Hope you all still have the duct tape handy....Follow

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but I can't help but noticing the selective quoting in that article (not that this ever stops folks from doing it, nor the outcry that inevitably follows). I'd love to see the entire transcript of the conversation instead of the part quote, part non-quote format that's in the article itself.

Despite that, the quoted part "And it helped us" clearly appears to refer to "his knowledge and ability to talk about it" and not the assassination itself. That whole pesky antecedent rule in the English language and all that...


The second quote? Not really that shocking unless it's cleverly placed in the same paragraph with the implied meaning of the first. There isn't a political analyst in the world who wouldn't say exactly the same thing. It's not like he pushed this out as a strategy, he just fell into a trap (which he should have seen coming) and answered a question like a strategist instead of someone who should understand the media and politics.

He was asked if a major terrorist attack helps McCains chances. What's he supposed to do? Lie? Everyone knows that it does. Unfortunately, when you're involved in a campaign, you're not supposed to actually give reporters that quote. I will point out, however, that he apparently didn't give the reporter the quote. If he'd said "A major terrorist attack would help our campaign", you can bet that would have been the quote. Instead, all they got him saying was "Certainly, it would be a big advantage to him".

Again. It would be nice to know what was said leading up to that statement. Did he say something like: "Well. We'd never wish for any terrorist attack to occur, and we want to do everything we can to prevent terrorist attacks, and I don't want anyone to interpret this in a way to imply that I or McCain or anyone involved in his campaign want this to happen, but certainly it would be a big advantage to him".


I tend to mistrust short quotes interspaced with a reporters own "voice". Too easy to massively take words out of context. Not that a rational look at this will have any impact on whether he gets tossed or not of course...

Edited, Jun 24th 2008 6:59pm by gbaji

Despite that, the quoted part "And it helped us" clearly appears to refer to "his knowledge and ability to talk about it" and not the assassination itself.

Thanks Captain Oblivious. Here's the thing, Captain. His ability to articulate the national security concerns raised by her assassination would have been neigh fucking useless were she never killed. Do you see it, Captain? Do you?? Do you see how his ability to talk about it would be meaningless without something to talk about? Captain? Can you hear me Captain Oblivious?

So what?


The point that Black was trying to make was that McCain is far better at handling foreign policy issues then Obama. So unless you honestly believe that nothing bad will happen in the world that the future US president might have to deal with, this would appear to be relevant.


Far more relevant then vague "scary" implications that since McCain would benefit from said bad things, that his camp might stage something in order to help his chances in the election. Which is exactly what Paul was suggesting with his post, and arguably was the implication the article was going for in the first place...

So what?


So, Captain, on the scale of stupid but true things said in bad taste, he scored quite high.


The point that Black was trying to make was that McCain is far better at handling foreign policy issues then Obama.

No ****, Captain. To be even fairer, since I've actually read the article in contest, he was just answering a question academically about if McCain benefited and if he would benefit by a future terrorist attack. Of course he would. Fear is all the GOP ever works with.

So unless you honestly believe that nothing bad will happen in the world that the future US president might have to deal with, this would appear to be relevant.


Of course it's relevant, Captain. The thing is, the GOP is supposed to PRETEND that they're better for the country, not that they only win if there's a sufficiently terrified electorate.


Far more relevant then vague "scary" implications that since McCain would benefit from said bad things, that his camp might stage something in order to help his chances in the election. Which is exactly what Paul was suggesting with his post, and arguably was the implication the article was going for in the first place...

No, Captain, as ussual everyone else got it and you missed it. You see, Captain Oblivious, the point was that while 10% of the population understands that the GOP runs on fear and the DEMs run on hope, you're not supposed to admit to it openly to the other 90% of complete abject suckers who decide elections. For instance, Captain, had the parties been reversed and Dave Axelrod gave an interview where he stated it would help Obama if the DOW crashed to 9000, you'd gesticulating wildly as ussual, claiming that Democrats wanted to ruin the economy.

How the f'uck would you know??

I've seen the state of the media in the US. You wouldn't know if anything newsworthy happpened in Europe if it wasn't for Redphoenixxx

Edited, Jun 25th 2008 9:00pm by paulsol

Bush has proved himself incapable of planning his next sentence on numerous occasions.

That hasn't stopped him and his buddies using the event to convince dimwits such as you and varus into believing that Iraq was bent on the destruction of the US, and it wont stop Mccain trying to maintain the deception that Iran is aiming for the same result.

Like smash said, GOP bases its arguments on 'fear'. Fear of attack, fear of 'terror', fear of facial hair, fear of colour, fear.

Blacks comment just illustrated it a bit too openly.

Lol! You're kidding right? This coming from the guy who just started a thread saying this:




Who's fearmongering here? Sure sounds like you're saying that a US presidential candidate is going to stage an attack on the US in order to win an election and justify an attack on Iran.

But it's the GOP who's basing it's arguments on fear... Wow! Just... wow...

Who's fearmongering here?

The GOP. It's all you have. The policies are a ******* joke to anyone not educated with a blow up doll and a bagel.


Sure sounds like you're saying that a US presidential candidate is going to stage an attack on the US in order to win an election and justify an attack on Iran.

Sure sounds like your arbitrarily making **** up to attempt to equivocate the GOP position of "police states are safer" to the DEM position of "stop living in fear".

Failing miserably, as usual, of course. I know I've mentioned this before, but anyone reading your posts who gets to "Sure sounds like" just starts immediately laughing knowing that some ludicrous delusional paranoid vision is about to be spewed forth.

Keep up the good work, though, Captain. Without your seeming inability to process reality this place would be boring.

Yes, paulsol. It is indeed ironic for you to claim that the GOP uses fear to make their arguments in a thread in which you yourself started by using fear to make an argument.

Look, Capitan, I know you can't go beyond a+b = c thinking, probably because of some neurological disorder, but let's try here. How do Democrats gain by trying to instill fear that Republicans might stage a terror attack to win the election? If there isn't a terrorist attack before the election, the fear of one will cease to exist, won't it? Work with me here, Captain. What possible end would there be to doing it? I mean the GOP use of fear is clearly targeted to try and win votes. Vote McCain or the terrorists will get you! Vote McCain or the Democrats will raz yer texas! Vote McCain or they'll steal all yer gerns! etc. What's the selling point to undecided voters here, in your tiny, addled, little mind? "Vote Obama or they'll stage a terror attack before you vote that you'll clearly be able to establish they won't if it doesn't happen before you vote!"

Yeah, that's genius political thinking there, Capitan. Makes perfect sense, but only to you.