A whole bunch of nothing BS in all of your paragraphs. I’m not providing ‘cover’ to anybody you moron. But let’s count your bullshit assertions here:

1. First, you assign origination of the tactic to the Democrats by saying it’s “their own medicine.”

Bogus. I didn’t “assign origination” of the tactic to anybody. I said that Democrats have used it to their advantage over the last 10-12 years. Actually, I would say it goes a few years prior to that.

2. Then you tell us that this tactic is somehow new to American politics, having been introduced some 10 odd years ago by the democrats who went on to perfect it against innocent, naive Republicans.

Bogus. It’s been far more prevalent over the last dozen years or so because of the advent of the Internet and how much faster information is able to get out. The 24 hours news cycle was the first part of this and the Clinton administration used that to their advantage.

3. All of this is, of course, total bullshit, so even if you are arguing what you say your arguing it’s an even more idiotic response than the one you’re at such pains to distance yourself from.

Unfortunately, your making shit up to support your assertion and as such it is bogus.

4. Your claims for the moral superiority of your argument are based entirely on, again, total bullshit.

Whose claiming moral superiority? I don’t agree with guilt by association tactics. It’s a bullshit political tactic.

If you we’re really opposed to guilt by association ads, why not just leave your first comment at “It is a silly guilt by association ad”?

Because I chose to make a broader point which you then chose to lie about.

5. Of course, even in this statement you are shielding conservatives from criticism by suggesting that, well, this is just a “silly” example of a tactic that the Democrats have honed into something far more serious and cynical.

Man, you really are like, really dumb. I criticize the ad which was created by conservatives and somehow that means I’ve covering for conservatives. Are you really that stupid? Really?

6. You can profess your opposition to “guilt by association” attacks as much as you want, but every time you post comments like the ones in this thread, and you do it all the time, you are still providing cover for Republicans

Actually, only stupid people like yourself reach that conclusion.

YOU. ARE. STUPID.

7. by first diminishing the seriousness of the Republican ad before deflecting ultimate responsibility for Republican actions on to the Democrats who are, in your mind ultimately responsible for injecting the tactic into American politics.

And you’re a liar.

Good night asshole.

In this case, you’re arguing that the Dems “are just getting a taste of their own medicine” because they’ve been doing the same thing for “over 10 years now.”

Jay, you’ve got a whole lot of stupid working overtime here. First, you assign origination of the tactic to the Democrats by saying it’s “their own medicine.” Then you tell us that this tactic is somehow new to American politics, having been introduced some 10 odd years ago by the democrats who went on to perfect it against innocent, naive Republicans.

All of this is, of course, total bullshit, so even if you are arguing what you say your arguing it’s an even more idiotic response than the one you’re at such pains to distance yourself from. Your claims for the moral superiority of your argument are based entirely on, again, total bullshit.

If you we’re really opposed to guilt by association ads, why not just leave your first comment at “It is a silly guilt by association ad”? Of course, even in this statement you are shielding conservatives from criticism by suggesting that, well, this is just a “silly” example of a tactic that the Democrats have honed into something far more serious and cynical.

You can profess your opposition to “guilt by association” attacks as much as you want, but every time you post comments like the ones in this thread, and you do it all the time, you are still providing cover for Republicans who use the tactic by first diminishing the seriousness of the Republican ad before deflecting ultimate responsibility for Republican actions on to the Democrats who are, in your mind ultimately responsible for injecting the tactic into American politics. In other words, the Dems did it first.

No jackass, it isn’t. Maybe if stopped to think for a moment instead of being a knee-jerk stooge, you’d see that.

There’s a distinction. If I attempted to defend this ad by saying that, you’re bitching about me using the “They do it too” fallacy would have merit. But I clearly stated that I don’t support guilt by association tactics – at all.

I merely pointed out that it’s rather hypocritical of Democrats to complain about a tactic being used against them that they’ve perfected for quite some time.

Comprende, el stupido?

But since you seem to have a lot emotionally invested in the oh so subtle difference between the two so maybe you could try to tease them out for us.

Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. That’s not what you accused me of. Your claiming that all I am doing in response is saying, “Well, Democrats did it first!” and leaving it at that.

I notice, of course, that you seem a tad defensive on this subject. Perhaps it’s because you do indeed respond this way on a regular basis but then deny that you are in fact doing it.

I get defensive when people such as yourself are deliberately dishonest. Approach the issue without being a dishonest tool and I won’t get defensive.

there were several

And I’m supposed to take your word for it without being able to see what was actually said?

No one here, including Oliver, has ever said…

Um, did you even read this post?
1) Obama & “disgraced” Kilpatrick
2) Why?
3) Because they’re black.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that’s exactly what I think.

SaveFarris already demonstrated it was public knowledge. Unless you’re going to argue that Team Obama doesn’t read the news about the super delegates?

Actually, there were several. When Richard Clarke wrote in his book that he could tell, after a meeting he had with Rice, by looking into her face that she didn’t take the threat of terrorism that seriously, Ann Coulter and Robert Novak accused Clarke of racism. When Barbara Boxer, at a Senate committtee berated Rice for the lack of WMD’s found in Iraq, Joe Scarborough implied that Boxer was racist. worldnutdaily.com (oh, excuse me, I mean worldnetdaily.com) carried a column by conservative Ellis Washington in which he proclaimed Boxer racist for stating to Rice that neither of them had loved ones serving in Iraq.

“…your point has no merit”.

Shorten that part of your sentence by one word, and, as I have shown above, you are absolutely correct!

“Ahhh…so we’re finally understanding that there can be some nuance in showing a black politician with another black man.”

Straw man time. No one here, including Oliver, has ever said that negatively connecting two black individuals is automatically racist.

“So you think no one in the Obama camp knew that Kilpatrick was having legal problems beforehand”?

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that’s exactly what I think.

“That (McCain’s role in the Keating Five Scandal) has already been whipped out…”

And rightly so.

“…so that’s not any surprise”.

Brilliant logic, that dubious behavior should be dismissed because the mentioning of it by one’s opponents is not “surprising” (rolls eyes).

I fail to see the difference. You’re essentially saying that Dems have no room to complain about this kind of tactic because they’re the ones who mainstreamed it in the first place. That’s exactly what “chickens have come to roost” means.

I notice, of course, that you seem a tad defensive on this subject. Perhaps it’s because you do indeed respond this way on a regular basis but then deny that you are in fact doing it.

So?

Surprise is overrated. Besides, what percentage of the electorate do you think actually knows what the Keating scandal was all about? It’s news to many.

Keating!

That’s already been whipped out so that’s not any surprise.

http://www.google.com/search?q=keating site:democrats.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Well then…

Kilpatrick, who has been charged with lying under oath about an affair and his role in the firing of a top police official, became the fifth Michigan superdelegate to endorse Obama on Tuesday.

You were saying?

the key word that you conveniently left out of your excerpt of my post was “any”

Perhaps you could point to “any” complaint made by conservatives that an attack against Rice that didn’t involve racial stereotypes (such as ebonics or gigantic lips) was racist? Since they’re weren’t any, your point has no merit.

In your favor…(rolls eyes)

Ahhhh…so we’re finally understanding that there can be some nuance in showing a black politician with another black man. It doesn’t automatically have to be “Why? Well, they’re both… black.”
someone KNOWN
So you think no one in the Obama camp knew that Kilpatrick was having legal problems beforehand? Do you really want to stick with yet another “This is not the [insert disgraced individual] I knew” moment?

JWG, the key word that you conveniently left out of your excerpt of my post was “any”. Either you are deceptive or you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I’m guessing the former, that it was a deliberate smear on your part to make it falsely seem like I believe that even a blatantly racist attack against Condoleeza Rice as the one you mentioned can’t be categorized as such.

“…but showing a black man with a white woman or with another black person IS racist.”

The posters here have said that connecting Obama with another black person(Kwame Kilpatrick) WHO IS A CRIMINAL (and who Obama praised BEFORE the mayor’s criminal behavior came to light) is racist.

In your favor, however, JWG, your criticism of Oliver’s criticism regarding Michael Steele and Mike is spot-on. Someone running for public office should not distance themselves in any way from the endorsement of someone KNOWN BY THE FORMER INDIVIDUAL to be a convicted rapist (rolls eyes).

So you’re saying you hate white people?

So depicting a black person as speaking ebonics with exaggerated big-lips is NOT racist,

Wut?

attack on Condoleeza Rice is racist

So depicting a black person as speaking ebonics with exaggerated big-lips is NOT racist, but showing a black man with a white woman or with another black person IS racist.

Ladies and gentlemen…this is your “reality based community” at work.

And any criticism of The Zero is disrespecting his war record.