Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It was made by someone connected to Obama and he resigned/got fired (depending on who you believe) this morning.

Not quite. He was employed by Blue State Digital, a firm that provided tech resources to various campaigns, including Obama's. I guess that's connected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. He was employed by Blue State Digital, a firm that provided tech resources to various campaigns, including Obama's. I guess that's connected.

Right, like all the people who you frothe at the mouth who are 'connected' to Bush who end up being corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would comment on this but as it's written it doesn't make sense. Care to make it intelligible??

I think he meant, "The creator of the '1984' anti-Clinton ad is connected to Obama in the same manner as those you decry as being 'connected' to Bush who are later found to be corrupt."

Eh. It's logically unsound, but at least it makes some grammatical sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he meant, "The creator of the '1984' anti-Clinton ad is connected to Obama in the same manner as those you decry as being 'connected' to Bush who are later found to be corrupt."

Eh. It's logically unsound, but at least it makes some grammatical sense now.

There is a point there. I think we tend to be a bit more forgiving of people who are only connected to one person who did a spoof commercial who worked for a company that does campaign work; then, say someone who outed a CIA agent, a lobbying firm that is paying $10,000 for an anti-human impact global warming paper, or someone who has been illiciting bribes in Washington for the last how many years.

I don't see the big deal about the commercial really, it's just kinda dumb. It doesn't lie or make any points of any kind. It's just meaner than the primaries usually get because Democrats don't want to hurt the other Democrats too much, so that they do not harm the Democrats chances of ultimately winning the election. That reflects poorly on the Obama campaign -- hence the firing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he meant, "The creator of the '1984' anti-Clinton ad is connected to Obama in the same manner as those you decry as being 'connected' to Bush who are later found to be corrupt."

Eh. It's logically unsound, but at least it makes some grammatical sense now.

It stlll doesn't make sense. But thanks for trying to translate .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It stlll doesn't make sense. But thanks for trying to translate .

He's implying that you only care about the nature of the connection if the connection is between a corrupt/unsavory individual and someone you don't hate.

I'm really good at translation generally, and I bet Brassfusion is too. We're teachers. We get to decifer nonsensical writing all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's implying that you only care about the nature of the connection if the connection is between a corrupt/unsavory individual and someone you don't hate.

I'm really good at translation generally, and I bet Brassfusion is too. We're teachers. We get to decifer nonsensical writing all the time.

I don't get that out of it either...

Corrupt or not, I generally don't like people connected to Bush and that's fairly plain.

I can see why Obama would not be pleased about this guy's ad. The seriousness of the "connection" depends on if you believe this guy's story or not... that he did it on his own and was not directly working on the Obama campaign but happen to work at the firm that did their web site. Possibly a coincidence. Possibly not. I'm not personally upset over the whole thing So I don't really care.

What's interesting and potentially disturbing about this and other "third-party" political ads is that the tools to make them are easily obtained and used by ordinary people these days. It has the potential to cause a lot of mayhem if information about their creation/creators isn't divulged as this ad demonstrates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc, he is saying that if this add was created by someone connected to Bush in the same way this person is related to Obama.. you would being having a hissy about now. He saying you are beyond bias. To the point that your scale of justice is tilted a bit too far. Not likeing Bush is normal.. not likeing every person that in anyway is connected to him, no matter how thin the connection... thats the kind of thought that leads to rifles in clock towers.

The add did what it was sopposed to. It got people to talk about Hillary in the same sentance as 1984 and Orwelleon. The fact that they were only talking about the add content doesn't stick in people's heads... memory is an odd thing... something like this gets stored as Hillary/1984/Orwell and the next time they think of Hillary they think of 1984 at least a little bit.... and that makes them really critical when thinking about her...

We should get all thier names... get a good list going... how dare they express themselves as if the First Admendment applied to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. The way Mark is explaining it makes sense. Why did it take three people to get the wording right so I can understand this? Don't answer that. Probably the same reason my ex and I had so many problems communicating. Phrasing is everything and we all comprehend a little differently.

You may be right... I may have been pissed if it was a Bush connection. Then again, I don't care all that much for Hillary either. The thing is... for me, Bush and his cronies have earned that level of contempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I typed it out all wrong, but all three people who translated saw my point.

Sinmantyx, what the fuck are you talking about? Mstrbeau has yelled about anyone connected to Bush since he first came on DGN - and that's his right - but he's been doing long before the incidents you mentioned. Why did you use those two examples of things I was talking about? Damn.

I just ask for consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I typed it out all wrong, but all three people who translated saw my point.

Sinmantyx, what the fuck are you talking about? Mstrbeau has yelled about anyone connected to Bush since he first came on DGN - and that's his right - but he's been doing long before the incidents you mentioned. Why did you use those two examples of things I was talking about? Damn.

I just ask for consistency.

As long as you're making sure we have Marc's character in context (with or without specific examples), we need someone to keep us up-to-date on yours. I sense a DGN tabloid in the works... I promise, I'll keep my yellow journalism VERY... "consistent."

Consistently "juicy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I typed it out all wrong, but all three people who translated saw my point.

Sinmantyx, what the fuck are you talking about? Mstrbeau has yelled about anyone connected to Bush since he first came on DGN - and that's his right - but he's been doing long before the incidents you mentioned. Why did you use those two examples of things I was talking about? Damn.

I just ask for consistency.

I'm not fighting Msterbeau's battles. I'm just pointing out that sometimes the seriousness of the infraction may matter in judging what constitutes a significant "link" to someone else. If it's corruption and conspiracy, a link such as this might be considered more serious than if it is one person playing with video footage; whose only crime *might* be a slight infraction of intellectual property law related to media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    38.9k
    Total Topics
    820.4k
    Total Posts
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 145 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.