I am sick of Republican FALSE outrage...!

[Onceler]

Okay,

If Obama has to express it, please show me where McCain was 'outraged' over Clark's comments. Where McCain has been "playing the game" as you state here.

Or we could point to the primary and the outrage over the "3 AM phone call" ad. Or the outrage over the experience comments. or...

It might not be "outrage," but McCain came out almost immediately saying he was proud of his service and that Clark's comments were "unnecessary," which fueled the fire of those expressing more outrage than that.

Clark wasn't attacking his service, or saying he shouldn't be proud of it, or saying anything inaccurate or wrong. He was saying that his experience in Vietnam didn't make him qualified to be President, and he's right.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Now, back to Candy changing his tune....

Again Alice, for me to ""change my tune".... don't you think my position would actually have to, oh I don't know... CHANGE???

 

[Jarod]

Poor little Alice. Still incapable of reading comprehension.

Show me just ONE instance where I stated anything of the kind. From the very first thread regarding Clark I stated his comments were 100% accurate and that they only looked bad when taken out of context.

So either learn to read or do try to remain silent. Better to have others think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove them correct.

It was clear to me, and others what your intent was in the topic of your thread, "Another Attack on McCain's Service", but You claim differently and there is no sense argueing with you over it.

 

[Damocles]

It might not be "outrage," but McCain came out almost immediately saying he was proud of his service and that Clark's comments were "unnecessary," which fueled the fire of those expressing more outrage than that.

Clark wasn't attacking his service, or saying he shouldn't be proud of it, or saying anything inaccurate or wrong. He was saying that his experience in Vietnam didn't make him qualified to be President, and he's right.

Yup. But it certainly isn't an example of what he supposedly is asking for from Obama.

They hire people to express their 'outrage', that is yet again another way the game is played.

I did provide other examples, editing them into that post as well.


And I have NEVER said that Clark was attacking anything, that is a strawman.

 

[Bonestorm]

Okay,

If Obama has to express it, please show me where McCain was 'outraged' over Clark's comments. Where McCain has been "playing the game" as you state here.

Or we could point to the primary and the outrage over the "3 AM phone call" ad. Or the outrage over the experience comments. or... myriad other examples of the fast response team expressing 'outrage' and playing the politics game.

I'm not setting the parameters of the game, cawacko is. Take it up with him.

And rather than your general recollection of the response from the Obama campaign, surely you can provide something concrete. As I recall, Obama responded to the 3 AM ad with an ad of his own that flipped it on her, he didn't act outraged over it and pitch a hissy fit like a child.

 

[Damocles]

It was clear to me, and others what your intent was in the topic of your thread, "Another Attack on McCain's Service", but You claim differently and there is no sense argueing with you over it.

BS, this is directly dishonest.

It was clear to anybody who honestly admits to actually having previous conversations that SF had no qualms about Clark's comments and never said that they were attacks or viewed them as such.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here you go Alice, the first thread regarding Clarks comments that I posted on....

http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=12343&highlight=Clark

I'll accept your apology any time precious.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It was clear to me, and others what your intent was in the topic of your thread, "Another Attack on McCain's Service", but You claim differently and there is no sense argueing with you over it.

ROFLMAO....

So because YOU read into the title what YOU wanted to see, somehow that makes it MY position?

Well fuck me then. How could I have been so silly.

 

[Onceler]

"And I have NEVER said that Clark was attacking anything, that is a strawman."

A wee bit defensive there, aren't we?

I said that because McCain was acting like his service was being attacked. I wasn't referring to you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Note to all....

If you mention the LEFT attacking McCain it is "clear" that you are referring to Clark.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not setting the parameters of the game, cawacko is. Take it up with him.

And rather than your general recollection of the response from the Obama campaign, surely you can provide something concrete. As I recall, Obama responded to the 3 AM ad with an ad of his own that flipped it on her, he didn't act outraged over it and pitch a hissy fit like a child.

BS.

One was more general while you tried to narrow the definition down to specifically the candidate.

I gave other examples as well, but since you want to talk about that ad.

There was 'outrage' all over about the 3 AM ad. People compared it to the ad from long ago with the mushroom cloud in the little girl's eyes...

This is what a good fast response team does.

 

[Cypress]

Actually I think the comments were stupid not offensive.

Edit: It was stupid in how he couched them as I said before.

I can see a kernel of truth in what you're saying.

If you just saw the clipped video, of where he said being shot down doesn't quality one for president, it could sound a little petty to some people.

Even though its 100% true.

The entire interview, in all its context, was totally dead on, though.

McCain's people are crying like little girls over nothing. I half expect John McCain to break down in tears if this keeps up.

 

[Bonestorm]

One is that radio host in Cincinatti (I believe) that introduce McCain by saying Obama's full name three times. There was outrage from the left and McCain had to come out and denounce the guy. One example.

Uh . . . that was little different. I'm not sure which thing is was the Obama may have gotten offended about since the whole tirade was pretty offensive, the Hussein thing just being a fairly insignificant part of it. Here's a portion of it:

Well my fellow Americans, now we have a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician, who’s picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you’re going to have in your pocket is change. At some point, in the near future, the media — the stooges from the New York Times, CBS the Clinton Broadcasting System, NBC the Nobody But Clinton network, the All Bill Clinton channel ABC and the Clinton News Network — at some point, is going to peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama, that day will come.

“Then you’ll know the truth about his business dealings with Resco, when he got sweetheart deals in Chicago, and the illegal loans he received, at some point the media will quit taking sides in this thing, and maybe start covering Barack Hussein Obama the same way they cover Bush, the same way they cover Cheney, and the same way they cover every Republican. I look forward to that day when truth comes, I look forward to that.

“You know last night as I was nodding off in my palatial estate, I had this vision. An angel visited me at night and said, Willie, let’s go ahead one year. It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s going to be Barack Hussein Obama’s Wonderful Life a year from today. It’s about February 26, 2009. Barack Obama is in the White House, Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader!

“Obama just came back from meeting with Ahmadinejad, he’s got a meeting the next week with Kim Jong Il in North Korea, then he’s going to saddle up next to Hezbelloah, they’re going to have a little cookie and cream party. All’s going to be right with the world when the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand, and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing Kumbayah together around the table of Barack Obama. It’s all going to be great, it’s all going to be wonderful.”

And this was a guy that McCain chose to warm up the crowd at a fundraiser. I'm not sure that getting outraged or offended by the above qualifies as "false outrage."

In fact, the comments were so offensive that Obama didn't even have to denounce them. McCain immediately apologized at the conclusion of the event after his staff brought Cunningham's statements to his attention. Obama's campaign responded to McCain's apology thusly:

“We appreciate Senator McCain’s remarks. It is a sign that if there is a McCain-Obama general election, it can be intensely competitive but the candidates will attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues.

I think you'll have to try a bit harder.

 

[Bonestorm]

BS.

One was more general while you tried to narrow the definition down to specifically the candidate.

I gave other examples as well, but since you want to talk about that ad.

There was 'outrage' all over about the 3 AM ad. People compared it to the ad from long ago with the mushroom cloud in the little girl's eyes...

This is what a good fast response team does.

And surely you have someone on the Obama team expressing outrage or offense at the ad rather than attacking the validity of the message in the ad. Right?

 

[cawacko]

Uh . . . that was little different. I'm not sure which thing is was the Obama may have gotten offended about since the whole tirade was pretty offensive, the Hussein thing just being a fairly insignificant part of it. Here's a portion of it:




And this was a guy that McCain chose to warm up the crowd at a fundraiser. I'm not sure that getting outraged or offended by the above qualifies as "false outrage."

In fact, the comments were so offensive that Obama didn't even have to denounce them. McCain immediately apologized at the conclusion of the event after his staff brought Cunningham's statements to his attention. Obama's campaign responded to McCain's apology thusly:



I think you'll have to try a bit harder.

If I wanted to take a real partisan position I don't find anything that offensive in what the guy said. You can argue hyperbole but not offensive. The Obama camp and others (through surrogates) complained and McCain apologized.

However if I were in the McCain campaign I would not want someone introducing me that way.

 

[Damocles]

And surely you have someone on the Obama team expressing outrage or offense at the ad rather than attacking the validity of the message in the ad. Right?

And surely you have somebody on the McCain team expressing outrage rather than his pride in service?

Again, this is what a good fast response team does.

You are being dishonest, deliberately. It is a trend today from the left.

 

[Bonestorm]

And surely you have somebody on the McCain team expressing outrage rather than his pride in service?

Again, this is what a good fast response team does.

You are being dishonest, deliberately. It is a trend today from the left.

Sure, does this count:

But McCain told reporters on his campaign plane Tuesday evening that “I think it is up to Senator Obama now to not only repudiate him but to cut him loose."

Or this:

On Tuesday, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Clark’s words don’t amount to an apology, and Obama’s campaign aides “are either encouraging or tolerating his attacks.”

“The Obama campaign even said they were ‘glad’ that Gen. Clark ‘clarified’ a comment they supposedly repudiated. If this kind of wink-and-nod game is how Barack Obama wants to run his campaign, then fine. But spare us the empty talk of ‘new politics’ and raising the dialogue in this country. We just wonder: Will Barack Obama’s actions ever match his words?” Rogers said, according to a statement.

Or this:

Swindle, who was also a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, said Clark “ought to be ashamed of himself,” and suggested Obama’s handling of the issue shows “he can’t even lead his surrogates. He’s not going to do a good job of being commander in chief.”

Or this:

"If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates. If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks."

 

[Damocles]

Sure, does this count:



Or this:



Or this:



Or this:

Then his fast response team isn't as good.

However, you are again talking about Clark, not Beers.

As far as I understand it, improving as people often do, McCain's team is talking about his pride in his service and not how 'outraged' they are this time.

Contrasting a better response to one that was poorly done doesn't change the point I am making.

Attempting to say the outrage must be expressed from Obama himself for the game to be played is pretense.

 

[Bonestorm]

If I wanted to take a real partisan position I don't find anything that offensive in what the guy said. You can argue hyperbole but not offensive. The Obama camp and others (through surrogates) complained and McCain apologized.

However if I were in the McCain campaign I would not want someone introducing me that way.

In bold above, that's not the way it happened. McCain apologized immediately after the event when he was informed by his staff of what Cunningham said. Obama didn't say anything about it except for the statement I posted above after McCain apologized.

 

[Bonestorm]

Then his fast response team isn't as good.

However, you are again talking about Clark, not Beers. As far as I understand it, improving as people often do, McCain's team is talking about his pride in his service and not how 'outraged' they are this time.

Backtracking bullshit, son.