Classy, McCain. Real classy.

[Guy_Incognito]

I had never seen it, but I'm guessing this



is the ad you mean.

Where does he question his patriotism?

 

[zeke12]

You mean besides that vile ad and the later press release that accused him of "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

You don't think an accusation of treason questions a man's patriotism?

 

[Guy_Incognito]

You mean besides that vile ad and the later press release that accused him of "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

You don't think an accusation of treason questions a man's patriotism?

I didn't think of it as an accusation of treason, as much as he's not doing the job he said he was. Maybe I'm just poisoned by the current state of political discourse, but I hear accusations all the time of Republicans shredding the constitution etc. Is this qualitatively different?

To be fair, I admit I don't see many political ads. Maybe they don't usually get as dirty as I thought.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Maybe this is just McCain's way of reaching out to the conservatives by showing he's conservative enough to discredit the service of a veteran if they don't think like they do.

The thing is, I don't think McCain can throw anything at Obama that can't be turned back around on him. And he's already gotten this far without having to compromise himself, I really doubt he'll do anything he doesn't want to do.

No, This is his way of doing that.
http://www.brianbeutler.com/2008/02/waterboarding_2/

John McCain -- Against Torture Before He Was For It.

 

[buckweaver]

I didn't think of it as an accusation of treason, as much as he's not doing the job he said he was.

I'm not going to look for more examples, but I was living in Georgia at the time and remember that campaign well. It was more than just that one ad. It was a series of personal attacks against Chambliss' character, not his voting record.

Disgraceful.

 

[zeke12]

I guess, you can "think of it" however you want, but accusing someone of "breaking" the oath they swore as Senator is, in point of fact, accusing them of treason.

Saying "He's not doing the job he said he would," is more easily accomplished by an ad that says, "He's not doing the job he said he would."

I'll ignore the false equivalences, because, well, they are false equivalences.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I didn't think of it as an accusation of treason, as much as he's not doing the job he said he was.

I'm not going to look for more examples, but I was living in Georgia at the time and remember that campaign well. It was more than just that one ad. It was a series of personal attacks against Chambliss' character, not his voting record.

Disgraceful.

I wasn't there. I didn't see them. I remember at the time thinking that it was another example of the Democratic strategy of the time to nominate war heros (Kerry, Clark, Chambliss) to shield them from legitimate foreign policy attacks. I also found the party in general far to fast to throw out "are you questioning my patriotism?" when no one was doing anything of the sort, and they were accusing Republican opponents of things that are alot worse, or as bad, as being a-patriotic (racists, chickenhawks, misogynists etc.). If it got worse than this ad, maybe it crossed the line. I'd want to see it.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I guess, you can "think of it" however you want, but accusing someone of "breaking" the oath they swore as Senator is, in point of fact, accusing them of treason.

Saying "He's not doing the job he said he would," is more easily accomplished by an ad that says, "He's not doing the job he said he would."

I'll ignore the false equivalences, because, well, they are false equivalences.

How do you figure? Do you think Scalia & Thomas break their oath? Are you accusing them of treason? What about Bush? Cheney?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I didn't think of it as an accusation of treason, as much as he's not doing the job he said he was.

I'm not going to look for more examples, but I was living in Georgia at the time and remember that campaign well. It was more than just that one ad. It was a series of personal attacks against Chambliss' character, not his voting record.

Disgraceful.

I wasn't there. I didn't see them. I remember at the time thinking that it was another example of the Democratic strategy of the time to nominate war heros (Kerry, Clark, Chambliss) to shield them from legitimate foreign policy attacks. I also found the party in general far to fast to throw out "are you questioning my patriotism?" when no one was doing anything of the sort, and they were accusing Republican opponents of things that are alot worse, or as bad, as being a-patriotic (racists, chickenhawks, misogynists etc.). If it got worse than this ad, maybe it crossed the line. I'd want to see it.

First of all, these ads were two years before Kerry was nominated for anything, and Clark wasn't nominated for anything. Barely got out of early primaries. Cleland was an incumbent senator at the time, so he didn't have to be "nominated." So your "explanation" is, well, pretty much horse****. There was a deliberate attempt to smear Democrats as unpatriotic in the 2002 midterms. This is like arguing that water is, indeed, wet. Jesus, read something.

And George Bush has admitted violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 14 times.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

There was a deliberate attempt to smear Democrats as unpatriotic in the 2002 midterms. This is like arguing that water is, indeed, wet. Jesus, read something.

I've already admitted that I didn't see it, and am willing to be shown that I'm wrong. You'll excuse me if your declaration doesn't do the trick. I did a quick youtube search, and watched the worst one I could find.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

And you have decided that you don't "see" what is plainly there to be seen.
So there we are.
By the way, Chuck Hagel "saw" it and he told Chambliss people to knock it off or he'd come down and do commercials for Cleland.
The ad came down.
Cowards as well as dishonorable bastards.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

And you have decided that you don't "see" what is plainly there to be seen.
So there we are.

So we are.

If you ran against Bush for office, would it be fair of you to say that he broke his oath..., or is it out of bounds?

Do you think that Scalia has broken his oath?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

And you have decided that you don't "see" what is plainly there to be seen.
So there we are.

So we are.

If you ran against Bush for office, would it be fair of you to say that he broke his oath..., or is it out of bounds?

Do you think that Scalia has broken his oath?

Scalia? No, unless you can prove he voted Bush v. Gore because his son was working for the Bush campaign, which you can't..
Bush? Certainly. But that's not treason. And what it has to do with the Chambliss ad except pointless ink-squirting is beyond my interest at this point.
And John McCain is still embarrassing himself.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

And you have decided that you don't "see" what is plainly there to be seen.
So there we are.

So we are.

If you ran against Bush for office, would it be fair of you to say that he broke his oath..., or is it out of bounds?

Do you think that Scalia has broken his oath?

Bush? Certainly. But that's not treason. And what it has to do with the Chambliss ad except pointless ink-squirting is beyond my interest at this point.

Same words imply treason in 1 casem but not the other

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Simple, Guy.

When it's done to a Democrat, it's disgraceful.

When it's done to a Republican, it's OK.

Simple as that.

 

[EStreetJoe]

And you have decided that you don't "see" what is plainly there to be seen.
So there we are.

So we are.

If you ran against Bush for office, would it be fair of you to say that he broke his oath..., or is it out of bounds?

Do you think that Scalia has broken his oath?

Scalia? No, unless you can prove he voted Bush v. Gore because his son was working for the Bush campaign, which you can't..
Bush? Certainly. But that's not treason. And what it has to do with the Chambliss ad except pointless ink-squirting is beyond my interest at this point.
And John McCain is still embarrassing himself.

Then there's O'Connor who at an election night party expressed disappointment that it looked like Gore was going to win because it meant she couldn't retire as she didn't want a Democratic president to name her replacement. Then when it came time to rule on the case, she didn't recuse herself. She was part of the majority that said stop counting.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Simple, Guy.

When it's done to a Democrat, it's disgraceful.

When it's done to a Republican, it's OK.

Simple as that.

So, you're defending Chambliss' tactics in that spot, Ly?

Nice. Very nice.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

And you have decided that you don't "see" what is plainly there to be seen.
So there we are.

So we are.

If you ran against Bush for office, would it be fair of you to say that he broke his oath..., or is it out of bounds?

Do you think that Scalia has broken his oath?

Bush? Certainly. But that's not treason. And what it has to do with the Chambliss ad except pointless ink-squirting is beyond my interest at this point.

Same words imply treason in 1 casem but not the other

Look, I know you're not this much of a dullard.
You're arguing against zeke with me.
I never said that accusing Cleland of breaking his oath was accusing him of treason. It's not. "Treason" is well-specified crime, the only one in the Constitution. Accusing Cleland of breaking his oath would be accusing him of breaking his oath, which would in some cases be perjury. But Cleland's oath isn't the point of the ad, and it isn't why everyone except the terminally and deliberately obtuse recognize the ad as despicable.
And John McCain continues to embarrass himself.

 

[Fudgie the Whale]

And you have decided that you don't "see" what is plainly there to be seen.
So there we are.

So we are.

If you ran against Bush for office, would it be fair of you to say that he broke his oath..., or is it out of bounds?

Do you think that Scalia has broken his oath?

Bush? Certainly. But that's not treason. And what it has to do with the Chambliss ad except pointless ink-squirting is beyond my interest at this point.

Same words imply treason in 1 casem but not the other

It's a good thing you weren't an adult in the South in the 60s.

"Did you actually see them getting their constitutional rights violated? I didn't. So it didn't happen."

 

[Football_Bat]

And you have decided that you don't "see" what is plainly there to be seen.
So there we are.

So we are.

If you ran against Bush for office, would it be fair of you to say that he broke his oath..., or is it out of bounds?

Do you think that Scalia has broken his oath?

Bush? Certainly. But that's not treason. And what it has to do with the Chambliss ad except pointless ink-squirting is beyond my interest at this point.

Same words imply treason in 1 casem but not the other

So Casey Casem had ulterior motives when he spun the Bee Gees in the 70s?

Ponderous! ****ing ponderous!