Time to crush the GOP.
Sen. Barack Obama notified supporters Thursday that he has decided not to accept public financing for his general election campaign.
Sen. Barack Obama repeatedly broke campaign fundraising records during the Democratic primary season.In an e-mail message, Obama said the decision means that his campaign will forgo about $85 million in public funds that would be available when he officially becomes the Democratic presidential nominee in August.
“It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” Obama wrote. “But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”
From Oliver’s endorsement:
… and …
Huh?
Republican VOTERS are not the enemy. Republican POLICIES, POLITICIANS, and other public figures (like Norquist, Rove etc.) _are_ the enemy, and deserve to be wrecked at every opportunity.
You see August, SaveFarris is either a moron or a liar.
He is trying to pretend that treating your political opponent as, you know, the opposition who you want to defeat is the same as treating them no better than Al-Qaeda. It is sadly quite common for people on the right to call those on the left traitors, or words to that effect. And it is not just talk show hosts and those trying to sell books, but it goes all the way to the top. ‘You are either with us, or against us.’
By the way, this is a very smart move by Obama. McCain has already cheated the system and there’s no way you can trust him not to cheat again. And if McCain complains, Obama and his team can point out that a.) McCain broke the law. B.) campaign finance reform was once a core value of his, which will piss off the Republicans. And c.) he’s flip-flopped, again, which will piss off the independents.
I think I know where SaveFarris is trying to go and it is a worthwhile argument to pursue from the right. There are two different statements he’s trying to throw out without explanation.
The first concerns the fact that Obama made a few statements a year ago claiming he would accept public financing and sit down with McCain on this issue.
The second involves a perspective that sees Obama’s comments about McCain as attacks on an enemy.
His flaws on the latter can be viewed by seeing that Obama’s campaign has pointedly brought fact into the argument and made it’s opponent the current regime and McCain. This is not demonizing half of the country as Bush has done in the past eight years, this is attacking clear political positions that the country largely is against.
On the first argument, there is some merit to this. Obama’s statements on financing don’t bring this fact into play. He merely states that his decision was made because he felt the public system is broken and that his support from small donors is a better representation of Americans than treasury funds.
I agree with this, because of the ways that Obama has raised his funds and because of his recent dismissal of donations from 527s and the like, BUT in order to defeat this argument, Obama should either state outright that he changed his views, or make the attempt to sit with McCain and discuss this issue on that front. I only say this because while we all could easily list 15 or 20 statements made by McCain a year ago that he’s reneged on openly, this gives opponents of Obama a way to drown out that argument with the standard Rublican noise. “Yeah yeah so what that John McCain has changed his position on torture, Obama isn’t even running the fair campaign he pledged a year ago. That’s a fundamental decision that clearly shows where this candidates character lies.”
I think arguments like this are specious and ignorant, but look at the past 8 years and tell me that doesn’t work like a top with our media climate.
Given that McCain was responsible for the farce known as campaign finance reform, I don’t think he has much standing to lecture Obama (or anyone else for that matter) on how they fund their political campaigns.
From Obama’s side, all this means is that he’s a politician, if anyone needed any more evidence. It’s in his obvious interest to not accept public funds, so he’ll go back on the agreement he had and make up a justification for doing so. John McCain would probably do the exact same thing if their positions were reversed.
dr4lom
this gives opponents of Obama a way to drown out that argument with the standard Rublican noise. “Yeah yeah so what that John McCain has changed his position on torture, Obama isn’t even running the fair campaign he pledged a year ago. That’s a fundamental decision that clearly shows where this candidates character lies.”
Let ‘em. Fuck ‘em.
We don’t play it like that.
dr4lom gets partial credit.
With Obama’s thin resume, all he has to go on is his word. And if his word is no good…
The second quote is Oliver rallying behind Obama because Obama, at the time, claimed to be all about bringing the country together, rallying citizens around him to put aside their differences and work toward the common good. Playing by the rules, doing what was fair and right: all in the name of moving the country forward together. Again, from Oliver’s endorsement: “Sen. Obama has made the idea of American unity one of the central principles that guide him.”
With today’s announcement, he declares the other half of the country to be intractable, unreasonable, not worthy of respect, nor worth treating in a civilized manner. The goal of “unity” has long been thrown out in favor of expediency.
Of course, this is a political race. And politics, as they say, is bloodsport. For someone to win, someone else has to lose. Obama’s certainly not the first to want to “crush” his opponents. Nor is he the first to claim his opponents aren’t worthy of respect and must be soundly defeated by any means necessary. And he certainly isn’t the first (nor is he the only one in this race) who flips and flops on any and every issue. But he *is* the first (or at least the first in a while) to try to do so all the while exclusively selling “hope and change” and being “a new breed of politician”.
The candidate Oliver fell in love with, the candidate Oliver threw his support behind is no longer the same candidate before us today.
And he certainly isn’t the first (nor is he the only one in this race) who flips and flops on any and every issue.
From now on can we agree to a moratorium on the meaningless word ‘flip-flopper?’ It was dumb in 2004, and it’s dumb now.
Or maybe he’s just saying McCain and the Republican party election machine is untrustworthy. As we know, McCain has already accepted public financing only to back out when he decided it was more advantageous for him to do so. McCain complains about the influence of Washington lobbyists and then has his campaign run by them. Obama on the other hand refuses all money from them.
It’s clear who has the character here.
Farris, what the FUCK are you talking about? What “other half” of the country? The big lobbyist PACS? Mega corporations? 527 groups? what “Other half” of the country is Obama leaving behind by not giving up his financial advantage going into the general?
He never vowed to go the public finance route, he never swore to do it, he said they’d talk about it. McCain gamed the system, so all bets are off.
Obama, at the time, claimed to be all about bringing the country together, rallying citizens around him to put aside their differences and work toward the common good.
I’d say he’s done a pretty good job at that.
27% is not “half the country”, pal, and you are grasping at straws. Admit it, you got nothing.
Midder, seems like a distinction without a difference:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php
>It’s clear who has the character here.
Yep. None of the above. How old are you guys? Only when I was in my 20’s did I try to ascribe noble qualities to politicians. There are only so many dissappointments you can take before you realize that politicians, regardless of party, just want power and/or money, and are willing to do just about anything to get it. Obama hasn’t done anything to suggest he is different, unless you count giving a lot of flowery talk.
“With Obama’s thin resume, all he has to go on is his word. And if his word is no good…”
Thin resume? It’s better than a few others who were elected president.
Also, Obama never said he would take public financing. He said he would negotiate with the Republican nominee. And since the Republican nominee already broke the law with regards to public financing, there’s no way to negotiate.
“With today’s announcement, he declares the other half of the country to be intractable, unreasonable, not worthy of respect, nor worth treating in a civilized manner. The goal of “unity” has long been thrown out in favor of expediency.”
Are you on crack?
“The candidate Oliver fell in love with, the candidate Oliver threw his support behind is no longer the same candidate before us today.”
Clearly you are.
I hope Obama is going to help kill telecom immunity when it comes to the Senate. It’s pretty clear the House is going to pass it.
Well thanks for partial credit, but it would be easier to see any point you’re making with some actual description of what you’re referring to. I don’t believe Obama has alienated as single American citizen with his comments. I don’t believe he is against anybody save John McCain. If you believe that half of the country supports John McCain and his Bush policies, that’s a pretty unsupported opinion. If you’re transposing Obama’s arguments with McCain to this portion of the population, again you’re stretching quite a bit.
This is politics and this decision was made because it was best for Obama’s campaign. Just look at the FECs website. Obama has raised over 120 million dollars in donations UNDER $200. That is not only one of the greatest grass roots accomplishments of all time in this country, but it also proves that this campaign’s main financier is small budget America.
Not to throw this conversation out the window, but I have another campaign finance topic I’m curious to hear the rest of… Whatever happened with the FEC violation that McCain made during the primary? He opted for public finance, spent more than the cap, requested(more like told) the FEC to release him from public finance, but only AFTER he’d used the money as collateral on a private loan. Did McCain ever get officially charged or was he just warned? Did the Senate ever approve enough commissioners to the FEC to even make a ruling? Is John McCain actually using public finance for the general election which doesn’t start until Sept. or is he still on the fence for the GE? I tried finding out about this, but the only recent news I found suggested that last week the McCain-Feingold rules were rejected in federal court. Can someone clear this mess up for me? Answers to these questions would paint a clearer picture of McCain’s actual position on public finance and whether or not he’s even going to follow the rules if he is accepting those matched donations.
Last thing I want to say in case I don’t get the chance:
It’s very easy to dismiss errors on either side as just standard politics. It’s even easier to support someone whether they follow the rules or not based on the same dismissal. But I believe the difference between Obama and McCain is a clear line of distinction and financing campaigns is just another distraction from this line. John McCain believes that everything we’ve done as a nation in the past 7 years has been the right way to go. Barrack Obama disagrees with this as does over 70% of America. This election should be about what America wants for once. And to me, the answer is Barrack Obama.
Barack Obama alienated John McCain and the moneymen behind him who wished for Obama to hobble himself in this campaign – not any American people, no matter the hyperbole you try to pass off. If McCain has so much faith in the people, then he should have no problem securing the financing to go toe to toe with Sen. Obama.
“The candidate Oliver fell in love with, the candidate Oliver threw his support behind is no longer the same candidate before us today.”
Oliver has been openly hoping Mr. Obama would refuse public financing. Sorry–no change.
He said he would negotiate with the Republican nominee.
…And then he never actually negotiated it and just made the decision unilaterally. Where have we heard that before?
This century, the only 2 Presidents with equitable experience are Bush (who I’ve been told is not a good President) and Hoover. Are you REALLY gonna hold those guys up as lynchpins to say that experience isn’t important?
dr4lom, “half” wasn’t intended to be a scientific measurement of any kind. Party ID has certainly trended Democratic in recent years (as have recent off-year elections) but let’s not pretend that Republicans represent a negligible portion of the population.
John McCain believes that everything we’ve done as a nation in the past 7 years has been the right way to go.
Seems like a bit of hyperbole to me. McCain has been one of the fiercest in-party critics of Bush (non-Chafee Division) on a bunch of issues, and has been for quite some time.
Whatever happened with the FEC violation that McCain made during the primary?
The FEC needs a quorum in order to go ahead with charges and/or rulings. They don’t have one, and the White House is not at all interested in seeing that they have one. Two of the seats have been empty for the last 2 years. One of the members of the FEC was just fired by Bush not too long ago.
McCain has been one of the fiercest in-party critics of Bush (non-Chafee Division) on a bunch of issues, and has been for quite some time.
The Maverick Myth doesn’t pass muster anymore, Farris. All of the things McCain used to disagree with Bush about turned into the things McCain supports as he decided it was more politically expedient to do so.
The fact that he caved on torture, something that was done to him, tells me a lot about what John McCain is willing to agree with in terms of Bush policies.
He said he would negotiate with the Republican nominee.
…And then he never actually negotiated it and just made the decision unilaterally. Where have we heard that before?
I wouldn’t negotiate with him either, after McCain broke his own rules. he’s a liar and can’t be trusted.
This century, the only 2 Presidents with equitable experience are Bush (who I’ve been told is not a good President) and Hoover. Are you REALLY gonna hold those guys up as lynchpins to say that experience isn’t important?
I say again, WTF are you talking about? Now I know you’re off the rails.
McCain has been one of the fiercest in-party critics of Bush (non-Chafee Division) on a bunch of issues, and has been for quite some time.
Bwa HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Farris, you never start to amaze me.
Me: “He said he would negotiate with the Republican nominee.”
SaveFarris: “…And then he never actually negotiated it and just made the decision unilaterally.”
Because the nominee was a none cheat when it comes to public financing. What is there to negotiate about?
Seriously, would you negotiate with someone AFTER they cheated?
“This century…”
Two points…
1.) I didn’t say this century.
2.) Hoover was last century. (This is not a major complaint, just me being anal about definitions.)
The trick to remember with Oliver is that he has two rock-solid principles at his core that shape his political positions. I’ve never quite figured out in which precedence they come, and they very well might trade places as circumstances dictate. They are:
1) My side wins.
2) The other side loses.
As long as you keep those principles in mind, everything Oliver says and does fits perfectly. Annoying contradictions disappear.
When Obama refuses to reject his pastor, he’s showing character and strength and resisting pressure.
When he does reject the pastor, he’s showing that he will not get hung up on petty diversions, and will distance himself from divisive figures.
When he taps Jim Johnson to help choose his vice-presidential candidate, he’s showing his ties with the political establishment and his ability to work with those who have long been staunch loyalists and mainstays of the party.
When he “regretfully” lets Johnson go, he’s distancing himself from a man who was a key player in the current subprime mortgage fiasco.
When he pledges to accept public financing for his campaign, he’s showing his independence from the corrosive influence big money has on campaigns and his unwillingness to even have the appearance that he has been bought and paid for.
When he rejects public financing, he’s stepping away from a broken system and allowing the American people to fully express their political opinions by supporting his candidacy.
As I said, as long as you apply the right filters, Obama’s positions — and Oliver’s unwavering support for Obama, regardless of the position of the moment — make perfect sense.
Especially when you toss in Oliver’s apparent conviction that his fellow Americans who disagree with him politically are a graver threat to the nation than actual enemies.
That is the world of the hyperpartisan. Include me out, thanks. I’ll continue to draw a distinction between my adversaries (like Oliver) and our enemies (terrorists and the like), and reserve my hatred for the latter.
J.
“That is the world of the hyperpartisan. Include me out, thanks.”
Haw!
Jay Tea: “That is the world of the hyperpartisan. Include me out, thanks.”
Quaker: “Haw!”
I’ll second that “Haw!”
And Jay Tea, that army of strawmen you built is impressive in the magnitude of its dishonesty. Care to back up those claims with links?
For you, Stroke? Not really. No matter how many links I’d come up with, I’d be about 17 short of how many you’d say I needed. I learned that lesson when I spanked you over the Huffington Post mess.
Besides, why would you lower yourself to debate with a “subhuman” like me?
J.
Obama: let’s talk about about public financing.
McCain: just a second, I’m breaking that law right now, ok, broken.
Obama: thanks for making your intentions clear, negotiations over.
McCain: but we need to talk about you saddling yourself with public financing! I will accept it again, only t his time I promise to stick with it, on the grave of my integrity!
Crickets: chirp chirp chirp.
“For you, Stroke? Not really. No matter how many links I’d come up with, I’d be about 17 short of how many you’d say I needed. I learned that lesson when I spanked you over the Huffington Post mess.”
Wow, aren’t you full of lies today.
The nature of your claim determines what evidence is acceptable. So if you compare two groups, you have to provide evidence for both groups. Got that? Do you understand? Comparing two groups requires you actually provide evidence for both groups. You never provided any comparison with the Freepers, so you never provided enough evidence. Additionally, with that claim, you argued there was an overwhelming pattern. Three examples of an indeterminate period of time is not a pattern, overwhelming or not.
So no, Jay Tea, you lost that debate.
As for this debate, you didn’t even try to defend your claims. And it should be simple to find Oliver making the statements you claim he did. Unless you are lying. And since you lied about the Huffington post debate, you are probably lying here.
“Besides, why would you lower yourself to debate with a “subhuman” like me?”
If you act like you are subhuman, I will continue to treat you like you are subhuman. You have to earn respect, and you don’t even try anymore.
When Obama specifically distanced himself away from Wright and refused his endorsement, Obama was agreeing with everything Wright said. When McCain ran out to beg for the endorsement of an anti-semite nutjob like Hagee, well, umm, he eventually spoke up to say he didn’t necessarily support everything Hagee has said, but um, still likes that endorsement.
When Obama realizes he had a guy on his campaign that had some ties to the subprime mortgage mess, he removes him. Meanwhile McCain has the congressional architect of it still as his top economic advisor (who was also the legislative architect of the energy meltdown and partly responsible for a huge chunk of the price of gas and is also still a highly involved lobbyist), still advising.
When Obama agrees to pursue public financing with his opponent and then doesn’t actually file for it he’s a hypocrite. When McCain actually files for it, accepts its largesse and then illegally walks away from it because the FEC is crippled, it’s of no concern. Of course, JayTea doesn’t want to explain how Obama can aggressively pursue public financing in conjunction with McCain when McCain has already demonstrated that he can’t in any way be trusted to follow or respect public financing laws, even ones McCain sponsored himself.
Of course if you apply the right filters like holding Obama to a very strict standard and interpret things he didn’t actually say and then ignore his opponent’s words and actions…well it makes perfect sense.
LOL,
The candidate of change doesn’t seem much different from any other politician. The only time he lies is when his lips move. He is just a man like any other, good points and bad.
A product of the corrupt Chicago political system, happy to benefit from shady real estate deals with criminals. A member in good standing for twenty years in a church with blatant racist tendencies, a congregation that thinks aids was a government plot to get black people. Quitting not out of decency but because the church was giving him bad publicity.
Now we find like almost every other politician his word is no good when it comes to money. What a surprise, the candidate of change. The pendulum swings from side to side. Obama might very well win this thing, but the Republic will abide. Carter begat Reagan, Obama may prove useful in the end, not because he’s different but because he is the same, naïve, liberal and a liar.
Quit.
Feeding.
The.
Trolls.
Sheesh.
twenty years in a church with blatant racist tendencies, a congregation that thinks aids was a government plot to get black people.
Prove this hyperbole, please.
Prove that this church spouted racist rhetoric for twenty years, and prove that the congregation as a whole thinks AIDS is a government plot.
Prove that this is the case rather than the thoughts of one man in very recent months spoken aloud in one or two public forums.
Prove it or admit you’re a paranoid liar.
Oh my Spider,
Paranoid? Not me, I don’t think aids is a government plot. Liar? Shall we go over my statement point by point.
1. I said Obama was a member for 20 years, do you dispute that?
2. Racist tendencies, we’ve all seen Wrights sermons. If a white man said about blacks what Wright said about whites what do you suppose it would be called. All I heard from the crowd was support for those statements, not any reproach. As the late great Tim Russert would say, let’s look at the tape. I know you’ve seen it and YouTube isn’t real hard to access.
3. Shady real estate deals, ever heard about a guy named Tony Rezko?
Etc. Etc. Etc. I’m not the liar, Obama is. He broke his word on public campaign money, was twofaced about Nafta, Jeruselum, and gun control. That’s just off the top of my head.
Show me the statement that isn’t true. I don’t see much different about this liberal politician except he has an empty resume on the national stage without any accomplishments in the Senate.
When Obama agrees to pursue public financing with his opponent and then doesn’t actually file for it he’s a hypocrite.
Obama never agreed to pursue public financing. He said he’d pursue negotiations with his opponent about accepting public financing. Basically Obama pledged to talk about it with his opponent, that is all. He’s achieved his goal of small individual donors financing a national campaign rather than lobbyists, large monied interests and PACs. McCain decided he couldn’t compete financially through just those small individual donors, so he opted in to the public financing system.
McCain was for public financing before he was against it before he was for it again. The man’s consistency is truly dizzying.
I don’t see much different about this liberal politician except he has an empty resume on the national stage without any accomplishments in the Senate.
I will leave most of this to my ideological mates on this forum, mostly because they are much, much funnier than me. Firstly, I can offer Sen. Obama’s profile on the conservapedia, mostly as an example of When Satire Becomes Obsolete.
Secondly, empty resume? Yes, I know this is the campaign website, but he isn’t going to lie about sponsoring things he didn’t sponsor; it’s too easily checkable and it’d be an easy way to kill his own campaign.
Barry will break his word whenever he deems it politically expedient.
Hopey, Changey!
WHY SHOULD SAMSOON CUT HIS OWN HAIR?
PUBLIC FINANCING is – A movement of average Americans inspired for the first time in their lives to send in small contributions on the internet of $25, $50 and $200 to total millions. We the people are the public. We the people are financing OBAMA not BIG BUSINESS and not the government. This is history in the making. Go Obama. He’s got my vote, but I am encouraged and inspired by every commercial I have seen on TV. Flood my day with more and more OBAMA. OBAMA TV CHANNEL? I’m ready for it.
WHO KNEW?
Obama’s original decision to accept public financing was dependent on what his opponent did. He said he would meet with the Republican candidate on the financing issues and he did. It didn’t work out. Obama himself could not have predicted the enormous response to his message of CHANGE and the possibility that for the first time in recent US History a general election campaign can be funded by small individual contributions from millions of people that has successful challeneged and won over Big Money from a Big Business, Lobbyist and Millionaires.
Parthenon, Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
From now on can we agree to a moratorium on the meaningless word ‘flip-flopper?’ It was dumb in 2004, and it’s dumb now.
Yes, let’s just knee-cap the Democratic party now because the Republican’ts were successful with their unfounded smear in 2004. Maybe, if they actually got a taste of their own medicine, they might rethink this sort of tactic?
Amused Observer, Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
If a white man said about blacks what Wright said about whites what do you suppose it would be called.
Maybe it would be called a popular button being sold at a bustling booth at the Texas Republican’t party convention?
Obama needs to come out today and attack McCain for already being in violation of public financing laws. A simple: “well, my campaign staff and I had to consider that McCain earlier committed to public financing for the primaries and then walked away from that promise and is currently in wanton violation of campaign financing laws. When the FEC told him he was in violation he had a typical Bush-style response: “that’s their opinion.” With him showing that kind of respect for the law, how could we expect him to do otherwise in the general election?”
Put the pressure on McCain to explain why he can be trusted this time. Obama is not Charlie Brown, he should not be waiting for ‘Lucy’ McCain to pull the public financing football away.
“Barry will break his word whenever he deems it politically expedient.”
Do you have proof of that? Or are you just lying?
>The trick to remember with Oliver is that he has two rock-solid principles at his core that shape his political positions. I’ve never quite figured out in which precedence they come, and they very well might trade places as circumstances dictate. They are:
1) My side wins.
2) The other side loses.
Yep, that seems exactly right to me. Oliver definitely has an anything goes attitude in pursuit of both of those goals. The sad thing is that he would be much more effective as an honest partisan.
Oh and CS:
>So no, Jay Tea, you lost that debate.
Lol. I know you probably aren’t able to do so, but would it really kill you to admit that Jay Tea got the best of you on that one? I mean, seriously, it wasn’t even an issue of particular substance. Oh well, maybe you sleep better at night having won in your head.
They are:
1) My side wins.
2) The other side loses.
Learned it from watching you.
Do you have proof of that? Or are you just lying?
She’s lying. It’s what she does, it’s her thing.
“Lol. I know you probably aren’t able to do so, but would it really kill you to admit that Jay Tea got the best of you on that one? I mean, seriously, it wasn’t even an issue of particular substance. Oh well, maybe you sleep better at night having won in your head.”
No I will not admit that because it is not true.
Think of it this way…
If someone says, ‘That shirt is blue.’ and when asked to prove it and he says, ‘Light reflected off of it has a wavelength of 525 nm.’ Is that proof that he’s right? No. Because a wavelength of 525 nm is actually green. Perhaps on the blue side of green, but its green.
Jay Tea said the posters on Huffington Post was worse than the Freepers. ‘It seems like every time they mention Bush or Cheney they have to close the thread.’ When asked for proof, he came up with three examples one of which they didn’t close the thread. This is completely inadequate proof for the claim made. Given the nature of the claim, he would have to show it happens at least 50% of the time. Even then that would be weak.
For some reason many of the people in that thread were convinced by this evidence, which is sad. It’s almost like they don’t actually care what the original claim was, as long as there are some similarities between the original claim and the evidence provided. It doesn’t matter if the shirt is blue or not, as long as a colour is mentioned in the proof.
Words have meaning. This is the key to language, and language is the only thing that separates us from the animals. The only thing. For someone to butcher the language in order to defend something they said that was clearly false is wrong. For others to defend him for it is twice as wrong.
If someone says, ‘That shirt is blue.’ and when asked to prove it and he says, ‘Light reflected off of it has a wavelength of 525 nm.’ Is that proof that he’s right? No. Because a wavelength of 525 nm is actually green. Perhaps on the blue side of green, but its green.
Yeah, but what if it’s dark?
“Yeah, but what if it’s dark?”
Do colours exist when there is no light source. I think we have a discussion like that in philosophy class in university.
I’ve been asking that for years. I understand the potential for color exists in the dark, but does it really exist?
Wow CS I just went back and looked at that thread. (http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/05/20/the-loyal-opposition/) if anyone else wants to read through the magic. You just kept going and going and going!
Heres a recap. (I must do this, as I have to admit, its just too funny to watch CS try to split hairs out of it.) Oliver pointed to an article pointing out nasty Freeper comments when news of Kennedy’s brain tumor came out. Jay noted that the same thing happens on certain lefty sites when analagous events happen to rightward figures. He did not claim that said sites are worse or better in this respect, contrary to your assertion. You challenged him to back up his assertion. He provided some quotes (3, I believe) to back up his claims. Reasonable people realize that Jay was not making a claim to have done a statistical analysis of negative comments on each site. You, not being very reasonable, demanded a much higher standard of ‘proof’. Most of the rest of us laughed at you because it was very obvious that you hated being wrong so much (and being shown by Jay, no less!) that you were willing to write page upon page (upon page) of verbiage to try to distract from that.
In the end, the point stands. There are people on both sides who will rejoice at the personal misfortunes of members of the other side, and it isn’t hard to find them at the big political websites. Is one side worse than the other? Who knows? Jay wasn’t making that claim. You can do it though CS. “I was wrong, my side of the aisle has nuts on it too.” Thats all you have to do! We are all behind you.
“Heres a recap. (I must do this, as I have to admit, its just too funny to watch CS try to split hairs out of it.) Oliver pointed to an article pointing out nasty Freeper comments when news of Kennedy’s brain tumor came out. Jay noted that the same thing happens on certain lefty sites when analagous events happen to rightward figures.”
And you got it wrong by the second sentence. Good work.
Jay Tea said it happened more on Huffington Post than it does with the Freepers. This is not splitting hairs, this is a major difference in what he said and what several people later claimed he said. And it is right there in the link you provided.
If you can’t get that part right, the rest of your recap it pointless.
If you can’t understand the difference, then it’s no wonder you couldn’t follow my argument.
It’s no wonder you are a Republican. Facts be damned! Full speed ahead.
>Jay Tea said it happened more on Huffington Post than it does with the Freepers.
>And it is right there in the link you provided.
Great, then you can point me to where he said that it happens more on HuffPo than on the Freepers, right? Keep fighting the good fight CS. At least you always win in your head.
“Great, then you can point me to where he said that it happens more on HuffPo than on the Freepers, right? ”
Yep…
“Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post?”
For Freep to turn into Huffington Post, Huffington Post must be more extreme than Freep. It’s basic logic.
And for the rest of his claim…
“It seems any time they mention Bush or Cheney, they have to close the threads, for similar reasons…”
See that? “Any time.” Yet he only gave three examples, and never bothered to do the research on the number of time Bush or Cheney were mentioned during that time period. Even with the qualifier, it would still take at least a 50% rate to justify what he wrote.
Jay Tea made a sloppy claim and I called him on it. Too bad people like you refuse to comprehend that.
Yes, but, CSS, given what we know about Jay and his penchant for gross generalities, we can conclude that his use of the term “It seems…” would be him just being verbose, contrarian , and generally trying to stir up shit for the sake of trying to “gotcha” the lefties.
Shake it off.
“would be him just being verbose, contrarian , and generally trying to stir up shit for the sake of trying to “gotcha” the lefties.”
In other words, he’s a lying troll.
Well, yeah. Indeed, it is central to my point.
>“Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post?”
Wow, that is your smoking gun huh? Thats where Jay unambiguously said that Huffington Post is more extreme than Free Republic? I was hoping for something a little more meaty, like maybe a quote that says “Huffpo is more extreme than Free Republic.” Instead you resort to claiming that a question (a rhetorical one at that) is an assertion. In CS-land, maybe that reading makes sense; in the real world, its clear that all Jay was really saying is that “HuffPo does it too.” That’s it. Not exactly earth shattering, but also not particularly disagreeable, especially when he provided examples. Now, what Duros says is true too, Jay was being a little on the provocative side to try to stir things up. But your descent into endless legalistic parsing to try to defend an untenable position is just pathetic. (Wait, are you a lawyer CS, or a lawyer in training? That would explain a lot.)
>See that? “Any time.” Yet he only gave three examples, and never bothered to do the research on the number of time Bush or Cheney were mentioned during that time period. Even with the qualifier, it would still take at least a 50% rate to justify what he wrote.
What Jay did is known as a subjective claim. Newsflash CS – this is a blog, not an academic journal. Claiming “HuffPo does it too” and giving a few examples is about as rigorous as you are going to get. The thing is, Jay wasn’t claiming anything more than that, and everyone except you seems to be able to grasp that. Your attempt to portray his claim as some sort of statement of absolute fact in order that you can claim that he hasn’t proven it yet is just a transparent attempt to avoid owning up to the fact that you erroneously blustered and got called on it. It’s as simple as that. One would think that having your ideological allies say, “Uhm, CS? FYI, this isn’t very solid.” would make you do a little rethinking, but nope! CS bravely soldiers on! I do give you credit for perseverance, I guess.
Anyway, all this has been pointed out to you multiple times and doesn’t make a dent, so no need to bother after this. I will say it has been a hoot reading your hand waving and smokescreens though. If you aren’t already a lawyer, you should consider being one. (Actually I’m serious, but that isn’t a compliment.)
“In CS-land, maybe that reading makes sense;”
No, Haplo, that’s what it means if you read it in English. Words have definitions. There are rules to grammar. You can’t ignore them because you don’t like the result.
“in the real world, its clear that all Jay was really saying is that ‘HuffPo does it too.’ That’s it.”
No, that’s the position he backtracked to, after it was clear he couldn’t defend his original position.
What he actually said was, and I’m paraphrasing here, ‘Nearly every time Huffington Post mentions Bush or Cheney, they comments get so bad they have to be closed.’ That is what he said. That much is undeniable. Yet when I asked him to back it up, he couldn’t. He couldn’t back it up, yet several people in that thread actually think he won that debate. Scary.
“But your descent into endless legalistic parsing to try to defend an untenable position is just pathetic.”
So Jay Tea said something that is wrong, and I’m the one parsing language. Interesting take on reality there. No wonder you are a Republican.
“Newsflash CS – this is a blog, not an academic journal.”
Translation: “I know Jay Tea lied, but this is just a blog so you are allowed to do that.”
“Anyway, all this has been pointed out to you multiple times…”
If something is wrong, it stays wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.
And guess what, what Jay Tea said was wrong. It is demonstratively wrong. No one has made a real effort to defend what Jay Tea said. Everyone pretended Jay Tea said something he didn’t and they are arguing about that. They have set up a strawman to defend.
“If you aren’t already a lawyer, you should consider being one. (Actually I’m serious, but that isn’t a compliment.)”
I know you don’t mean it as a compliment, but it is one. You see, I have a firm grasp of the English language and I am careful of the words I choose and I expect others to do the same. I very rarely say stuff like, ‘This will never happen.’ I don’t do it because I can’t back up a claim like that. It is impossible. When I talk about issues like this, I try to use probabilities, not absolutes. Absolutes are impossible to defend and easy to prove wrong. ‘Should’, ‘could’, not ‘will’ or ‘won’t’.
However, people like Jay Tea and Jay Caruso seen to thrive on making statements that are nearly impossible to back up. (Again, nearly. No absolutes.) And they don’t understand that what they say is so hard to back up. As long as they say something that is marginally related, they think they’ve proven their point. They say something happens all of the time, then they give a few examples and think that’s good enough. It’s not.
It is time to end public financing of Presidential campaigns. It doesn’t work, and Obama has offered evidence of how the information revolultion allows us to circumvent big money:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/end-public-campaign-financing/