'When John McCain was my captive'

[Damocles]

He meant a politcal hack .. and it does indeed apply.

Neither Obama nor McCain can contorl the 527's and if Obama doesn't take a stand against FISA there will be proof of that when the 527's on the left attack him.

Your contortion of Obama will be blamed but McCain won't soley relys on your own perception.

Except Obama showed a control that belies your suggestion that he has no control over the 527s as recently written how he got contributors to stop giving to those particular ones so he could keep control of his message.

Hence my assertion that after such a demonstration, it will be difficult to say, "I just can't control them!"

It doesn't matter what party they are from, if they demonstrate control at one point it will be difficult later to say "It's not my fault" if they get off message.

It is a fallacy to say that I am a hack because I point this out. I'd point it out regardless of who had done it.

 

[Damocles]

You're saying that Obama is responsible for what 527s say even though he has no actual control over them and was only able to cut out their influence by appealing to his donors and was successful in doing so.

That's horseshit, particularly coming from the guy who poo-pooed the idea that McCain had any control over the North Carolina G.O.P.

As I said, you're a hack.

Rubbish. McCain's lack of control was demonstrated by their refusal to pay any attention, and that also wasn't even a 527.

Obama's control was demonstrated by his ability to keep control of the message. People will remember that and expect it to continue.

What I basically state here, is he'll have a much more difficult time later trying to say that, "I'm not saying that, they are!" after his demonstration from before. While others who demonstrated no control do not have that particular benefit/liability.

It will benefit him if he is able to continue to retain the demonstrated control, it will work against him if, contrary to his wishes, people get off message and he loses that control.

 

[Topspin]

blackpanther and cypress are two lowly pieces of shit.
Obama is going to beat McFossil like a rented mule without stooping lower than any civilized human would. You both deserve an ass whoppin and I hope you get it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Except Obama showed a control that belies your suggestion that he has no control over the 527s as recently written how he got contributors to stop giving to those particular ones so he could keep control of his message.

Hence my assertion that after such a demonstration, it will be difficult to say, "I just can't control them!"

It doesn't matter what party they are from, if they demonstrate control at one point it will be difficult later to say "It's not my fault" if they get off message.

It is a fallacy to say that I am a hack because I point this out. I'd point it out regardless of who had done it.

Obama showed control over his donors, not the 527s. There is a difference that is apparently lost on you, although I suspect the difference wouldn't be lost on you were this John McCain, particularly considering your position on McCain's alleged inability to control the NCGOP.

As I said, you're a hack. Just admit it.

 

[Damocles]

Obama showed control over his donors, not the 527s. There is a difference that is apparently lost on you, although I suspect the difference wouldn't be lost on you were this John McCain, particularly considering your position on McCain's alleged inability to control the NCGOP.

As I said, you're a hack. Just admit it.

True, over his donors. There is little difference in my point. The demonstrable control he had over the message because of this can both work for him, and against him in the way that I stated earlier in this thread.

Pretending it has something to do with my party is pretense only.

It is extrapolation from the information at hand, and would be the same regardless of who the politician was. The hack is somebody who can pretend that it will make no difference to people.

 

[blackascoal]

Except Obama showed a control that belies your suggestion that he has no control over the 527s as recently written how he got contributors to stop giving to those particular ones so he could keep control of his message.

Hence my assertion that after such a demonstration, it will be difficult to say, "I just can't control them!"

It doesn't matter what party they are from, if they demonstrate control at one point it will be difficult later to say "It's not my fault" if they get off message.

No it won't by any stretch of the imagination. Candidates are not allowed, by law, to have contact or affiliation with 527 organizations .. and here's the most important part you're missing .. candidates should not have the power or authority to control 527's .. that's why they were setup in the first place.

You're just looking for cover for McCain .. who actually borrows lines from 527's to use in his own campaign.

 

[blackascoal]

blackpanther and cypress are two lowly pieces of shit.
Obama is going to beat McFossil like a rented mule without stooping lower than any civilized human would. You both deserve an ass whoppin and I hope you get it.

Fuck you and the horse that brought ya' asshole.

Fuck you even attempting to define what I should think, believe, say, or do motherfucker.

If you want to debate, feel free .. but you can kiss my ass with your silly ass insults .. and one thing we know for sure, for fact .. it won't be you doing any asskickin' you hope I might get.

That we know for fact.

 

[Bonestorm]

True, over his donors. There is little difference in my point. The demonstrable control he had over the message because of this can both work for him, and against him in the way that I stated earlier in this thread.

Pretending it has something to do with my party is pretense only.

It is extrapolation from the information at hand, and would be the same regardless of who the politician was.

There is a big difference. Obama cannot control a 527. He cannot control the massage of a 527 in any way whatsoever. That's why he had to appeal to his donors to prevent the 527s from getting money. Once they have the money, there is nothing he can do to control the message.

You want to pretend that preventing his donor from giving to the 527s shows an exercise of control over the message when, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. He has to prevent his donors from giving to 527s because he cannot control the message.

 

[Damocles]

No it won't by any stretch of the imagination. Candidates are not allowed, by law, to have contact or affiliation with 527 organizations .. and here's the most important part you're missing .. candidates should not have the power or authority to control 527's .. that's why they were setup in the first place.

You're just looking for cover for McCain .. who actually borrows lines from 527's to use in his own campaign.

Not particularly, it showed incredible weakness in McCain when he was unable to control the ads from his own party, let alone a 527, and incredible strength in Obama when he could control the message regardless of 527s through donors.

That works against the candidate in my party (whom I am not voting for) and not for him.

As I said before, this can be a tremendous boon for Obama if he continues to keep control of the message in this manner. It can work against him if it later slips from his grasp.

 

[Damocles]

There is a big difference. Obama cannot control a 527. He cannot control the massage of a 527 in any way whatsoever. That's why he had to appeal to his donors to prevent the 527s from getting money. Once they have the money, there is nothing he can do to control the message.

You want to pretend that preventing his donor from giving to the 527s shows an exercise of control over the message when, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. He has to prevent his donors from giving to 527s because he cannot control the message.

And his demonstrable ability to keep his donors from doing that is what I am speaking of. It had the effect that I stated, it was written about and lauded, and it can do exactly what I said it can regardless of party. Hackery is pretending that it cannot, not noticing how well it has worked for him and pointing out why it worked for him.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Good analogy.

If my daughter gave up more information than she was sworn by oath to give up .. even though it may save her life and I would want her to save her life .. I would accept and acknowledge that if that information were public, she could never be the president .. in fact, I would tell her she could never be a Senator.

But again you're missing the point my brother and you still haven't watched the video.

Talk to me after you've watched the video.

Man, that is extreme. There is no way you can justify that in my opinion. To eliminate her from holding office because she was tortured until she broke?

Since I cannot see the video at work, perhaps you could describe what is on it that you think is so vitally important that we all watch.

 

[Damocles]

Man, that is extreme. There is no way you can justify that in my opinion. To eliminate her from holding office because she was tortured until she broke?

Since I cannot see the video at work, perhaps you could describe what is on it that you think is so vitally important that we all watch.

The first thing you learn in the classes is that you will break.

 

[Bonestorm]

And his demonstrable ability to keep his donors from doing that is what I am speaking of. It had the effect that I stated, it was written about and lauded, and it can do exactly what I said it can regardless of party. Hackery is pretending that it cannot, not noticing how well it has worked for him and pointing out why it worked for him.

You stated that Obama will be responsible for the content of any 527 groups because he has demonstrated control over them in the past. He hasn't. He has demonstrated control over his donors, preventing them from giving to 527s. The key point that seems to be lost on you is that Obama has no control over the message of 527s.

Since Obama has no control over the message of any 527s, why should he beheld responsible for their content any more than John McCain?

 

[Damocles]

You stated that Obama will be responsible for the content of any 527 groups because he has demonstrated control over them in the past. He hasn't. He has demonstrated control over his donors, preventing them from giving to 527s. The key point that seems to be lost on you is that Obama has no control over the message of 527s.

Since Obama has no control over the message of any 527s, why should he beheld responsible for their content any more than John McCain?

No, I am saying he has demonstrated control of the message through donors. Shoot the story presented here had the campaign itself talking about control of the message.

He has demonstrated a marked ability to control the message and even had direct effect on 527s through donors.

It is silly to accuse me of hackery because I notice it and laud his ability to do so, and warn against the effect it will have if he loses that control.

The control of message is his best asset right now and can be his worst enemy later.

 

[blackascoal]

Not particularly, it showed incredible weakness in McCain when he was unable to control the ads from his own party, let alone a 527, and incredible strength in Obama when he could control the message regardless of 527s through donors.

That works against the candidate in my party (whom I am not voting for) and not for him.

As I said before, this can be a tremendous boon for Obama if he continues to keep control of the message in this manner. It can work against him if it later slips from his grasp.

I don't believe that is true at all. All 527's don't use his donors and there are 527's on the left that will attack his ass when he steps over their line. Should he be in control of them too?

Move-On, the ACLU, and quite a few organizations and 527's on the left are going to pounce on Obama if he waffles on his pledge to reject the FISA legislation. He's supposed to control them as well?

The LAW dictates that candidates CANNOT control 527's .. so what is the argument going tp be against Obama following THE LAW?

 

[Cancel7]

True, over his donors. There is little difference in my point. The demonstrable control he had over the message because of this can both work for him, and against him in the way that I stated earlier in this thread.

Pretending it has something to do with my party is pretense only.

It is extrapolation from the information at hand, and would be the same regardless of who the politician was. The hack is somebody who can pretend that it will make no difference to people.

No, let me lay out what you are doing.

Obama was able, in two known circumstances so far, to pressure his large contributers to not finance two 527’s.

McCain has yet to show he has the desire to do that much.

If going forward, a 527 develops, say with individual very small contributions, and has never relied on large contributors, and therefore tells Obama to fuck off (and this is more likely to happen than not), you will claim that because he once was able to back-off a completely different 527, he is now responsible for everything this 527 does.

Meanwhile, John McCain who will continue to evidence zero interest in controlling any 527, and in fact, is depending on them, will be responsible for nothing that any 527 does, because he has proved to be flaccid during all occurrences.

In other words: If a republican does it, then that’s Ok.

Conclusion: DH is 100% correct. You are a hack, and no one but another hack would read this thread an conclude any differently.

 

[blackascoal]

Man, that is extreme. There is no way you can justify that in my opinion. To eliminate her from holding office because she was tortured until she broke?

Since I cannot see the video at work, perhaps you could describe what is on it that you think is so vitally important that we all watch.

Oh really .. so you believe that if everyone knew that McCain collaborated with the VC. gave specific information, and made propaganda films for them that it would have no effect on his prospects.

get real .. you know that is complete bullshit .. and so does McCain.

What Soc needed to see on the video is all the republicans talking about McCain, not "the left", not Jane Fonda.

Also, McCain was not "tortured until he broke" .. even he admits that.

What open minded people need to see on the video are the questions raised about McCain's legislative record, why he blocked POW/MIA information that helped the Vietnamese government gain open access, and what was his motivations for be so demonstrably hostile to verterans, POW's and their families.

 

[Cancel7]

I don't believe that is true at all. All 527's don't use his donors and there are 527's on the left that will attack his ass when he steps over their line. Should he be in control of them too?

Move-On, the ACLU, and quite a few organizations and 527's on the left are going to pounce on Obama if he waffles on his pledge to reject the FISA legislation. He's supposed to control them as well?

The LAW dictates that candidates CANNOT control 527's .. so what is the argument going tp be against Obama following THE LAW?

Damo has set it up so that John McCain is responsible for NOTHING that ANY 527 says or does, while Obama is responsible for EVERYTHING that ALL 527’s do.
Luckily, Damo has only set this up in his mind.
Anyone else would laugh in his face, and too bad for him, it’s just not going to play out this way in public.

 

[blackascoal]

Damo has set it up so that John McCain is responsible for NOTHING that ANY 527 says or does, while Obama is responsible for EVERYTHING that ALL 527’s do.
Luckily, Damo has only set this up in his mind.
Anyone else would laugh in his face, and too bad for him, it’s just not going to play out this way in public.

That's correct, but Damo is also a defender of a party that engages in tactics he claims to abhor. None of that makes any sense.

 

[Damocles]

No, let me lay out what you are doing.

Obama was able, in two known circumstances so far, to pressure his large contributers to not finance two 527’s.

McCain has yet to show he has the desire to do that much.

If going forward, a 527 develops, say with individual very small contributions, and has never relied on large contributors, and therefore tells Obama to fuck off (and this is more likely to happen than not), you will claim that because he once was able to back-off a completely different 527, he is now responsible for everything this 527 does.

Meanwhile, John McCain who will continue to evidence zero interest in controlling any 527, and in fact, is depending on them, will be responsible for nothing that any 527 does, because he has proved to be flaccid during all occurrences.

In other words: If a republican does it, then that’s Ok.

Conclusion: DH is 100% correct. You are a hack, and no one but another hack would read this thread an conclude any differently.

Hmmm..

Not "Okay", especially when I have stated myriad times that this is a negative for McCain, this is demonstrably showing that you only read what you want to read in my posts, and it certainly does little to prove my "hackery", it demonstrates hackery, but not in my direction.