Switch Hitters!

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


CF, try responding without personal attacks. Bet you are incappable....

Download Firefox, it has a built in spell checker.  I hate to be the spelling police since I suck at spelling; but without fail, whenever you mock someone or try to call them our you misuse words and hack away at spelling others.  In this instance misusing the term "personal attack" and misspelling incapable.  

But I digress...

Where did I attack you?  I pointed out:

1) Your links were duplicates - and they are.

2) Your links don't support your statement, which they don't.  

You stated McCain wasn't getting any money, the articles linked said 7 people who donated to Bush had given money to Obama - they didn't even indicate they did so to the exclusion of McCain.  That does not support your claim.

3) Thus, I concluded that you either did not read it or you are trying to mislead people.  The option I left out to avoid attacking you is that you are incompetent to the point of not realize what you have done.  So, if anything, I gave you the bennefit of the doubt by avoiding pointing out that third possibility.

But now that I have, it is STILL not a personal attack.  If I took my boy in for testing and the doctor told me that he seemed grossly incapable of putting shapes in the appropriate slot and was totally incompetent in that regard - it is not an attack but a mere observation.  In this instance, your discussion have led me to conclude that you are either misleading people, not reading your own links, or incompetent.

4) and finally I said your statements were weak.   Which is entirely true.
- - -

A personal attack is the substitution of an insult or ancillary matter involving character or evidence of character instead of discussion matters of opinion, fact, or of relevance to the conversation.    For instance, if in response to a list of valid concerns you were to call them a fascist out of context, say that they had no right to talk as they cheated in high school math,  or accuse someone of underhanded tactics in discussion.

Like, for instance, telling someone they always pull out personal attacks when they point out a weak statement instead of defending your position.

Seriously, if you can't handle civilized but firm discussion with people that are willing and able to point out your weak arguments, then create another new screen name and start over.  Otherwise, try to not spam worthless articles, avoid posting links to sources that don't support your contention, and stop whining when someone points out when your entirely off base.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


CF, try responding without personal attacks. Bet you are incappable....

Download Firefox, it has a built in spell checker.  I hate to be the spelling police since I suck at spelling; but without fail, whenever you mock someone or try to call them our you misuse words and hack away at spelling others.  In this instance misusing the term "personal attack" and misspelling incapable.  

But I digress...

Where did I attack you?  I pointed out:

1) Your links were duplicates - and they are.

2) Your links don't support your statement, which they don't.  

You stated McCain wasn't getting any money, the articles linked said 7 people who donated to Bush had given money to Obama - they didn't even indicate they did so to the exclusion of McCain.  That does not support your claim.

3) Thus, I concluded that you either did not read it or you are trying to mislead people.  The option I left out to avoid attacking you is that you are incompetent to the point of not realize what you have done.  So, if anything, I gave you the bennefit of the doubt by avoiding pointing out that third possibility.

But now that I have, it is STILL not a personal attack.  If I took my boy in for testing and the doctor told me that he seemed grossly incapable of putting shapes in the appropriate slot and was totally incompetent in that regard - it is not an attack but a mere observation.  In this instance, your discussion have led me to conclude that you are either misleading people, not reading your own links, or incompetent.

4) and finally I said your statements were weak.   Which is entirely true.
- - -

A personal attack is the substitution of an insult or ancillary matter involving character or evidence of character instead of discussion matters of opinion, fact, or of relevance to the conversation.    For instance, if in response to a list of valid concerns you were to call them a fascist out of context, say that they had no right to talk as they cheated in high school math,  or accuse someone of underhanded tactics in discussion.

Like, for instance, telling someone they always pull out personal attacks when they point out a weak statement instead of defending your position.

Seriously, if you can't handle civilized but firm discussion with people that are willing and able to point out your weak arguments, then create another new screen name and start over.  Otherwise, try to not spam worthless articles, avoid posting links to sources that don't support your contention, and stop whining when someone points out when your entirely off base.

Yes, some double posts are neccesary due to several threads spinning off into the same discussions.

Obviously, McCain is getting some money. Why hold that out? Give me a break. He'll get clobbered on the fund raiser side.

Address the issues and don't attack me over a few misspelled words or generalizations you like to take out of context to counter punch. Try to stay on subject. Discussion with you is a waste of time as you meander into personal observations and generalized assumptions.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


Address the issues and don't attack me over a few misspelled words or generalizations you like to take out of context to counter punch. Try to stay on subject. Discussion with you is a waste of time as you meander into personal observations and generalized assumptions.

I meander?  You said I attacked you personally, I defended that claim.  Seems to be a direct response to your tangent.  Lets examine my last post on topic.

quote:The first link simply lists 7 or 8 people who gave to Bush that have given to Obama. I fail to see what the big deal is. Has anyone argued that no one will switch sides in this matter?

Directly on point.

quote:Asides from Beverly Fanning, Obama has received donations from Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Connie Ballmer, Don King, and Richard Mellon Scaife.

So a relative of former politicians, the wife of a democrat, a black boxer promoter, and the wife of some rich guy have given money to Obama.

Directly on point.

quote:
The other article says the same thing, including:

   quote:A computer analysis, incomplete because of the difficulty of matching data from campaign-finance reports, found that hundreds of people who gave at least $200 to Bush's 2004 campaign have donated to Obama.

Directly on point.

quote:
You are either not reading your own sources or intentionally misleading people. You just link to 2 more sources citing the exact same study. They don't say anything new and they don't support your statement.

Directly relevant to the discussion.  

quote:
With confidence, I will say that hundred of people who gave money to Kerry will give money to McCain. Real ground breaking stuff there. I bet we can even find relatives of politicians, show biz hacks, and rich people who will give him money.

Directly on point.

quote:
Please stop wasting my time by making me point out how weak your statements are.

A personal plea.
- - -

Wow, I really wasted a ton of my response of ancillary crap.  I guess actually pointing out what articles say, quoting form them, and making counter points is off topic.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I think there needs to be an iplaw-FOTD cage match.

I'll bring the hot dogs and popcorn.

Sorry, I can't take part in the abuse of the mentally challenged.

But if both are, then it's even. [)]

Just kidding. But you left an opening big enough to drive a Kenilworth through.

Let's make it a cage-match tournament:

-- iplaw vs. FOTD
-- spoonbill vs. shadows
-- RecycleMichael vs. pmcalk
-- jamesrage vs. inteller

I'd lay my money on the big guy, RM, winning the whole thing.

Back to topic: I'm quite happy with the two remaining nominees. But McCain had better deliver better speeches than the awful one he gave Tuesday night.

I hate that stupid sh#t-eating grin that McCain gets on his face when he thinks he's said something clever.  As far as Obama, his speeches are just karaoke performances, someone else writes all of his speeches for him.  I don't know which is worse, the guy that can't write his own speech or the guy that is overly impressed with the sub=par speech he did write...

I'm not overly impressed with anyone this year.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588
Let's make it a cage-match tournament:

-- iplaw vs. FOTD
-- spoonbill vs. shadows
-- RecycleMichael vs. pmcalk
-- jamesrage vs. inteller

I'd lay my money on the big guy, RM, winning the whole thing.

No way. I wouldn't make it out of the first round. I am afraid of pmcalk. She uses unfair tactics like truth and facts. They are off-limits in my posts.

[FOTD]

IPLaw.....where did you get the "fact" Obama does not write his own speeches? Cannon Fodder, you should be all over that kind of rhetoric. OOppps, he's one of yours....

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Cannon Fodder, you should be all over that kind of rhetoric. OOppps, he's one of yours....

It is VERY well known that Obama employs a speech writer.  Several major publications have done stories on him (the speech writer).

Jon Favreau is Obama's primary speech writer (he;s 26!). I tend not to jump on factual statements.  I can not attest to what speeches Obama has written all by himself, which he had no hand in, or which were collaborations. I do know Obama wrote the 2004 speech at the DNC and that Fav wrote Obama's Iowa Victory speech) - so he can do well with and without help.  Perhaps he needs time to draft his speeches and it is being taken up by campaigning (accounting for several lackluster speeches).  I dunno...

So long as the message is what the candidate intends, who wrote it is of secondary importance.  Many, if not most of the speeches of the past 100 years were written by someone else.  The delivery is nearly all up to the candidate (some coaching involved) - an area few deny that Obama excels in.

So for whatever that is worth.  Next time I'm not looking it up for you AOX.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756/page/1

[edit]typo[/edit]

[iplaw]

Whether or not he can write a speech directly impacts the next 6 months of this campaign for Obama. He seems to do very poorly when a teleprompter isn't in front of his face, or he doesn't have a rehearsed speech to present, take the ABC debate for example.

McCain has offered to do 10 town hall type meetings with Obama, even offering to travel together.  Unrehearsed meetings with random questions from audience members.  Something tells me Obama isn't going to jump on this proposal.

The less he says the better, but unlike with Clinton, he can't avoid one-on-one debates from here on out.

[cannon_fodder]

Along the same constructive lines, this has the potential to be a good campaign on issues.  Neither McCain nor Obama have started throwing mud.  Neither really has much dirt to be thrown up - Obama's preacher and the developer thing, but both are areas already beat to death and which McCain has shown no interest in.

So that seems to just leave the issues.  At least, I hope so.

I hope they do the debates.  It would be great if they traveled together and actually liked each other.  A civil election, crazy.

/no illusion that it will stay that way.

[iplaw]

I would love for that to be the case too, but with Obama supporters like AOX, any questioning of their candidate, for any reason will automatically be deemed racist or bigoted.  This will be the most PC presidential race ever.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Whether or not he can write a speech directly impacts the next 6 months of this campaign for Obama. He seems to do very poorly when a teleprompter isn't in front of his face, or he doesn't have a rehearsed speech to present, take the ABC debate for example.

McCain has offered to do 10 town hall type meetings with Obama, even offering to travel together.  Unrehearsed meetings with random questions from audience members.  Something tells me Obama isn't going to jump on this proposal.

The less he says the better, but unlike with Clinton, he can't avoid one-on-one debates from here on out.

You have an interesting point.  I noticed how poorly he did in unrehearsed debate.  I've always thought this was a serious weakness for him.  Pandering to a crowd is one thing, but displaying an understanding of the anatomy of politics is another.

I think it will be good to gain an understanding of how he's going to make all of his billion dollar programs work.  That's been my peeve from the beginning.  He's up to about $600,000,000,000 in promises for new programs without explaining how much he wants to raise taxes.

As for the economy, all he promises is tighter, more efficient regulation (whatever that means), and increased taxation.  I'd like to know how that will stimulate growth. LOL.

He's made broad statements about national security (many that he's already retracted or qualified) without going into detail on how those decisions would increase US security.  I'm happy that he wants other countries to "like us."  I'm sure that they only hate us because they feel bad about themselves!

Lots of touchy-feely but not much substance.  At least now we get to see the logic behind the emotion.  Right?


Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock, Founder and CEO Emeritus of Visa Corp

[FOTD]

The informal chat discussions will be interesting between Obama and McSame. The contrast will be a simple view into why so many Clinton supporters switch over to Obama.

It would be exciting to see a real debate as well. Then we could judge who is the authentic candidate for President. Then even republicans will switch over realizing McSame can't think on his feet for more than 10 minutes at a time.

BTW, did anyone ever figure out what that big box under Shrubs coat was in the last debate with John Skerry?

[iplaw]

You really are delusional aren't you?  Turn off the dead head tunes, put down the bong and step away from the little debbies.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

The informal chat discussions will be interesting between Obama and McSame. The contrast will be a simple view into why so many Clinton supporters switch over to Obama.

It would be exciting to see a real debate as well. Then we could judge who is the authentic candidate for President. Then even republicans will switch over realizing McSame can't think on his feet for more than 10 minutes at a time.

BTW, did anyone ever figure out what that big box under Shrubs coat was in the last debate with John Skerry?

I just love the nick names!  

What would otherwise be an intelligent political discussion becomes an elementary school booger fight.[]

Continue to represent!  

Thank you for supporting Obama.

[FOTD]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080604_obamas_strikes_a_chord_with_a_disaffected_republican/

Obama Strikes a Chord With a Disaffected Republican

Iglesias predicted that the Republican Party will be reined in as a result of the U.S. attorney firing scandal:

"I hope the media keeps shining the spotlight on groups like the American Center for Voting Rights, which has been engaging in this type of voter-suppression action, especially targeting the elderly people and minorities. If you are an American citizen who is not a felon, you have the right to vote. I would just hope that in swing states like Missouri, Wisconsin, New Mexico and a handful of other states, that the Democratic Party and the media really keep a lot of pressure on this."

A fellow Okie to boot?