This is the part where my dog, CK, points and laughs.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Whig Watch: GOP Attacks Obama’s Dog
May 15th, 2009
110 Comments
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
“only white people should be able to own pets”-repubs
And yes, Yo Mama, we’re laughing at you guys. We are not scared of you guys.
Link
These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala. Well, of course, I don’t resent attacks, and my family doesn’t resent attacks, but Fala does resent them. You know, Fala is Scotch, and being a Scottie, as soon as he learned that the Republican fiction writers in Congress and out had concocted a story that I had left him behind on the Aleutian Islands and had sent a destroyer back to find him – at a cost to the taxpayers of two or three, or eight or twenty million dollars- his Scotch soul was furious. He has not been the same dog since. I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself – such as that old, worm-eaten chestnut that I have represented myself as indispensable. But I think I have a right to resent, to object to libelous statements about my dog.
Bonus history video of Demcoratic President FDR joking about Republicans attacking his dog “Fala”.
“Dark Avenger” cites a snip of FDR’s “Fala Speech” above.
Another snip:
FDR: Well, I think we all recognize the old technique. The people of this country know the past too well to be deceived into forgetting. Too much is at stake to forget. There are tasks ahead of us which we must now complete with the same will and the same skill and intelligence and devotion that have already led us so far along the road to victory.
I’m pretty sure no Dem or lefty attacked Republican Bush’s dog.
Though Republican Bush’s dog did attack a journalist, clearly distinguishing itself as a Republican Dog.
Excuse me, but where is that an attack on the dog? It’s no more an attack on the dog than it’s an attack on the courtside seats.
Yeah, we’re not scared of them, we’re laughing at them. And giving them reasons to laugh back, it seems.
“Excuse me, but where is that an attack on the dog?”
They are attacking how much it cost. Calling it, the dog, overpriced.
I blogged about opposition to Obama’s dog here. It is an outrage.
Republicans Oppose Obama’s Dog
They are attacking how much it cost. Calling it, the dog, overpriced.
So you agree it isn’t, as OW’s headline claims it is, an attack on the dog.
So you agree it isn’t, as OW’s headline claims it is, an attack on the dog.
So, Sean, how many hairs do you think that dog has? Cuz I’m curious if you’re going to split everyone.
I’m going to give the RNC the benefit of the doubt and assume they were being tongue-in-cheek here.
Sean: “So you agree it isn’t, as OW’s headline claims it is, an attack on the dog.”
fafaroo: “So, Sean, how many hairs do you think that dog has? Cuz I’m curious if you’re going to split everyone.”
I would assume he’s a.) looking for a fight or b.) attacking OW so he can claim to be unbiased later on.
Don’t care which, as either way it makes him look stupid.
Don’t care which, as either way it makes him look stupid. CS
If not for petty personal attacks and a bizarre conspiracy theory fetish for the southern strategy, Strowbridge would have little to say.
If personal attacks were banned here, Strowbridge would be able to do little more than print his name.
Much worse than this so-called “atack on Obama’s dog”, is this audio clip of the creepy David Axelrod inexplicably using the naming of Obama’s dog to take a shot at Miss California, apparently because she expressed an opinion about gay marriage slightly to the left of Barack Obama views. Go figure.
Totally bizarre joke made by Axelrod. Makes no sense, yet the liberal press reels with delight.
Far better ad material if they wanted to somehow incorporate Obama’s dog…hypocrisy, stupidity, and meanness, all at the expense of someone else’s innocence, to score cheap political points. Excellent summary of Axelrod’s political strategy these first 110 days.
Audio: Axelrod dumps on Miss California
Dennis the Bigot: “If personal attacks were banned here, Strowbridge would be able to do little more than print his name.”
A personal attack from Dennis in a post where he complains about personal attacks.
Hypocrisy and stupidity are not the hallmarks of winning arguments.
Dennis the Bigot: “Much worse than this so-called ‘atack on Obama’s dog’, is this audio clip of the creepy David Axelrod inexplicably using the naming of Obama’s dog to take a shot at Miss California, apparently because she expressed an opinion about gay marriage slightly to the left of Barack Obama views. Go figure.”
And this is just a lie.
Now go fuck yourself, Dennis, and only come back when you have something important to say. Which is clearly never.
Hmm… pointing out that someone makes personal attacks is now considered a personal attack in and of itself. Fascinating…
J. (The “subhuman,” according to Mr. Strowbridge, on countless occasions…)
J.G.Thayer: “Hmm… pointing out that someone makes personal attacks is now considered a personal attack in and of itself. Fascinating…”
Saying I have a fetish for the Southern Strategy is.
“J. (The “subhuman,” according to Mr. Strowbridge, on countless occasions…)”
And you are. There is no way you are up to the level of a normal human being.
CSS, you’ve made six posts so far on this thread alone, all of them little more than personal attacks, if anything at all other than just that.
And you’d be hard-pressed to find one or two posters on here besides Mr. ed, someone else with a bizarre need to relinquish feelings of guilt for his racist past, that could honestly say you don’t have a fetish for the southern strategy.
Aside from personal attacks, those two words define you here.
Please, Dennis, give him a little more credit.
Don’t forget “subhuman.”
The guy seems to have a fetish for the letter “s” when he runs out of ideas… which seems to happen fairly frequently.
(If only there was a way we could work an “s” into “fuck” and its variants, this would be a Grand Unified Theory of Why Strowbridge Is Such An Asswipe…)
J.
“So, Sean, how many hairs do you think that dog has? Cuz I’m curious if you’re going to split everyone.”
Sean, you and I probably agree most of the time, but you do have a concern troll tendency.
But, hey, you’ve got the creepy right wing troll “Dennis” sticking up for you FTW!
The ever profane right wing extremist and Commentary Magazine writer “Jay Tea” manages to complain about strong language in a post where he calls someone he disagrees with an “Asswipe” and even manages to gratuitously throw in the F*** word.
Welcome to the right wing’s redefinition of “civility”: they use profanity and other miscellaneous other insults against their opponents while simultaneously expecting their delicate sensibilities be protected from ’strong’ language.
It’s Right Wingers First Rule: Rules are for Other People.
“Ever profane,” “Newsy?” Oh, please.
I am very careful about using profanities. I do not toss them casually around. I have great respect for them and their rhetorical power, and therefore employ them only when I deem it appropriate.
In this case, Strowbridge’s casual, excessive profanity is one of his defining trademarks. So when discussing or addressing him, it is polite to do so in terms that he is familiar with, that he will best understand. My terms towards him were a courtesy.
And does Greenwald pay you every time you link to his fraudulent little hissy-fit, or offer you sexual favors or something? I’d hate to think you do all that for free.
J.
That being said, if the bit on the dog was dropped, what would the DNC talking points rebutting the rest of it be?
J.
And you’d be hard-pressed to find one or two posters on here besides Mr. ed, someone else with a bizarre need to relinquish feelings of guilt for his racist past
Thems some strong words. You got a shred of hard evidence to back them up?
Somehow I didn’t think so.
But by all means, keep on defending racist asshole Rush Limbaugh and the racist Sarah Palin rallies.
Oh, and “Newsy,” another interesting double standard of yours: I’m hardly the most profane around here. Why single me out for special attention? If my dropping the f-bomb gives you the vapors, the average Strowbridge comment must render you catatonic.
J.
Dennis the Bigot: “And you’d be hard-pressed to find one or two posters on here besides Mr. ed, someone else with a bizarre need to relinquish feelings of guilt for his racist past, that could honestly say you don’t have a fetish for the southern strategy.”
I would say this is projection, but you don’t have a racist past, you have a racist present.
Oh, and if you want to use personal attack, go for it. But you don’t get to whine about it when others do as well.
fafaroo: So, Sean, how many hairs do you think that dog has? Cuz I’m curious if you’re going to split everyone.
If I’m splitting hairs, then it’s the hair OW put up.
CSS: I would assume he’s a.) looking for a fight or b.) attacking OW so he can claim to be unbiased later on.
Don’t care which, as either way it makes him look stupid.
So if someone disagrees with you it’s because they have an ulterior motive and can’t simply be that they just have a different take? Insecure much?
If I were like you I’d tell you what you were thinking and your motives behind it. But I don’t have that level of arrogance and so I will ask: So are you now contradicting your earlier statement?
And to both of you, do you really have no problem with the left resorting to the kind of mis-representations and overstated “they be pickin’ on us” cries that you attack when they come from the right?
—–
CSS: And you are. There is no way you are up to the level of a normal human being.
CSS may hate the “Southern Strategy” but he sure seems to echo the “National Socialist Strategy” a lot.
—–
News Ref: Sean, you and I probably agree most of the time, but you do have a concern troll tendency.
I suspect we do. I find your lengthy emails redundant and difficult to get thru. But to the extent I’m able to wade thru them I don’t find a lot to disagree with.
But it isn’t (despite CSS’s speculation/mind-reading) not my intention to be a concern troll. Rather, I don’t care for hypocrisy and when I see the left doing what they complain about in the right I do like to make note of it.
Case in point: criticizing someone on the right for using gratuitous profanity while making no note of similar in posts from those on the left.
Oh, and if you want to use personal attack, go for it. But you don’t get to whine about it when others do as well. C ‘SS’
Read what I wrote, C ‘SS’. I don’t whine when others use personal attacks, I said you do little else besides, Very little else. Save from of course, your southern strategy fetish.
Read what I wrote
Done and done. And still not a shred of evidence for your harsh words. Go figure. Shocker. Who could have imagined?
If I’m splitting hairs, then it’s the hair OW put up.
You’re suggesting that attacking the price of the dog is not attacking the dog itself. That’s about as thin and pointless a distinction as you can make.
You’re suggesting that attacking the price of the dog is not attacking the dog itself.
Yes, and it’s a shame you can’t see that there is more than just a split hair between the two. “His kids get bad grades” is attacking the kids and I think we’d agree would be out of bounds. “He lets his kids party instead of studying” is attacking the parent. There is a difference.
OW want’s to put up a headline that in effect says the GOP likes to kick puppies he’s in effect saying the former. When the ad he’s criticizing is saying the latter. It’s the kind of mis-labeling and distortion that many on the left (e.g., Media Matters) deplore when it is done by the right but seem blind to when done by the left.
It hurts the left’s credibility. The left can’t claim it is better than the right just because it is the left. It has to demonstrate it by actually being better.
Me: “I would assume he’s a.) looking for a fight or b.) attacking OW so he can claim to be unbiased later on.
Don’t care which, as either way it makes him look stupid.”
Sean: “So if someone disagrees with you it’s because they have an ulterior motive and can’t simply be that they just have a different take? Insecure much?”
No. People can disagree with me and I don’t think they have ulterior motives.
However, when someone says something so stupid, I assume they have ulterior motives and are not just stupid.
Are you arguing you are just stupid?
On a side note, this is a misconception about me you share with a lot of the right wing ‘tards here. You guys seem to think that simply disagreeing with me is enough for me to fly off the handle and start swearing. I have had disagreements on subjects here where I didn’t do this. CFL vs. NFL for one. That R&B star that allegedly peed on the underage girl. And there have been others. There are entire boards where I’m active where I almost never swear, and almost never use insults.
However, when I run into people who don’t use logical arguments, I will use insults. I do it, because it’s fun.
For instance, J.G.Thayer recently argued that since Navy Seals are waterboarded as part of their training to resist torture, waterboarding is therefore not torture. Now, do you think he really believes that and he’s just massively stupid? Or do you think he just said it in an attempt to avoid admitting waterboarding was wrong? Is he stupid, or lying?
I can have a discussion about carbon offsets vs. cap and trade and not get into insults, because, hopefully, both sides will be coming at the debate from the reality based world.
On the other hand, if someone says, ‘Global warming is a hoax perpatrated by soclialists to bring down captilaism!!!!’ I’m going to insult them.
Fafaroo: “You’re suggesting that attacking the price of the dog is not attacking the dog itself.”
Sean: “Yes, and it’s a shame you can’t see that there is more than just a split hair between the two.”
This is rich. How is the price of the dog not a part of the dog itself?
Sean: “‘His kids get bad grades’ is attacking the kids and I think we’d agree would be out of bounds. ‘He lets his kids party instead of studying’ is attacking the parent. There is a difference.”
But the cost of the dog is inherent to the dog itself. Unless the dog doesn’t cost that much normally, and Obama simply paid too much for the dog.
I’m going to bring up a past debate, but I think it will help illustrate some part of this debate.
One of Coleman’s top donors was sued by a business partner over $75,000. Do you remember that debate? You claimed Coleman wasn’t involved, even though his wife worked for the company. You said she didn’t benefit from the $75,000 directly, because she was merely an employee of the company.
Here’s my question. Why was the donor sued? What was the complaint put forward?
Paul McKim sued Nasser Kazeminy over $75,000. Why?
I asked this question in the past, but you never answered it. Or if you did, I didn’t see it.
For instance, J.G.Thayer recently argued that since Navy Seals are waterboarded as part of their training to resist torture, waterboarding is therefore not torture. Now, do you think he really believes that and he’s just massively stupid? Or do you think he just said it in an attempt to avoid admitting waterboarding was wrong? Is he stupid, or lying?
Sorry, Strowbridge. That wasn’t me. I didn’t make that argument.
Whoops… forgot about the local customs here, and Strowbridge’s preference for his native tongue, Vulgarian. Let me rephrase that:
Fuck off, you lying sack of shit. I never said any such thing, and you’re a fucking idiot, a fucking liar, a fucking psychotic, or some combination of all three for spreading that lie. So shut your fucking lying subhuman piehole.
Man, I hope that came out right. It’s just not my native language…
J.
I thought the dog was a gift to Obama from Ted Kennedy — who owns several of the breed, including one named — I kid you folks not — “Splash.”
The man has NO shame.
I honestly didn’t know the Obamas bought the dog, and quite frankly it was a stupid point to make. Every other point in that ad is superb, but by giving the Obamoids that one first lets them dismiss the entire message.
As shown above.
J.
Yes, and it’s a shame you can’t see that there is more than just a split hair between the two.
And it’s a shame that you’d rather play internet nanny than try to understand the first thing about media messaging.
The ad reduces the dog itself to its price tag.
It negates and denies everything else the dog, as a dog, represents: warmth, affection, loyalty.
It denies the dog these noble qualities and replaces them with negative qualities: excess, surface, status.
In the context of the ad, the dog may as well be an object. A thing. A prop.
For fucksakes, to the extent that that ad grants any kind actually awareness to the dog, it suggests that the dog has sold its loyalty to the highest bidder: “A new best friend: $2,000.”
Yup, that’s how those elitist dogs operate, man. They lick the hands of who ever puts up the most cash.
Of course, the ad does all these things to the dog in order to ultimately attack Obama.
You gave a few examples, Sean, to suggest why you’re not splitting hairs, but I think you missed one. If I told you, “You’re kids are assholes which makes you an asshole” well, that’s a two fer, my friend.
The irony, of course, is that the GOP tries to do this in the context of the Master Card “Priceless” ad campaign. You know why?
Because if your dog gives you things like warmth, affection and loyalty, it doesn’t fucking matter how much you fucking paid for it because those fucking things are indeed PRICELESS!!!
Which is why the ad posits the dog, not as a dog, but as a bought and paid for object in capable of anything but the most insincere affections.
The ad is attacking the dog because it doesn’t want people to see the Obama’s dog the way they see their own dog. It reduces Obama’s dog to an object in order to attack Obama.
They want people to see the dog as the frivolous status symbol of elitists, not as a fucking dog.
That’s an attack on the dog.
Every other point in that ad is superb, but by giving the Obamoids that one first lets them dismiss the entire message.
Right, Jay Tea. It’s totally a superb point to conflate Obama’s personal spending — on a dog, on courtside seats — with his tax policies and budget for the nation. Yup. Brilliant.
“His kids get bad grades” is attacking the kids and I think we’d agree would be out of bounds. “He lets his kids party instead of studying” is attacking the parent. There is a difference.
OW want’s to put up a headline that in effect says the GOP likes to kick puppies he’s in effect saying the former. When the ad he’s criticizing is saying the latter.
Just because this is so fucking stupid, it requires further comment.
First of all, “His kids get bad grades” in and of itself is not an attack. It’s a statement of fact if his kids, do indeed get bad grades.
Just like “Portuguese Water Dogs cost $2,000″ is not, in and of itself, an attack on Portuguese Water Dogs, if that is, in fact, what Portuguese Water Dogs cost.
I don’t think there’s anyone here who’s going to argue that the ad is simply stating a fact about the price of Portugeuse Water Dogs.
The add is clearly making a value judgement on spending $2,000 for a dog.
So you’re initial example — “His kids get bad grades” — is simply meaningless to this discussion.
Second, “He lets his kids party instead of studying” may be an attack on the parent, but it also doesn’t say much about the kids either because they choose to party instead of study.
If you said, “He forces his kids to party instead of studying” you’ve got a clear cut criticism of the parent that leaves the kids blameless.
So that’s really a pretty shitty example, too, Sean.
You know, coming to table with such weak shit really hurts your credibility. You can’t claim you’re better than us slovenly internet commenters just because you’re “Sean D. Martin” — he of the “real name.”
You have to demonstrate it by actually not being an idiot.
J.G.Thayer: “Sorry, Strowbridge. That wasn’t me. I didn’t make that argument.”
Yep. You are correct. That was the other Jay. Even calling you Thayer and him Caruso, I sometimes still get you two mixed up.
You are the one saying what the Japanese did was controlled drowning, while what the CIA did was simulated drowning. Even though what the CIA did was, in fact, real drowning. Textbook definition of drowning. Only in a controlled setting.
Fafaroo: “You have to demonstrate it by actually not being an idiot.”
I wonder if he’s going to call you insecure for insulting him.
CSS: But the cost of the dog is inherent to the dog itself. Unless the dog doesn’t cost that much normally, and Obama simply paid too much for the dog.
You make a declarative statement that the cost is inherent, and then immediately follow with a statement that it might not be. If anyone else pulled that you’d be having fun with your insults at their inability to make a consistent argument.
CSS: I’m going to bring up a past debate, but I think it will help illustrate some part of this debate.
One of Coleman’s top donors was sued by a business partner over $75,000. Do you remember that debate? You claimed Coleman wasn’t involved, even though his wife worked for the company.
I’m pretty sure if we get back into that one that all it will illustrate is your willingness to claim as facts things which have not been shown and to misrepresent what people have actually said. For example, I did not state Coleman wasn’t involved. I stated, repeatedly, that there was no evidence he was being investigated. A position backed up by the actual quotes in the actual article that was cited in OW’s original post (”We are not aware of any investigation that is under way, nor have we been contacted by any agency with respect to this matter.” and “The breadth of the FBI probe is unclear.”) while all you were ever able to come back with were variations on your original claim of “no where does it says Norm Coleman isn’t under investigation.”
fafaroo: First of all, “His kids get bad grades” in and of itself is not an attack. It’s a statement of fact if his kids, do indeed get bad grades.
Waitaminnit. So “A new best friend: $2,000.” has all sorts of hidden and overt meanings involving the unmentioned warmth, affection and loyalty understood to be represented by the dog and the clever reverse psychology of labeling as a “best friend” something that you mean to convey is “in capable of anything but the most insincere affections”.
But if they’d said “His kids get bad grades” would be simply a statement of fact, and we’re not to see any suggestion of insult to the intelligence of his kids.
Wow.
CSS: “But the cost of the dog is inherent to the dog itself. Unless the dog doesn’t cost that much normally, and Obama simply paid too much for the dog.”
Sean D. Martin: “You make a declarative statement that the cost is inherent, and then immediately follow with a statement that it might not be. If anyone else pulled that you’d be having fun with your insults at their inability to make a consistent argument.”
I think I’ll just quote you…
“I’m pretty sure if we get back into that one that all it will illustrate is your willingness to claim as facts things which have not been shown and to misrepresent what people have actually said.”
The price of the dog is inherent to the dog. You can not separate the dog from its price. If you attack the price of the dog, you are attacking the dog.
Now, there is one possible exception, which is Obama overpaid. That is to say, dogs of this breed generally go for $200, but Obama paid $2000. In this case, the cost of the dog would be $200, and would still be an inherent quality of the dog.
Here’s the thing, if this is the case, you have to back it up. You have now made an affirmative argument than Obama has overpaid for his dog, as this is the only scenario where attacking the price of the dog is not attacking the dog itself.
I.E. you are saying that the dog itself is not an over-extravagant pet, but that Obama merely overpaid for it.
Do you understand now?
Me: “I’m going to bring up a past debate, but I think it will help illustrate some part of this debate.
One of Coleman’s top donors was sued by a business partner over $75,000. Do you remember that debate? You claimed Coleman wasn’t involved, even though his wife worked for the company.”
Sean: “I’m pretty sure if we get back into that one that all it will illustrate is your willingness to claim as facts things which have not been shown and to misrepresent what people have actually said.”
Thank you for not answering my question at all. I asked, again, what was the lawsuit about. Why do you refuse to answer this question?
“For example, I did not state Coleman wasn’t involved. I stated, repeatedly, that there was no evidence he was being investigated. A position backed up by the actual quotes in the actual article that was cited in OW’s original post (’We are not aware of any investigation that is under way, nor have we been contacted by any agency with respect to this matter.’ and ‘The breadth of the FBI probe is unclear.’) while all you were ever able to come back with were variations on your original claim of ‘no where does it says Norm Coleman isn’t under investigation.’”
Yes, and as I explained at the time, over and over again, Nasser Kazeminy was being sued for funneling money to Norm Coleman. In cases like this, the crime involves two power. TWO FUCKING PEOPLE! The person ‘bribing’ the public official, and the public official being ‘bribed’. (There might be a more legally acceptable term for it.) If the crime is being investigated, BOTH MEN ARE BEING INVESTIGATED. The only way this is not true, is if one man is helping the investigation.
But again, this is an affirmative claim. In order to claim this, you must come up with the evidence. You can’t just say, ‘It’s possible, isn’t it?’ and then attack those who work under the opposite assumption.
You eventually agreed on this point.
You just think that Norm Coleman wasn’t connected to Nasser Kazeminy’s alleged crime. As you stated…
“The suits allege Kazeminy tried to funnel money to the company at which Coleman’s wife works. Nothing in the article says money was going directly to Coleman. Nothing in the suits alleges either Coleman was even aware of Kazeminy’s plan.”
I want you to explain this. I want you to explain why Nasser Kazeminy was being sued.
I’m 90% sure I know what you will say if you answer it truthfully, and it will be hilarious, which is why you won’t answer the question.
Sean: “Waitaminnit. So ‘A new best friend: $2,000.’ has all sorts of hidden and overt meanings involving the unmentioned warmth, affection and loyalty understood to be represented by the dog and the clever reverse psychology of labeling as a ‘best friend’ something that you mean to convey is ‘in capable of anything but the most insincere affections’.
But if they’d said ‘His kids get bad grades’ would be simply a statement of fact, and we’re not to see any suggestion of insult to the intelligence of his kids.
Wow.”
Are you off your meds? Are you hearing voices?
Or are you just illiterate?
And yes, that is a serious question.
But if they’d said “His kids get bad grades” would be simply a statement of fact, and we’re not to see any suggestion of insult to the intelligence of his kids.
Okay, Sean, it’s totally a slam on the kids.
Now tell me “A new best friend: $2,000″ is not a slam on the dog.
That being said, if the bit on the dog was dropped, what would the DNC talking points rebutting the rest of it be?
Copyright infringement? I think Mastercard might have something to say about it.
Besides, $2,000 for that dog is a reasonable price. Also, considering they paid for him out of pocket. Just like the swing set.
The attack is that public funds were used. Which is a lie.
Also, Oliver, why is CK wearing a Batman tag?
I thought the dog was a gift to Obama from Ted Kennedy — who owns several of the breed, including one named — I kid you folks not — “Splash.”
First of all, Jay, it is a Portuguese Water Dog. WATER dog. They were bred to help fishermen at sea. I’m quite confident the name of Ted Kennedy’s dog is not a reminder of fucking Cappaquidick. Ya toolbox.
Secondly, the dog was not a gift from the Kennedys. Ted put the Obamas in contact with the breeder.
Thanks for the correction, Duros. Like I said, I never cared enough about the whole thing to dig into the details, let alone remember them.
As far as the MasterCard thing goes… parody falls under “fair use” in copyright law. They’re safe here.
And come on, Duros… Ted Kennedy’s dog is named “SPLASH?” That is frigging HYSTERICAL. You gotta admit that. It’d be like finding out that George H. W. Bush’s favorite film director was Cubby Broccoli. Or that Bill Clinton’s favorite cigar was named “Monica.” Or George W. Bush’s college nickname was “pretzel.”
Like Larry The Cable Guy says: “I don’t care who you are, that there’s funny.”
J.
I don’t whine when others use personal attacks,
Yes you do.
I seem to remember several youtube videos being pulled down that used the “priceless” routine, but I may be mistaken.
And yeah, I guess it is humorous in an ironic way.
Kind of like George W. Bush’s nickname in the Texas Air National Guard: “Present.”
Obama’s dog is good news for John McCain.
Duros, you’re probably right about the YouTube thing. They are infamous for that — if someone even says “boo” (well, “copyright”) to them, they yank the video. It doesn’t matter if the claim has any merit whatsoever. And that is their right — they can take down any video at any time for any reason, or no reason. It doesn’t mean that the claim has merit, however.
Also, I put my nicknames in the conditional, Duros.
J.
CSS: If you attack the price of the dog, you are attacking the dog.
Because the dog decided how much it was going to be sold for?
You have now made an affirmative argument than Obama has overpaid for his dog … I.E. you are saying that the dog itself is not an over-extravagant pet, but that Obama merely overpaid for it.
Huh? Where did I do that? Where did I say anything about what a fair price for this type of dog is an whether Obama paid more than that?
You build what you perceive as these step-by-step logical arguments an end by claiming I’ve said something I never said and have to back up a case I’ve never made.
Honest to god, C, I try to follow thru your logic and understand what you’re actually saying but it gets difficult when you seem to be disregarding what I’ve actually said.
Sean, you won’t wanna hear this, but…
Welcome to the club.
Now brace yourself to be called a racist. There might even be Klan references.
J.
CSS: Thank you for not answering my question at all. I asked, again, what was the lawsuit about. Why do you refuse to answer this question?
Because I’m not interested in getting pulled into having to defend a position I never took.
OW headlines a post that Coleman is being investigated. In the article he linked to nowhere did it say X is being investigated. In fact, it said
- Neither Coleman nor his office has been contacted by the FBI.
- The breadth of the FBI probe is unclear.
- The two suits filed allege Kazeminy is guilty of wrongdoing and
- Neither suit alleges Coleman knew anything about Kazeminy’s plan.
So I note that Jay had a point when he said OW’s headline is misleading.
Which was enough to send you off on rants that included such amazing highlights as your claiming
– if something doesn’t specifcally say someone isn’t under investigation then clearly they are
– if someone funnels money to a company then clearly the spouses of anyone working there are the intended beneficiaries
– if someone is not part of the FBI team investigating the case then they don’t anything about it and they can’t state as a fact that he’s not being investigated, but you can state as a fact that he is even though you also are not part of the FBI team
– OK technically he isn’t under investigation but really he is
The only way this is not true, is if one man is helping the investigation.
But again, this is an affirmative claim. In order to claim this, you must come up with the evidence.
See, right there. You are demanding I provide support for a claim that I never made.
Carry on if you want, C. I’m not going back over this one any further. You already showed there is no point.
CSS: Are you off your meds? Are you hearing voices?
Or are you just illiterate?
And yes, that is a serious question.
No it isn’t. So by your standards you’re a fucking liar.
And notice how none of that in any way actually responds to the point being made. Typical of you, unfortunately. You claim you’re such a great rational person, but so rarely do you actually reply to the comment actually being made.
That should have been:
…if someone is not part of the FBI team investigating the case then they don’t know anything about it…
Jay Tea: Sean, you won’t wanna hear this, but…
Welcome to the club.
Been in the club before, Jay. No doubt will be again. But thanks for the welcome this time. (Won’t stop me from insult your views again next time I seriously disagree with you. But I do recognize when those I usually disagree with have a point.)
fafaroo: Okay, Sean, it’s totally a slam on the kids.
OK. Now we’re getting somewhere.
Now tell me “A new best friend: $2,000″ is not a slam on the dog.
I see it as a comment (and in the context of the ad, as a criticism even an insult) on the person who paid that price for the dog. The dog had no role in setting it’s price, so I don’t see it as an attack on the dog.
Because the dog decided how much it was going to be sold for?
Sean, of course, it didn’t. But the ad is suggesting that a $2,000 dog is an elitist status symbol.
In order to attack Obama for paying that much money for the dog, they have to turn the dog itself into an object.
The ad doesn’t want people to think of this dog, a Portuguese Water Dog, the way they think of their own lovable mutt, solely based on the price paid for it.
The ad may as well have said, “Obama owns a Portuguese Water Dog? What a douche!” I’m sorry Sean, but that’s an attack on the owner and the dog. Period.
I find it curious that you, self-appointed internet nanny are chiding anyone for avoiding a point — “And notice how none of that in any way actually responds to the point being made” — when you have yet to present a coherent defense of your own assertion.
OK. Now we’re getting somewhere.
Clearly you’re not following along.
I see it as a comment (and in the context of the ad, as a criticism even an insult) on the person who paid that price for the dog.
Sean, let’s back up cuz I gotta a couple questions for you.
Is there something wrong with paying $2,000 of your own money for a dog?
If so, what is wrong with paying $2,000 for a dog?
The ad may as well have said, “Obama owns a Portuguese Water Dog? What a douche!” I’m sorry Sean, but that’s an attack on the owner and the dog. Period.
See, if the ad said that, just that way, I could get behind it. At least it would be honest.
fafaroo: when you have yet to present a coherent defense of your own assertion.
I disagree. I’ve tried several times to explain my opinion which, in your opinion, have included a “pretty shitty example”. Since you managed to modify it to provide what you see as a better example, I can’t believe you completely missed my point.
Look, I’m not disagreeing with you about the statement the ad is trying to make. I just don’t see it as a “GOP Attacks Dog“. You’ve described in detail the underlying meaning and implications inherent in the ad, not all of which I agree with. OW’s headline similarly has other connotations, one being a they-pick-on-defenseless-animals type. And it is that which I clearly view differently than you.
—
Sean, let’s back up cuz I gotta a couple questions for you.
Oh dear. You’re not going to start channeling CSS, aren’t you. OK, go ahead.
Is there something wrong with paying $2,000 of your own money for a dog?
If so, what is wrong with paying $2,000 for a dog?
Oh god, you are. What does the dollar amount have to do with who the target of the ad is? I’m expressing an opinion on who is actually the target of the ad, and you’re off posing challenge questions about some tangent.
What does the dollar amount have to do with who the target of the ad is?
Sean, for godsakes, please explain what you think Obama is being critcized for without mentioning what he spent on the dog.
Can you?
please explain what you think Obama is being critcized for without mentioning what he spent on the dog.
Well, for starters his courtside seat, political cronyism and Air Force One photo op. Gee, this going off on tangents and ignoring what you’ve actually been talking about IS fun!
But returning to the actual subject at hand, fafaroo, for godsakes, how simply does it have to be explained?
I think Obama IS being criticized. I think he IS being attacked because of what he spent on the dog. I do NOT think the DOG is being attacked.
I’ve also acknowledge you and I differ on this. So just what is it you’re still trying to do?
Been in the club before, Jay. No doubt will be again. But thanks for the welcome this time. (Won’t stop me from insult your views again next time I seriously disagree with you. But I do recognize when those I usually disagree with have a point.)
Wouldn’t have it any other way.
I am starting to think that Strowbridge has a serious issue with projection, though. I bet he was called a racist (and quite possibly was one) at one point, so now he has to be “purer than Caesar’s wife” on the issue.
Probably has an issue with meds, and being diagnosed as seriously stupid, for that matter…
J.
I think Obama IS being criticized. I think he IS being attacked because of what he spent on the dog. I do NOT think the DOG is being attacked.
Sean, that’s exactly why I asked you, what’s wrong with spending $2,000 on a dog?
You agree that the GOP is attacking Obama for doing it, right? So they must think there’s something wrong with it.
Would you care to explain to us your understanding of what exactly that is?
Please note, Sean, I’m not asking you who is being attacked in the ad.
I am asking you to explain why you think Obama is being attacked for spending $2,000 on his dog.
fafaroo: Please note, Sean, I’m not asking you who is being attacked in the ad.
I am asking you to explain why you think Obama is being attacked for spending $2,000 on his dog.
And yet who is (or rather, who is not) being attacked in the ad is exactly what I have been commenting on. But you specifically aren’t asking me about that but instead want me to explain why the right wants to attack Obama.
You agree that the GOP is attacking Obama for doing it, right? So they must think there’s something wrong with it.
Would you care to explain to us your understanding of what exactly that is?
Why would I want to do that? Why would I have to explain anything about what “they must think”?
Why would I want to do that? Why would I have to explain anything about what “they must think”?
OK. So you’re fine just making sure everyone knows that it’s Obama who is being attacked. That’s the important thing.
Why is Obama being attacked for paying $2,000 for a dog? It doesn’t matter. It’s beside the point. All we need to know is that Obama is under attack for it
That’s wonderful, Sean.
But, please, you really don’t want to take a stab it? You don’t even want to try?
But, please, you really don’t want to take a stab it? You don’t even want to try?
No. Because
1) It’s not the point I was originally making and I see no point in letting you and CSS drag things off on a tangent and then beat me over the head with things I didn’t say, and
B) I think the answer to you questions is obvious (and wonder at your need for validation that you need me to say what it is).
Sean, you are complete tool. A pedantic, hair splitting tool.
B) I think the answer to you questions is obvious (and wonder at your need for validation that you need me to say what it is).
It’s also pretty obvious that you know you can’t answer the question without undermining your original, utterly hairsplitting, point.
It’s also pretty obvious that you know you can’t answer the question without undermining your original, utterly hairsplitting, point.
You really need to stop channeling CSS and telling me what I know.
I know that the GOP didn’t attack Obama’s dog. I know that they did attack Obama for his spending. Those two statements do not conflict.
I disagree with you. Live with it.
I disagree with you. Live with it.
Sean, I don’t think you get it. If you’re telling me to live with it, why on earth do you think you have any reason to scold Oliver for saying what he said?
I mean, Sean, why didn’t you just STFU and live with it?
But then there’s this:
Sean, if those two statements don’t conflict, just explain to me why it’s wrong to spend $2,000 on a dog.
It should be really simple.
fafaroo: just explain to me why it’s wrong to spend $2,000 on a dog.
Explain why it’s wrong? Point out to me where I’ve given any opinion on whether or not that’s too much to spend on a dog.
Dude, you are so pathetic.
CSS: “If you attack the price of the dog, you are attacking the dog.”
Sean D. Martin: “Because the dog decided how much it was going to be sold for?”
It doesn’t matter. Calling a car overprices is attacking the car, even though the car doesn’t have a say in its price. Hell, calling a car ugly is attacking the car, and the car doesn’t have a say in how it looks either. Neither do dog have a say in how they look.
Me: “You have now made an affirmative argument than Obama has overpaid for his dog … I.E. you are saying that the dog itself is not an over-extravagant pet, but that Obama merely overpaid for it.”
Seasn: “Huh? Where did I do that?”
In my example. Please try and keep up.
To further explain…
One of two things must be true.
1.) The dog has a value of $2000 or more, which is inherent to the dog itself.
2.) Or the dog has a value of less than $2000, in which case Obama overpaid.
One of these must be true.
Since we know this was an attack ad, because that’s what the GOP does, attack Obama and other Democrats. (I’m not complaining, I merely stating a fact.) They are either attacking the dog for being overpriced, or Obama for spending too much.
You seem to think the first one is not true, so the latter one must be true. In this case, you would have to come up with evidence to back it up.
“Honest to god, C, I try to follow thru your logic and understand what you’re actually saying…”
Sadly, I believe this is true.
“…but it gets difficult when you seem to be disregarding what I’ve actually said.”
I could say the same about you. In fact, I have several times. Remember all of the times I accused you of lying about what I said, even though you directly quoted what I wrote?
You took what I wrote, cut it in half, and changed its meaning through context (or the lack of context). I’m still not sure if you understand how that works. How context changes meaning.
I believe you might have reading comprehension issues.
Is English your first language?
J.G.Thayer: “Now brace yourself to be called a racist. There might even be Klan references.”
And when I don’t call him racist, it will be proof that you’re attacks against me are wrong.
I don’t call people racist because they disagree with me. I call people racist if and only if they act racist.
CSS: Thank you for not answering my question at all. I asked, again, what was the lawsuit about. Why do you refuse to answer this question?
Sean D. Martin: “Because I’m not interested in getting pulled into having to defend a position I never took.”
Are you fucking illiterate?
Here’s the fucking question, again…
“What was the Nasser Kazeminy about? Why was he being sued?”
There’s no fucking position to defend.
Now answer the fucking question.
Seam: “Which was enough to send you off on rants that included such amazing highlights as your claiming
- if something doesn’t specifcally say someone isn’t under investigation then clearly they are”
This is a lie. I never made this blanket claim. I never said that someone is under investigation unless otherwise stated.
I said under this set of circumstances this is true. Norm Coleman was involved in a crime that is under investigation. Therefor, Norm Coleman is under investigation.
“- if someone funnels money to a company then clearly the spouses of anyone working there are the intended beneficiaries”
You are such a fucking retard, it is amazing. If you would answer the question I keep asking, you would prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is likely why you will never answer it.
“- if someone is not part of the FBI team investigating the case then they don’t anything about it and they can’t state as a fact that he’s not being investigated, but you can state as a fact that he is even though you also are not part of the FBI team”
Huh? I think you are missing a word or two here.
(I think I understand what you meant, but I reserve the right to amend my answer if I an wrong.)
If someone is involved in a crime, and that crime is being investigated, then than person can be said to be under investigation.
However…
“- OK technically he isn’t under investigation but really he is”
Technically, if you want to be anal, the FBI investigates crimes, and not people.
However, and this is the part you cut out the first time around, if two people are involved in a crime, you can’t claim the one person is under investigation and the other isn’t.
CSS: “Are you off your meds? Are you hearing voices?
Or are you just illiterate?
And yes, that is a serious question.”
Sean D. Martin: “No it isn’t. So by your standards you’re a fucking liar.”
Yes it is, Sean. I believe you may be functionally illiterate. I believe you might have a serious reading comprehension problem.
This might be due to a learning disability, or perhaps you are ESL.
If you are either, I will try and be more respectful in the future.
The other option will not result in understanding and patience.
fafaroo: “just explain to me why it’s wrong to spend $2,000 on a dog.”
Sean D. Martin: “Explain why it’s wrong? Point out to me where I’ve given any opinion on whether or not that’s too much to spend on a dog.”
Again I ask… are you illiterate?
You have admitted the GOP attacked Obama for spending $2000 on a dog. For that to be an attack, there must be something wrong with spending $2000 on a dog.
With me so far?
Explain the attack. Explain what the GOP what trying to say about Obama in the ad.
You don’t have to agree with what the GOP was trying to say, you just have to tell us in your words what the GOP was trying to say.
Please, please, please answer the question.
If you do so in an honest way, we might actually be able to conclude this debate in a way that brings closure.
fafaroo: Dude, you are so pathetic.
Yeah, I didn’t think you could.
CSS: It doesn’t matter. Calling a car overprices is attacking the car, even though the car doesn’t have a say in its price.
Not quite comparable. Calling something overpriced is different from saying someone spent a lot of money on a thing. In any event, it’s already been established that you and I view this differently. I see it as an attack on the person being citicized, you see it as an attack on the object. So just what are you looking to gain by beating the dead horse?
CSS: Seasn: “Huh? Where did I do that?”
In my example. Please try and keep up.
I did it in your example. Sorry, but your unique brand of logic is difficult to follow at times.
Now answer the fucking question.
Stomp your widdle feet all you want, but no.
SDM: “Which was enough to send you off on rants that included such amazing highlights as your claiming
- if something doesn’t specifcally say someone isn’t under investigation then clearly they are”
CSS: This is a lie. I never made this blanket claim. I never said that someone is under investigation unless otherwise stated.
The reasoned debate style of CSS, ladies and gentlemen.
CSS: You have admitted the GOP attacked Obama for spending $2000 on a dog. For that to be an attack, there must be something wrong with spending $2000 on a dog.
With me so far?
No. For that to be an attack the GOP must think, or at least want to suggest (This is politics. What they say about someone may not have anything to do with what they actually think), there must be something wrong with spending $2000 on a dog. I do not have to have any opinion on whether $2000 is to much or not to recognize that the GOP has made an attack ad.
With me so far?
Me: “Now answer the fucking question.”
Sean: “Stomp your widdle feet all you want, but no.”
You are a fucking retard, and this proves it. You are fucking scared to answer a simple question, because you know you can’t answer it without looking like a complete fool.
So much so, that you would lose all credibility here.
SDM: “Which was enough to send you off on rants that included such amazing highlights as your claiming
- if something doesn’t specifcally say someone isn’t under investigation then clearly they are”
CSS: This is a lie. I never made this blanket claim. I never said that someone is under investigation unless otherwise stated.
Sean:
Sean: “The reasoned debate style of CSS, ladies and gentlemen.”
You are a fucking retard. You really are mentally retarded.
You just posted a link that proved I was right.
I never made the blanket claim that as long as there’s nothing that says someone is not under investigation they are under investigation.
I said that IF SOMEONE IS INVOLVED IN A CRIME THAT IS BEING INVESTIGATED, THEY ARE ASSUMED TO BE UNDER INVESTIGATION UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
I’ve given you this explanation countless times, and it seems every time I do, you ignore it. You ignore the explanation, and by doing so, you make it sound like I said something I did not.
In the past I would have called you a liar for doing so. But that is not the case, is it? No. You are just stupid. Very, very stupid.
CSS: “You have admitted the GOP attacked Obama for spending $2000 on a dog. For that to be an attack, there must be something wrong with spending $2000 on a dog.
With me so far?”
Sean: “No. For that to be an attack the GOP must think, or at least want to suggest (This is politics. What they say about someone may not have anything to do with what they actually think), there must be something wrong with spending $2000 on a dog. I do not have to have any opinion on whether $2000 is to much or not to recognize that the GOP has made an attack ad.
With me so far?”
If you blew your head off with a shotgun, your I.Q. would go up.
You just disagreed with me, and then said the same thing I did.
Fucking. Retard.
Yeah, I didn’t think you could.
Didn’t think I could what? Point to where you’ve “given any opinion on whether or not that’s too much to spend on a dog”?
Sean, stating your opinion on whether or not there’s something wrong with spending that much on a dog is the next step in your argument that the dog is not under attack.
So not only have you not completed your argument yet, now you’re refusing to!
As for this:
You’ve changed the point from “identifying who’s under attack” to “identifying whether an attack has been made.”
We all know it’s an attack and that Obama is under attack. No one ever doubted that, dude.
The question is whether or not the dog itself is also being criticized.
CSS and I have explained exactly why it is not possible to attack Obama for what he spent on the dog WITHOUT ALSO attacking the dog within the context of the ad.
The ad is not saying that Obama doesn’t know the value of Portuguese Water Dogs.
It’s saying that Obama knows the value of Portuguese Water Dogs and he’s willing pay it because Portuguese Water Dogs are an elitist status symbol, not the kind of regular dogs that regular Americans would buy.
If you don’t explain what meaning the dog itself has in the attack on Obama, Sean, you have not made your argument at all.
Period.
And Sean, what’s with this shit:
So just what are you looking to gain by beating the dead horse?
You’re the one who came here scolding Oliver for misrepresenting the ad.
You’re the only who came here claiming that Oliver was engaging in partisanship unbecoming a liberal.
You’re the one who appointed yourself judge of appropriate interpretations of things.
Now you just want to agree to disagree?
Well, Sean, it would have been great if you had that attitude before you got up on your high horse.
CSS: You just disagreed with me, and then said the same thing I did.
No, I didn’t Go back and read it again and this time pay attention to the subjects of sentences (Hint: “GOP” is not equal to “I”).
fafaroo: CSS and I have explained exactly why it is not possible to attack Obama for what he spent on the dog WITHOUT ALSO attacking the dog within the context of the ad.
And I have explained that clearly we disagree on this point. For myself, if I were to say “You spent too much on that widget” I would be criticizing the person. Their judgment, their spending habits, their what-have-you. I would not be criticizing the widget.
You and CSS may choose to tell me that regardless of what I say or mean by it, I would in fact actually be attacking the widget. But that would, again, just demonstrate that we have a different view. Not sure why you’re not willing to just end it there.
You’re the one who came here scolding Oliver for misrepresenting the ad.
Scolding? “Excuse me, but where is that an attack on the dog? It’s no more an attack on the dog than it’s an attack on the courtside seats.”
I expressed an opinion and you’ve been lambasting me for doing so ever since.
No, I didn’t Go back and read it again and this time pay attention to the subjects of sentences (Hint: “GOP” is not equal to “I”).
Sigh. And were not asserting that you’re attacking the dog, Sean. We’re saying the GOP is.
If the GOP is attacking Obama for spending $2,000 on a dog, there’s a very limited range of ground on which such an attack can be based:
1) The $2,000 is too much to pay for Portuguese Water Dog, or any dog, for that matter and so Obama is a sucker for paying it.
2) $2,000 is exactly the price of a Portuguese Water Dog and people who are willing to pay it are elitist snobs who are interested more in acquiring status symbols than the warmth and affection that dogs bring.
The second is the basis of this particular GOP attack which renders the dog an object, a status symbol.
In the first instance, the dog is not an object of the attack, as well.
If you can’t or won’t explain what the GOP is attacking Obama for, you have not made your argument for whether or not the dog is being attacked, as well.
It’s really , really simple.
I expressed an opinion and you’ve been lambasting me for doing so ever since.
Right. I didn’t also read this:
Sean, do you really want to keep doing this?
Fafaroo: “You’re the one who appointed yourself judge of appropriate interpretations of things.”
What’s so amazing is, Sean’s really bad at interpreting things.
Take the Norm Coleman investigation I mention. Originally I said that if Norm Coleman was involved in a crime that was being investigated, then he is under investigation unless there’s evidence to the contrary.
How did Sean interpret that? He says that I said, ‘Someone is assumed to be under investigation, unless there’s evidence to the contrary.’
He took a conditional statement, removed the condition, and then said that I said the consequence was true at all times.
In predicate logic, I said ‘If A, then B’ and he said I claimed B must be true, regardless of the value of A.
Being able to identify and interpret a conditional statement is not University level. In fact, it is not even High School level.
Fafaroo: “Sean, do you really want to keep doing this?”
Eventually he will run away, but I seriously doubt he will ever admit he was wrong.
CSS: “You just disagreed with me, and then said the same thing I did.”
Sean D. Martin: “No, I didn’t”
Yes, you did.
“Go back and read it again and this time pay attention to the subjects of sentences (Hint: ‘GOP’ is not equal to ‘I’).”
I said the GOP attacked Obama in the ad.
I asked you to explain that attack.
I said that you didn’t have to agree with that attack to be able to explain it.
You then said, “No. For that to be an attack the GOP must think, or at least want to suggest (This is politics. What they say about someone may not have anything to do with what they actually think), there must be something wrong with spending $2000 on a dog. I do not have to have any opinion on whether $2000 is to much or not to recognize that the GOP has made an attack ad.”
This is what I said.
If you don’t think this is what I said, then you will be able to re-write what I said in your own words and show how it is different.
CSS: Eventually he will run away, but I seriously doubt he will ever admit he was wrong.
Eventually he will get bored with the game and move on. But I seriously doubt you will ever get beyond Coleman.
I don’t agree with you. I’m not going to agree with you. And that is something you just can’t handle it seems. You are fixated on having to be proven right, so in need of validation that no doubt you will see my “Oh, that’s enough time wasted talking with this brick wall” as some admission that you were right all the time.
I leave you to it.
CSS: “Eventually he will run away, but I seriously doubt he will ever admit he was wrong.”
Sean: “Eventually he will get bored with the game and move on. But I seriously doubt you will ever get beyond Coleman.”
No. I will continue to ask you that question, because it is your personal Kryptonite to your brand of stupid.
Sean D. Martin: “I don’t agree with you. I’m not going to agree with you. And that is something you just can’t handle it seems.”
It’s not the disagreeing with me that I have a problem with. It’s the fact that you will make a statement, and then fucking run away from it.
You won’t answer a few simple fucking questions, and I think I know why…
You are too fucking stupid to do so.
“You are fixated on having to be proven right, so in need of validation that no doubt you will see my ‘Oh, that’s enough time wasted talking with this brick wall’ as some admission that you were right all the time.”
And this is your way of deflecting blame. ‘I’m not a total fucking retard because I can’t answer a simple question. C.S.Strowbridge (and fafaroo) are deranged lunatics for asking me the same questions over and over again. It’s their fault, not mine!’
You can prove me wrong by answering a two simple questions…
1.) Explain the attack against Obama from the GOP ad.
2.) Explain why Paul McKim sued Nasser Kazeminy.
In your own words.
Can you do it?
Or are you going to run away, again.
Me: “Or are you going to run away, again.”
You are going to run away, apparently.
That’s kind of funny, as you were mocking J.G.Thayer for doing the same thing not too long ago.
I guess that makes you a hypocrite.
Still running for a couple of simple requests.
You are an amazing coward, Sean.
I’m not asking you to defend a position you don’t hold. I’m asking you to explain something you’ve formed an opinion on.
I don’t care what you think about the legal matters of the lawsuit. I just want you to explain it in your own words.
I don’t care what you think about the logic behind this attack ad. I just want you to explain what it was saying in your own words.
Are you even capable of that?
The average high school drop-out is capable of that. Are you?
Me: “The average high school drop-out is capable of that. Are you?”
Clearly not. You have run away. Just like J.G.Thayer ran away from you.
CSS: I’m asking you to explain something you’ve formed an opinion on.
Did that. Several times.* What I didn’t do any of those times was acknowledge that you’re completely right and my own opinion on something is completely, which is what really your insecure ego can never get past.
*
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/05/15/whig-watch-gop-attacks-obamas-dog/#comment-152853
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/05/15/whig-watch-gop-attacks-obamas-dog/#comment-152987
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/05/15/whig-watch-gop-attacks-obamas-dog/#comment-153003
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/05/15/whig-watch-gop-attacks-obamas-dog/#comment-153032
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/05/15/whig-watch-gop-attacks-obamas-dog/#comment-153089
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/05/15/whig-watch-gop-attacks-obamas-dog/#comment-153167