This is an odd objection for you to make, since all the evidence adduced on this point indicates that the Chambliss ad neither morphs Cleland’s face from another or questions the man’s patriotism.
I freely admitted the ad to which you are referring does not morph the two faces. I provided an independent source, with a link, supporting my contention the original version of the ad did morph the two faces. You choose to dismiss that evidence whole cloth simply because you have personally never witnessed nor heard of this original ad.
Apparently, your arrogance allows you to argue from a position that if you don't know about something than it does not exist - even when supported by evidence to the contrary.
Obviously, I can't force you to read sources or acknowledge evidence you insist on dismissing. But since whether or not the ad actually morphs the two faces or merely flashes them on the same screen is more or less irrelevant to the overall argument I was making I choose not to fight that battle.
You are incorrect about legal training, btw. Most of it involves understanding what you are talking about before offering an argument. I think that is the bulk of your frustration in passing off your thesis as supported by the facts.
I think lawyers as a whole have done more to damage to this country than any other single profession in history. Far more harm than good. And that is an opinion shared by an enormous majority of the population. While I may have never attended law school, I do know whatever training they receive, in addition to other things, allows them to argue positions that if a police officer responds to a 911 call to save a drowning boy and injures themselves by slipping on the water they should be able to sue the drowning boy's parents for millions of dollars. Of course, that's just the latest egregious example of a legal system churning out legal counsel far more interested in attaining real money than real justice, and clearly divorced from any perceived obligation to reason, common sense, or logic.
Again, this is not meant as a slight against you. I am sure you a fine person and god knows mortgage professionals have done plenty to screw this country up as well.
First, you exhibit the habitual lack of nuanced understanding that leaves you confusing my corrections of your over the top claims for enthusiasm for the targets of your claims.
Your "corrections" of my argument are not corrections - they are an exercise in the debate of technicalities. Again, this is just what people with legal training do. Who cares if the guy driving his car drunk. Was he read his Miranda Rights before he was questioned? Did the arresting officer have the proper certification in the operatation the intoxicalyzer?
You would rather debate the details of whether the ad portrayed an image of Saddam that physically morphed into an image of Cleland rather than the two just being on the same screen or in the same ad together. If you can prove the morphing never occurred in this ad or any other, than you can demonstrate part of my original argument was false, which then you can use to call into question - and inevitably dismiss entirely - the validity of all of my arguments. Its like getting off on a technicality. It doesn't matter than whether the two faces morphing or not has nothing to do with whether the ad mispresents Cleland's Homeland Security votes, or calls him a coward, or suggests he is unpatriotic. You just need to prove this one point about morphing, and then you can use that as a launching pad from which to dismiss the remaining arguments you disagree with.
Second, describing the video as the :most deplorable example of political attack ads in history” is frankly hilarious. The Daisy girl ad? “Goldwater or Geldwasser?” The NAACP ad that associated dragging people to death with a Bush victory? We already know that you don’t object to the Moveon “Betray us” ad aimed at a man whose life has been devoted to service.
You are correct (see how that works? you really can admit when you're wrong, it doesn't make you a lesser man). I should have stated the Cleland ad is considered one of the most deplorable examples of political attacks ads in
recent history. And with the MoveOn ad, I am no fan of MoveOn.org - I have stated that many times. All I wanted out of the people throwing a fit about the MoveOn ad was to demonstrate to me how the claims made in the ad were inaccurate, which nobody was able to do.
No, what really burns you up, what you see as the zenith of deplorable political attack ads is one that accurately reports that Cleland’s claim to stand by Bush at “every opportunity” is false and misleading.
Oh Christ, here we go. Another technicality. Obviously, when Cleland statement that he supports Bush at every opportunity was a figure of speech and did not mean Cleland literally supports every single thing Bush has ever done in his entire life and will every do again from now until enternity. If you were to ask me, I would say that I support my parents at every opportunity. But I bet you that you could probably go back throughout my 30 year relationship with them and find several examples that contradicted this statement if you wanted to try and disprove it on a technicality. Which is precisely what the ad did then, and precisely what you are doing now.
This was a 30 second ad. You complain that it does not provide context, or isn’t completely fair, honest or accurate. Which 30 political ad is all those?
Which 30-second political ad is fair, honest, and accurate? Are you serious?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPy7RnHwvmAI have 10 more of these if you want to see them. There are plenty of candidates out there that do not have to resort to fear-mongering to get votes.
Here’s the thing, Ryan. You don’t have to like the Chambliss ad to discuss it.
You are not discussing this ad - you are defending it. Let's get that out of the way right now.
However, when you repeat a meme that Cleland’s face was morphed from UBL’s and that his patriotism was questioned, you shouldn’t protest the ensuing scrunity.
So You Honor as you can clearly see my client was questioned prior to being read his miranda rights, therefore I move this case be dismissed and all charges dropped. Sustained, case dismissed! Yeah, yahoo! Congratulations!
If it didn't morph, you must abort. Good jub Zuk.
You complain of “slippery worm exercises”. You claim that I will not respond, that I will “turn tail” and run, then complain when I do not. I don’t find the cocktail of your shaky arguments and angry, low-rent rhetoric persuasive. Perhaps I am not your audience.
Zukiphile, with all due respect, this last paragraph is embarassing and laughable. Nobody forces you to respond to my posts. If you find my posts to be "unpersuasive low-rent rhetoric" perhaps you should have not spent the last several years replying to, and even remembering specific details of, nearly every single one of them. Nearly every adjective you use to describe my posts - hyperbolic, angry, low-rent, shaky, unpersuasive, etc. - is precisely the way I feel about the posts of several regular members here. And guess what? I don't waste my time responding to those people. Why would I? Or, the better question is - why would you?
I don't ever remember inviting you to be a member of "my audience". You have freely and voluntarily elected yourself to that position, in the very front row I might add, consistently for the last several years. If you truly believe all the things you claim to believe about the quality of my posts, maybe a better statement would be perhaps you should find another speaker.
