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

Clearly not. You have run away. Just like J.G.Thayer ran away from you.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Eventually he will run away, but I seriously doubt he will ever admit he was wrong.

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.

Right. I didn’t also read this:

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.

Sean, do you really want to keep doing this?

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.

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.

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.

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”).

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:

For that to be an attack the GOP must think, or at least want to suggest … 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.

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.

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.

CSS: This is a lie. I never made this blanket claim. I never said that someone is under investigation unless otherwise stated.

Sean:

CSS: “In fact, no where does it says Norm Coleman isn’t under investigation.”

SDM: That’s the standard we’re to go by? The guy must be beating his wife because he’s never issued a statment saying he wasn’t??

CSS: Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit.

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.

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.

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?