Obama's Margin of Error in the Polls

No, you are attempting to redirect. The Secret Service did not choose the venue and the conversation is about WHY the venue was selected.

Misdirection is a tool used by the disingenuous.

So, either the SS has all this uber-power to make those decisions, such as venue and time, and chose not to at the RNC, or you are just pretending to be dumb purposefully because it allows you to imagine the perfection of the DNC.


Ugh, you're tiresome. So now the DNC concocted this scheme to hold the event at a privately owned venue to oppress first amendment rights and to support Obama's unity message even though the venue was selected before Obama was the candidate and unity was the message and even though they've moved the acceptance speech to Invesco Field, which is publicly owned? Christ on crutches you've got an active imagination.

I thought we were just talking about who was responsible for the security operation, including the free speech zones, which is indisputably the Secret Service and not the DNC.
 
Ugh, you're tiresome. So now the DNC concocted this scheme to hold the event at a privately owned venue to oppress first amendment rights and to support Obama's unity message even though the venue was selected before Obama was the candidate and unity was the message and even though they've moved the acceptance speech to Invesco Field, which is publicly owned? Christ on crutches you've got an active imagination.

I thought we were just talking about who was responsible for the security operation, including the free speech zones, which is indisputably the Secret Service and not the DNC.
It is a common way to ensure control of where protesters can be. People who are setting this up definitely know that. They could, if they wished, give greater access to protesters, even while still ensuring security. If the SS can do it for the RNC, I am well sure of their ability to do it at another venue.

There is no requirement of magical superpowers from the SS that makes it so they have to hide protesters behind the air conditioning tents and the news central command centers. That is sad pretense.

The reality is the party of protesters wants to control the unity message and they can't with news show after news show punishing them with pictures of protesters right in the faces of the delegates. You know this, and want to desperately obfuscate, to defend what you otherwise would call indefensible if it were done exactly the same way for the RNC.

I wonder why they haven't found the mini-Gitmo in Minneapolis St. Paul, why protesters will be allowed nearby... It could be that the Secret Service simply doesn't have the magic powers you give them so you can continue to pretend in your mind of the uber-perfection of all things "unity".

I've known you to be one of the more intelligent posters, and often one of the most dishonest when attempting to defend what you think is your own. There is nothing you have said in this thread that shows you have a modicum of common sense or any capacity to hear anything that you consider "bad" about your own. You will pass the buck at every opportunity, blame everybody but those who did make the decisions. Somehow by the end of this, you are going to somehow make it so that it's the republicans fault.

(Imagine, all this over the simple statement, and an explanation of why, that Obama isn't going to hear what BAC says he so desperately needs to understand.)
 
Here is Alterman on this subject, the first half here, the second half at link. To me, this is just clear and simple common sense...but he lays it out better than I can.

Eric Alterman

August 13, 2008

"Given the extent to which the self-definition of elite Washington reporters depends not only on their access to power but also on their role in reinforcing its prerogatives, it would be odd if eight years of a limitlessly corrupt, pathologically dishonest and lawless presidency did not leave its mark. And while we might have hoped that these actions would help the press to stiffen its collective backbone, unfortunately it has done just the opposite.

Republicans are running a presidential campaign at a moment of historic unpopularity for their party and with a candidate who has a panoply of potentially negative associations for voters. In the first place, John McCain's stances on the issues, while consistent with the desires of his party's base, are at odds with the professed wishes of the American people. Second, while he bills himself as a man of principle, he has in fact changed his position--"flip-flopped"--repeatedly on fundamental issues such as immigration, taxes, campaign finance, reproductive choice, etc. (See "Loving McCain," July 7.)

Third, owing to the inheritances of the woman with whom he conducted an adulterous affair before leaving his disabled first wife, the Republican enjoys eight separate residences across the country as well as the corporate jets she puts at his disposal, and he ambles around in shoes costing more than $500 a pair. At 71, he would be the oldest first-term President in US history if elected; and on the campaign trail he frequently becomes confused, loses his temper and sings songs about bombing Iran. He has engaged in discussion with supporters about that "bitch" Hillary Clinton. On one occasion in 1998, he joked that Attorney General Janet Reno was the "father" of the "ugly" teenager Chelsea Clinton.

His opponent has no such liabilities. His party is on an upswing. His positions are popular. He has never been associated with personal scandal; has earned, together with his wife, all of his family's money himself; is young, vivacious and without McCain's mean streak. But Barack Obama is black, and burdened with a Muslim-sounding name, in a country that has yet to transcend the racial horrors of its past or the reflexive parochialism and xenophobia of much of its populace. McCain must depend on these two factors to remain competitive in an election year when all indications suggest that a conservative Republican would have little to no chance of victory.

Of course, a presidential campaign cannot openly traffic in racism and xenophobia. So it must conduct this campaign in a kind of code. Historically blacks and dark-skinned immigrants have been accused of "not knowing their place" by whites who see their positions challenged, and are deemed to be "uppity." The code word du jour is "presumptuous."

Think about it: the candidate who won his party's presidential nomination and is leading in every national poll stands accused of acting as if becoming President requires some planning and preparation. Apparently ignorance and incompetence have become prized virtues in George W. Bush's Washington, and so potential competence is considered a cause for concern.

Sadly, many in our mainstream media have eagerly enlisted in the racist Republican cause. I could give numerous examples, but let us focus on just one: the Washington Post's White House columnist, Dana Milbank. In a recent column, Milbank, who prides himself on his alleged lack of ideology, complained that "Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee," adding, "Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris." Milbank's shocking litany of Obama's offenses included his taking a foreign trip, meeting with world leaders and leading Washington figures, failing to post his schedule, leaving a private prayer in Jerusalem's Western Wall and tying up traffic in Washington. Each of these unremarkable events was described in language dripping with sarcasm and imputed evil intent--as if Obama was responsible for his security detail's traffic planning. In a single column, Milbank complained of Obama's "presidential-style world tour...presidential-style business...presidential-style pep rally...presidential-style visit...acting presidential...outdoing the President in ruffles and flourishes lately..."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080901/alterman/print
 
It is a common way to ensure control of where protesters can be. People who are setting this up definitely know that. They could, if they wished, give greater access to protesters, even while still ensuring security. If the SS can do it for the RNC, I am well sure of their ability to do it at another venue.

There is no requirement of magical superpowers from the SS that makes it so they have to hide protesters behind the air conditioning tents and the news central command centers. That is sad pretense.

The reality is the party of protesters wants to control the unity message and they can't with news show after news show punishing them with pictures of protesters right in the faces of the delegates. You know this, and want to desperately obfuscate, to defend what you otherwise would call indefensible if it were done exactly the same way for the RNC.

I wonder why they haven't found the mini-Gitmo in Minneapolis St. Paul, why protesters will be allowed nearby... It could be that the Secret Service simply doesn't have the magic powers you give them so you can continue to pretend in your mind of the uber-perfection of all things "unity".

I've known you to be one of the more intelligent posters, and often one of the most dishonest when attempting to defend what you think is your own. There is nothing you have said in this thread that shows you have a modicum of common sense or any capacity to hear anything that you consider "bad" about your own. You will pass the buck at every opportunity, blame everybody but those who did make the decisions. Somehow by the end of this, you are going to somehow make it so that it's the republicans fault.

(Imagine, all this over the simple statement, and an explanation of why, that Obama isn't going to hear what BAC says he so desperately needs to understand.)

Frankly, I turned off to anything you had to say on this the second you started using, what you no doubt consider your clever phrase: mini-gitmo. I think you should be godammned ashamed of yourself, and you should be smacked for it.

I have no idea what else you are blathering about after that, nor would I ever care. That is how outrageous your fucking bullshit is. Mini gitmo. Shame On You.
 
Damn Damo... you should have complimented her intelligence BEFORE the Mini-gitmo comment! Such a waste of a good compliment for a pinhead... she didn't even read it! :eek:
 
It is a common way to ensure control of where protesters can be. People who are setting this up definitely know that. They could, if they wished, give greater access to protesters, even while still ensuring security. If the SS can do it for the RNC, I am well sure of their ability to do it at another venue.

There is no requirement of magical superpowers from the SS that makes it so they have to hide protesters behind the air conditioning tents and the news central command centers. That is sad pretense.

The reality is the party of protesters wants to control the unity message and they can't with news show after news show punishing them with pictures of protesters right in the faces of the delegates. You know this, and want to desperately obfuscate, to defend what you otherwise would call indefensible if it were done exactly the same way for the RNC.

I wonder why they haven't found the mini-Gitmo in Minneapolis St. Paul, why protesters will be allowed nearby... It could be that the Secret Service simply doesn't have the magic powers you give them so you can continue to pretend in your mind of the uber-perfection of all things "unity".

I've known you to be one of the more intelligent posters, and often one of the most dishonest when attempting to defend what you think is your own. There is nothing you have said in this thread that shows you have a modicum of common sense or any capacity to hear anything that you consider "bad" about your own. You will pass the buck at every opportunity, blame everybody but those who did make the decisions. Somehow by the end of this, you are going to somehow make it so that it's the republicans fault.

(Imagine, all this over the simple statement, and an explanation of why, that Obama isn't going to hear what BAC says he so desperately needs to understand.)


Damocles - You're being flatly dishonest and I'm calling you on it. That's all that's going on here. I've already shown you that the DNC is not in charge of security, the Secret Service is, yet you continue to insist (without any evidence whatsoever mind you) that there was some grand scheme by the DNC to pick a privately owned venue (as opposed to the simply the largest indoor arena in the host city) to house the event to stifle protest in support of a candidate that wasn't selected when the venue was selected to promote a message that didn't exist when the venue was selected.

You're being a fucking moron to be quite frank, and it's your ideology that's blinding you to the simple fact that the Secret Service is at fault here, not the DNC.

There have been lawsuits about this shit, brought by people that really give a shit and actually have a stake in the matter. They sued the entities responsible, the Secret Service and the local authorities, not the DNC, since only the Secret Service and local authorities are responsible for the civil liberties infringements and they're the only ones that can change it.
 
He didn't even mention the DNC providing movie and museum passes for the homeless, to keep them off the streets during the beloved event. I think it is apropos for the so-called "green" convention, where more jet fuel will be burned to bring pinheads together than the US consumes in an average day. The DNC could have avoided all of these problems and helped the environment as well, they should have held the convention by video teleconference. They could have let YouTube host it, and it would have been beautiful... a testament to the Liberal convictions of conservation... a bold statement about the importance of environmental concerns they hold so dear!

...No balloon drop to malfunction... lol
 
Frankly, I turned off to anything you had to say on this the second you started using, what you no doubt consider your clever phrase: mini-gitmo. I think you should be godammned ashamed of yourself, and you should be smacked for it.

I have no idea what else you are blathering about after that, nor would I ever care. That is how outrageous your fucking bullshit is. Mini gitmo. Shame On You.
Your insistance to willfully add blinders for exactly the same activity you object to when done by a group that is not "yours" surprises me.

I'm not ashamed of using the term the lefties are using on the radio. I found it very descriptive of what is actually there.

Not a biggie to me. I could care less if you "turned off" whatever I had to say because of rhetoric I didn't invent. It creates a picture of what it is. It's a building they removed equipment from because it was too hot for the equipment and they couldn't air condition it because the roof is too weak, it also was removed because the fire suppression was not strong enough to guarantee that the building wouldn't burn down. There is no running water in the cages, it is fenced in inside with signs that state that they use electronic devices to suppress improper activity. Upon the top of the fencing inside the building is razor wire.

What the group who is going to be protesting is most upset about is they are unable to ascertain where people will be released after their stay in this holding facility, they will be unable to tell their families where to go to pick them up.

Along with all of that, the city chose to keep it secret, until they were found out by the group "Recreate '68" (the ones who created the term you object to so heavily, but IMHO is quite accurate in its description).

Honestly, I am not surprised by the tactics used to control the message, I am simply surprised at the total lack of caring from those of that party who would have been all over this site about how bad the RNC was if they had pursued the same tactics to suppress protest, and in fact have been upset about less.

While both parties will be using what I call "Freedom Cages" (and regardless of your memory, I have spoken against these with the Rs too), the placement and control is much stronger for the DNC than in any instance I have seen before this date. They aren't even going to be allowed to be seen at all.
 
Your insistance to willfully add blinders for exactly the same activity you object to when done by a group that is not "yours" surprises me.

I'm not ashamed of using the term the lefties are using on the radio. I found it very descriptive of what is actually there.

Not a biggie to me. I could care less if you "turned off" whatever I had to say because of rhetoric I didn't invent. It creates a picture of what it is. It's a building they removed equipment from because it was too hot for the equipment and they couldn't air condition it because the roof is too weak, it also was removed because the fire suppression was not strong enough to guarantee that the building wouldn't burn down. There is no running water in the cages, it is fenced in inside with signs that state that they use electronic devices to suppress improper activity. Upon the top of the fencing inside the building is razor wire.

What the group who is going to be protesting is most upset about is they are unable to ascertain where people will be released after their stay in this holding facility, they will be unable to tell their families where to go to pick them up.

Along with all of that, the city chose to keep it secret, until they were found out by the group "Recreate '68" (the ones who created the term you object to so heavily, but is quite accurate in its description).

Honestly, I am not surprised by the tactics used to control the message, I am simply surprised at the total lack from those of that party who would have been all over this site about how bad the RNC was if they had pursued the same tactics.

I personally have had to deal with this sort of thing from both sides, as an activist. I wouldn’t give you what you want, because you are the biggest hypocrite on this board. I couldn’t care less what you think about me or this issue, because it’s not an issue to you. You couldn’t give a rat’s ass fuck about what the republicans did in NY, and all throughout the Bush years, even having people hauled out in cuffs for wearing tshirts. You are a big fat hypocrite, so shove it. I’ll save my “outrage” for people who give a crap about this, and not only when a dem is doing it so they can parade their false outrage around along with their false morals.

And you don't give a fuck about GITMo or the people we tortued there, so how dare you even use that phrase, hypocrite.
 
I personally have had to deal with this sort of thing from both sides, as an activist. I wouldn’t give you what you want, because you are the biggest hypocrite on this board. I couldn’t care less what you think about me or this issue, because it’s not an issue to you. You couldn’t give a rat’s ass fuck about what the republicans did in NY, and all throughout the Bush years, even having people hauled out in cuffs for wearing tshirts. You are a big fat hypocrite, so shove it. I’ll save my “outrage” for people who give a crap about this, and not only when a dem is doing it so they can parade their false outrage around along with their false morals.

And you don't give a fuck about GITMo or the people we tortued there, so how dare you even use that phrase, hypocrite.
Again, you are BS'ing. I speak against these kind of tactics regardless of party. I believe in 1st Amendment rights, as much as I believe in 4th and objected to (especially the NSA) listening in on any conversation of an American without a warrant.

I believe that you are slapping the cologne of hypocrisy on while telling others they shouldn't even shop at the perfume store.

Again, I used the phrase because it is descriptive of the facility as described in the post above. Pretending that it isn't is just more willful blinders that allow you to ignore what you otherwise would object to from a different source.

Also, I am not "outraged", I am simply informing. If you believe I should feel "outrage" over this, then you are projecting an emotion on me that is not there. I am mostly amused at the amazing distance people will go to excuse it because of party affiliation.
 
Here you go Damo – THE LARGEST NUMBER OF ARRESTS AT ANY MAJOR PARTY CONVENTION. You are so full of shit. There is nothing that aggravates me more than a lying hypocrite. God you are such a hypocrite.


"Pincus was one of 1,821 people arrested in police sweeps before and during the Republican convention, the largest number of arrests associated with any American major-party convention. At the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, which unlike New York's was marked by widespread police brutality, cops made fewer than 700 arrests.
In the days after the convention, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated that "every NYPD officer did a great job." But interviews with state court officials, City Council representatives, prosecutors, protesters and civil libertarians -- and a review of videos of demonstrations -- point to many problems with the police performance. Officers often sealed off streets with orange netting and used motor scooters and horses to sweep up hundreds of protesters at a time, including many who appear to have broken no laws. In two cases, police commanders appeared to allow marches to proceed, only to order many arrests minutes later.
Most of those arrested were held for more than two days without being arraigned, which a state Supreme Court judge ruled was a violation of legal guidelines. Defense attorneys predict a flood of civil lawsuits once protesters have settled the misdemeanor charges lodged against them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34245-2004Sep19?language=printer
 
Here you go Damo – THE LARGEST NUMBER OF ARRESTS AT ANY MAJOR PARTY CONVENTION. You are so full of shit. There is nothing that aggravates me more than a lying hypocrite. God you are such a hypocrite.


"Pincus was one of 1,821 people arrested in police sweeps before and during the Republican convention, the largest number of arrests associated with any American major-party convention. At the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, which unlike New York's was marked by widespread police brutality, cops made fewer than 700 arrests.
In the days after the convention, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated that "every NYPD officer did a great job." But interviews with state court officials, City Council representatives, prosecutors, protesters and civil libertarians -- and a review of videos of demonstrations -- point to many problems with the police performance. Officers often sealed off streets with orange netting and used motor scooters and horses to sweep up hundreds of protesters at a time, including many who appear to have broken no laws. In two cases, police commanders appeared to allow marches to proceed, only to order many arrests minutes later.
Most of those arrested were held for more than two days without being arraigned, which a state Supreme Court judge ruled was a violation of legal guidelines. Defense attorneys predict a flood of civil lawsuits once protesters have settled the misdemeanor charges lodged against them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34245-2004Sep19?language=printer
I've heard they've already begun settling, it will be in the millions. Also again, I object to these kind of tactics regardless of party. As long as they aren't destroying somebody else's property they have a right to protest.

And your defense is actually, "They do it too!"? Really?

LOL. I get more amused, each time somebody gets upset because I am "outraged" over something I am not really "outraged" over. I find the partisan apathy interesting and amusing.

I would prefer things like this not happen, I think it is not what this nation was founded on, but it appears that so long as people are willing to blind themselves to the same from their own side that I am in a minority.
 
You're both being silly.

The party to blame for the RNC arrests (held at a PRIVATE VENUE!!!!!!1!) in NYC is the NYPD, not the RNC.

I'm all for being outraged over civil liberties violations, but it helps to be outraged at the people and entities responsible, not politically convenient scapegoats.
 
You're both being silly.

The party to blame for the RNC arrests (held at a PRIVATE VENUE!!!!!!1!) in NYC is the NYPD, not the RNC.

I'm all for being outraged over civil liberties violations, but it helps to be outraged at the people and entities responsible, not politically convenient scapegoats.
Yes, the holding cells are Denver's only, not the DNC. The only portion I am amused about with the DNC is how they put them at the farthest corner behind the air conditioning equipment. It's been tested even a large crowd cannot be seen or heard from there. Also, DPD could not arrest protesters on private property if the DNC (those renting the facility) complained about it.

And no Dung, it was not the Secret Service that made that decision.

What you are being silly about is the attempt to blame the Secret Service for decisions they did not make.
 
You're both being silly.

The party to blame for the RNC arrests (held at a PRIVATE VENUE!!!!!!1!) in NYC is the NYPD, not the RNC.

I'm all for being outraged over civil liberties violations, but it helps to be outraged at the people and entities responsible, not politically convenient scapegoats.

First of all, we don’t know what orders they received, and second of all I’m not blaming anyone other than damo for being a huge hypocrite who doesn’t care about anything unless a democrat did it.
Finally, if you are going to claim that the bush years did not subvert civil liberties, including having people dragged out of his stump speeches for wearing shirts they didn’t like, and that this policy didn’t come down from the bush people themselves, I’d say you’re on shaky ground there.
 
First of all, we don’t know what orders they received, and second of all I’m not blaming anyone other than damo for being a huge hypocrite who doesn’t care about anything unless a democrat did it.
Finally, if you are going to claim that the bush years did not subvert civil liberties, including having people dragged out of his stump speeches for wearing shirts they didn’t like, and that this policy didn’t come down from the bush people themselves, I’d say you’re on shaky ground there.
LOL. Another attempt at distraction, and willful memory loss. So long as you can attempt to make this about me rather than actually dwell on what is happening, then you can safely ignore what you otherwise would be burning up your keyboard objecting to if from another source.
 
LOL. Another attempt at distraction, and willful memory loss. So long as you can attempt to make this about me rather than actually dwell on what is happening, then you can safely ignore what you otherwise would be burning up your keyboard objecting to if from another source.

Go fuck yourself you hack.
 
Yes, the holding cells are Denver's only, not the DNC. The only portion I am amused about with the DNC is how they put them at the farthest corner behind the air conditioning equipment. It's been tested even a large crowd cannot be seen or heard from there.

And no Dung, it was not the Secret Service that made that decision.


Prove it. Show me that the DNC made the decision as to the location of the protest pens. And, if so, tell me why the DNC isn't a defendant in the lawsuit brought by the ACLU regarding the protests pens.
 
First of all, we don’t know what orders they received, and second of all I’m not blaming anyone other than damo for being a huge hypocrite who doesn’t care about anything unless a democrat did it.
Finally, if you are going to claim that the bush years did not subvert civil liberties, including having people dragged out of his stump speeches for wearing shirts they didn’t like, and that this policy didn’t come down from the bush people themselves, I’d say you’re on shaky ground there.


Relax. No one said that or suggested it. Yes, there are plenty of civil liberties violations that can be laid squarely at the feet of the Bush Administration, but the arrests made at the RNC convention in NYC cannot be. The responsible parties are the City of New York, the Mayor, the Police Department and the Commissioner.

Additionally, who was responsible for pulling people out of Bush speaking events? Usually, it's the Secret Service. The very people that established the "hard security zone" at the Pepsi Center that kept the protest zones far from the sight and sound of the delegates.
 
Back
Top