, but because he just kind of likes terrorists.
Bill Ayers' wife, also a terrorist. Bernadine Dohrn. Also a member of the Weather Underground. That's where she and Bill fell in love, at the meetings planning bombings and how to liquidate the bourgeoisie and whatnot. So... you're the one not being accurate.
It suggests that Barack Obama is friends with Bill because Bill is a crusty old socialist revolutionary who says things Barack agrees with about the plutocracy and the exploitation of the proletariat and Barack doesn't give two shits that he was a terrorist.
Not that it matters. This argument was about political parties making insinuations, inferences. This is just xDaunt completely avoiding a subject he's uncomfortable with by completely avoiding his previous statements and arguing whatever he feels like, post to post. But I find it especially galling in this case, that he's going on about Bill Ayers, as if there was nothing insinuating about that whole manufactured garbage.
Again, if you say so, and well, no, because making statements of fact and making bullshit inferences are two different things. No matter how strenuously you argue otherwise and indulge in waah-waah.
Leporello, thanks for the good posts, I'm pretty sure everyone else sees right through the hypocrisy of xDaunt's stance. Here's Jon Stewart on the topic:
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT09/refresh/AL0912W5_NL+gif/175223W5_NL_sm.gif)
