Interesting…

I was just about to throw in my 2 cents, for whatever it might be worth, but the points I was going to make, or reiterate from the discussion, are exactly what Outraged has already reiterated:

• Maani’s quote:  “I stand by my very clear statements I have not, at any time, “endorsed” those tactics IN GENERAL, but ONLY within the given context; i.e, that of WINNING a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

HOWEVER, that was in response to what Outraged had already said..here:

• …“It is possible for things to be “in context” or “out of context” as you claim, my point is ethics and morality are not one of them…..”

But, there’s the final quote from outraged that further makes the point:

• “You continuously are attempting to qualify unethical actions as somehow acceptable if this or if that.  When you do that, especially in an overarching way concerning politics you MAKE IT OK, even though you have no basis.”

That really DOES say what it is.

Maani is creating certain (overarching) parameters that WILL in fact make certain actions OK, under certain ‘conditions’ that may or may not apply.

It’s a little bit like the torture argument Maani, except that there’s nothing the least bit tortured about the argument itself.

TORTURE is NEVER – OK – or acceptable under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, and there is no context that allows for it to be.

That is NOT to say that a few billion words haven’t been said or written in the past 4 or so years, to attempt to justify it, or MAKE it acceptable under certain circumstances or conditions.

BUT…IT IS NOT!! EVER…

I’m certain that was the point that Outraged was making in regard to unethical actions, which are STILL unethical, in ANY CONTEXT. There isn’t the least thing tortured about that logic. It’s about as clearly and sharply defined as the difference between black and white.

So, using $50.00 words where $10.00 or $15.00 ones would work just fine, (actually better) doesn’t help your argument, specifically if it has no basis to begin with, and you need to spin it from scratch, and adjust as you go along.

I think what it DOES indicate though, as indicative of all of your other posts, is that for YOU, it really IS ONLY about ‘winning’ even if it makes absolutely no sense. You would argue until the moon turns chartreuse, but ONLY in constant terms of defending what began as an untenable position to begin with. In the process, you always veer far away from any objectivity, because you’re so busy defending yourself, and attempting an arrogant put down directed at whoever you’re engaged with. And, it’s all subjective, rather than objective.

You maintain a combative posture all the way through, (very Hillary like) but it still doesn’t change the foundation or the facts.

I don’t see how that benefits you. But, maybe I’m missing something.

Another more philosophical question that came to my mind as I was reading all of the related posts, and it may be too philosophical, but what the heck..

How are you defining WINNING? I know that may sound a bit simple on the surface, since you probably figure that WINNING in this discussion, would mean that Obama would get the most delegates, and win the nomination. But, if in fact he could ONLY do that, by engaging in unethical practices, or ‘politics as usual’, or the tactics employed by his opponent, would that really be a WIN?

Now, I can’t speak for Barak Obama, but I can suggest what my own thoughts are on his feel for this probably would be, just based on how he has presented himself over the years of his public life, and in the campaign so far. I don’t believe that HE would consider that a ‘win’.

Based on that, the point becomes moot, because if he DID resort to those tactics, it would NOT be a ‘win’ for him, at least not in his own mind or sense of himself, or his campaign.

I would NOT consider it a ‘win’ in the same circumstances, EVEN if I was convinced that I was the better candidate.

Your quote:  “I stand by my very clear statements I have not, at any time, “endorsed” those tactics IN GENERAL, but ONLY within the given context; i.e, that of WINNING a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.  If you do not understand this, there is nothing more I can say, since you seem hellbent on engaging in sophistry and semantics to “catch” me in something.”

My quote: “It is possible for things to be “in context” or “out of context” as you claim, my point is ethics and morality are not one of them.  Since ethics and morality imply PROACTIVE thought processes different from say REACTIVE knee-jerk actions.  When a politician spews rhetoric of any type, its been fairly well “hashed over” just HOW to spin it. This isn’t to say people won’t forgive and forget, that’s an individual judgement call, however ethical behaviour in and of itself is not relative.”

**I see you have changed “suggested” to “endorsed”, quite the little spin doctor aren’t you Maani.

So Maani, for clarity’s sake what is YOUR definition of “politics as usual”?  I’m interpreting that you disagree with my summation....so, give your definition of “politics as usual”.

BTW, I’m sorry if from your perspective my logic seems so “tortured” since most people find point blank, black and white logic easily digested.

Outraged:

You are now engaged in even more tortured logic.

“If by ‘politics as usual’ you mean, viciousness, lies, and cheating, then you ARE endorsing that behaviour as the only option if your opponent engages in it.”

Not so.  I made it quite clear that I was NOT “endorsing” it.  Here is my statement: “We would have to define the terms “better” and “smarter” within the specific context of a political campaign; if the ultimate goal of a political campaign is winning, then if engaging in “politics as usual” helps one to win, it is “better” and “smarter” to do so - DESPITE their “rightness” vis-a-vis morality and ethics.”

As well, I did not suggest those tactics were “the only option”; I defy you to find where I said this.  I have stated consistently that IF those tactics helped one to win, and IF winning is the ultimate goal (which I clearly stated it might NOT be), THEN those tactics are “smarter” and “better” - AGAIN (and I don’t know how many times I have to say this for it to sink in) DESPITE whether it is the moral or ethical thing to do.  That is NOT an endorsement of those tactics, no matter how you try to spin it.

I stand by my very clear statements I have not, at any time, “endorsed” those tactics IN GENERAL, but ONLY within the given context; i.e, that of WINNING a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.  If you do not understand this, there is nothing more I can say, since you seem hellbent on engaging in sophistry and semantics to “catch” me in something.

I have been completely consistent in word and intent from my very first post.  If you feel the need to believe that I am saying something that I am not, there is not much I can do.

Peace.

Re: Maani:

Your quote: “Your sophistry may fool others, but it does not fool me.  Let me try to make this as easy as possible.”

Nice try.  But I say broke down your spin in an extremely point blank, black and white way. It’s sophistry only in your mind since you keep trying to qualify bad behaviour.

So… in your subsequent post you now have changed the ARGUMENT not to whether or not it was wrong or right and implied or suggested TO it’s all “RELATIVE” and that it needs to be taken “IN CONTEXT”.  OK.  I can decipher that too.

Ethics are NOT relative, ....not even when it “seems” like a good idea.  You went to kindergarten didn’t you....if you (not specifically you) play dirty, the majority shuns you.  I can’t qualify that EVERYONE will shun you as some may be just like you but I can qualify that the majority WILL shun you because they don’t accept that type of behaviour.  And no matter how much you “spin it” or cry about it later, the masses will make their own judgement and it won’t be in your favor.  So winning at any cost(viciousness), bending the rules (cheating), twisting the truth (lying) is a lose-lose proposition.  Now, it is possible for a lie to stick as truth for a while, but as it is lies are ALWAYS found out, I think there’s an unwritten rule somewhere, and when that happens one is DOUBLY HATED and possibly ousted, if one engages in it.

It is possible for things to be “in context” or “out of context” as you claim, my point is ethics and morality are not one of them.  Since ethics and morality imply PROACTIVE thought processes different from say REACTIVE knee-jerk actions.  When a politician spews rhetoric of any type, its been fairly well “hashed over” just HOW to spin it. This isn’t to say people won’t forgive and forget, that’s an individual judgement call, however ethical behaviour in and of itself is not relative.

Your quote: “You now bring up an additional point: that he might NOT have to resort to “politics as usual” in order to win.  That is true.  And nothing I said belies that, since that was not the point we were debating.”

Your comment here belies that: “I stated - quite clearly - that it was a “poor decision lacking foresight” and “absurd” for Obama to have painted himself into a corner by promising not to engage in “politics as usual.”

But I found this comment disturbing, Maani… I really did, and I’m hoping you actually meant it another way.

“However, if his ultimate goal is winning the nomination, and he is aware that his opponent is likely to engage in “politics as usual” - and that there might come a time when he cannot WIN without doing the same - then his early unequivocal statement about not engaging in “politics as usual” was, in fact, a “poor” decision.”

First this supposes that in fact one WOULD WIN engaging in “politics as usual” which is debatable.  If by “politics as usual” you mean, viciousness, lies, and cheating, then you ARE endorsing that behaviour as the only option if your opponent engages in it.  But realistically, you don’t even have that, because as I said above.... you still don’t KNOW that, unless… you actually commit ELECTION FRAUD.  You continuously are attempting to qualify unethical actions as somehow acceptable if this or if that.  When you do that, especially in an overarching way concerning politics you MAKE IT OK, even though you have no basis.

Leefeller:

“Maani, since Obama said he would not engage in “Politics as Usual” Dirty politics, lies ie the kitchen sink.  You are saying or did Obama say it was a poor decision?”

It was me who made that suggestion, not Obama.  And I made in the context contained in my post above.

Peace.

Maani, since Obama said he would not engage in “Politics as Usual” Dirty politics, lies ie the kitchen sink.  You are saying or did Obama say it was a poor decision? 

Idealistic as it may seem, I hope Obama does not resort to the same muck raking as Hillary, her division of the democratic party smack’s of Bush Chaney, we need a much more positive approach to politics.  Guess this is naive like hope and change.

Outraged:

Your sophistry may fool others, but it does not fool me.  Let me try to make this as easy as possible.

The overwhelming majority of politicians engage in what we normally call “politics as usual” which, during a compaign, means getting “dirty” at times, WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS THE “RIGHT,” “SMARTER” OR “BETTER” THING TO DO.  However, we would have to define the terms “better” and “smarter” within the specific context of a political campaign; if the ultimate goal of a political campaign is winning, then if engaging in “politics as usual” helps one to win, it is “better” and “smarter” to do so - DESPITE their “rightness” vis-a-vis morality and ethics.

Hillary never suggested that she would not engage in such tactics.

However, at the very beginning of his campaign, Obama stated - unequivocally - that he would NOT engage in “politics as usual.” From the point of view that “politics as usual” IS often “wrong” (morally and/or ethically), Obama’s stand was the more noble, moral, ethical and “right” one.

HOWEVER, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE REALITIES OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS - i.e., if the ultimate goal is “winning” (which it is assumed to be, no matter how noble the person) - then it was a “poor decision lacking foresight” IF Obama ended up in a position in which engaging in “politics as usual” was his only option for WINNING THE NOMINATION.

If Obama’s ultimate goal is not specifically winning the nomination, but rather getting as far as he can while avoiding “politics as usual” - even if that means losing the nomination - then his decision NOT to engage in “politics as usual” remains the noble, moral, ethical and “right” decision, not a “poor” one.  However, if his ultimate goal is winning the nomination, and he is aware that his opponent is likely to engage in “politics as usual” - and that there might come a time when he cannot WIN without doing the same - then his early unequivocal statement about not engaging in “politics as usual” was, in fact, a “poor” decision.

You now bring up an additional point: that he might NOT have to resort to “politics as usual” in order to win.  That is true.  And nothing I said belies that, since that was not the point we were debating.

Finally, as for the court cases, they were before both Democrat and Republican judges, and I argued both pro bono for the elderly and financially disadvantaged, and pro se in both civil and federal court (and no, it was not a criminal case...LOL).

Peace.

Re: Maani:

The hell you didn’t “suggest” it.

Your Quote:  “I stated - quite clearly - that it was a “poor decision lacking foresight” and “absurd” for Obama to have painted himself into a corner by promising not to engage in “politics as usual.” I never implied or suggested - in any way, no matter how you try to spin it - that it was “okay” for Hillary to engage in “politics as usual,” only that she WAS doing so (and never suggested she would not) and he COULD not because of his prior statements.”

Are you now saying that something you deem a “poor decision lacking foresight” was OK or right?  Why Maani you are absolutely “suggesting” that it was wrong, and by contrasting Clinton against your comment you in fact “suggest” she was right or more right than someone who makes “a poor decision lacking foresight” and who is “absurd”.  In effect you QUALIFY her actions.  Or are you going to tell me that “a poor decision lacking foresight” could be construed as a good thing or right, and that your contrasting of Clinton in regards to your statement does not in fact “suggest” she made a better decision?  Can “poor decisions lacking foresight” ever be considered or construed as a right thing to do?  Using your spin, you qualify Clinton’s tactics as better and smarter than Obama’s.  Are you saying better and smarter isn’t right..or more right....?  And if it is, then aren’t you attempting to qualify and deem OK or better, Clinton’s tactics in relations to Obama’s.

So hopefully that clears up this comment of yours.  “ I never implied or suggested - in any way, no matter how you try to spin it - that it was “okay” for Hillary to engage in “politics as usual,”

Some other incongruities in your spin Maani.  Your comment:  “I stated - quite clearly - that it was a “poor decision lacking foresight” and “absurd” for Obama to have painted himself into a corner by promising not to engage in “politics as usual.”

This supposes that Obama HAS painted himself into a corner, something I find completely inaccurate. I could agree that as far as it might be possible for you to grasp the situation it may appear as such, but to make the claim without validity is really just bunk.

Your quote:"I only suggested that it was absurd for Obama to assume that just because HE might not engage in ‘politics as usual,’ that she would not either, thus leaving himself with nowhere to go.”

Here you claim that Obama has left “himself with nowhere to go”.  Since “down and dirty” is not the only way to play a game and win, your comment regarding this shows YOUR lack of foresight and also suggests that Obama has “nowhere to go”.  When in fact that is just something you suppose.  (Although in this comment you do ADMIT that you were “suggesting” something)

So Maani… all those court cases you won against the $450.00 an hour lawyers, let me guess...the judges were Republicans installed on the bench by the Bush administration and you were defending a business enity of some type.....Right..?

Cyrena:

“Just wanted to check in to let you know that I’m still looking for the post number. I haven’t found it yet.  Now I will revise my statement until I can locate it. BECAUSE...while I DO remember the post, (in response to my comment about Hillary claiming a Texas ‘win’ before the second process (the Texas caucuses) were done, I can’t prove that it was YOU who posted that, without the actual post.  So, if I ‘remembered’ INCORRECTLY, (ie, remembered the post but it was someone other than you) than I would be in error, and more than willing to admit to that.”

This alone will suffice as admission, since I am as certain as I can be that I never said what you claim I said, since I did not post anything after the post I re-iterated below, so if and when you DO find what you are seeking, it will positively NOT have MY name on it.

Consider yourself forgiven (at least by me, in the temporal world...LOL).

Peace.

Outraged:

Here is our exact discussion:

Me: “[T]his shows how Obama’s judgment re politics, and particularly political campaigns, was flawed from the beginning.  He promised to run on a ‘new kind of politics’ that did not engage in the types of tactics used by others.  However, by doing so he painted himself into a corner, because he cannot now get ‘down and dirty’ against Hillary without compromising the very foundation of his campaign. Blame Hillary all you want for HER tactics, but for Obama not to have seen this as a possibility and leave himself some wiggle room was a poor decision lacking foresight.”

You: “Making the assumption that it acceptable for Clinton to get ‘down and dirty’ by employing the tactics that she has and that Obama ‘should have forseen it’ is ludicrious.”

Me: “I never suggested that it was ‘acceptable’ for Hillary to get ‘down and dirty.’ I only suggested that it was absurd for Obama to assume that just because HE might not engage in ‘politics as usual,’ that she would not either, thus leaving himself with nowhere to go.

You: “You absolutely ‘suggested’ it was acceptable.
‘Blame Hillary all you want for HER tactics, but for Obama not to have seen this as a possibility and leave himself some wiggle room was a poor decision lacking foresight.’ Your ‘Blame Hillary all you want,’ rhetoric is disgusting.  In effect you are saying ‘Blame Hillary all you want BUT OBAMA WAS STUPID TO NOT PLAY DIRTY LIKE HILLARY, which, implies she was RIGHT.  And when you make the implication or qualification that Clinton was RIGHT and Obama was WRONG you are ‘suggesting’ it is acceptable.”

That last piece is about the most tortured logic I have ever heard.  I said, “Blame Hillary all you want.” This does not prima facie, per se or de facto suggest that I do not ALSO blame Hillary.  The words “Obama was stupid to not play dirty like Hillary” are yours, and, again, nothing in any of my comments suggests this.

I stated - quite clearly - that it was a “poor decision lacking foresight” and “absurd” for Obama to have painted himself into a corner by promising not to engage in “politics as usual.” I never implied or suggested - in any way, no matter how you try to spin it - that it was “okay” for Hillary to engage in “politics as usual,” only that she WAS doing so (and never suggested she would not) and he COULD not because of his prior statements.

As for what “makes you believe that Obama made that assumption,” I did say that he did not “see this as a possibility,” and I admit that that was probably a misstatement: he may well have seen that Hillary might engage in “politics as usual,” but made the decision early on NOT to do so EVEN IF SHE DID.  And I accept my misstatement in this regard.

However, that does not change the facts that (i) I never suggested that it was “okay” for Hillary to engage in “politics as usual” and (ii) by stating early on that he would NOT do so, Obama “painted himself into a corner,” since if he does so now, he will look like a hypocrite.

Peace.

Maani,

Just wanted to check in to let you know that I’m still looking for the post number. I haven’t found it yet.

Now I will revise my statement until I can locate it.
BECAUSE...while I DO remember the post, (in response to my comment about Hillary claiming a Texas ‘win’ before the second process (the Texas caucuses) were done, I can’t prove that it was YOU who posted that, without the actual post.

So, if I ‘remembered’ INCORRECTLY, (ie, remembered the post but it was someone other than you) than I would be in error, and more than willing to admit to that.

So, I’m still looking.

Mississippi doesn’t count because there are too many dark-skinned people, and it’s a red state.  The Texas caucus doesn’t count because caucuses are “undemocratic”.  The only places that count are the ones where Clinton wins...geez, don’t we all know that by now?

And BTW, it is not ok for Obama to mention Ronald Reagan in any way that isn’t wholly disparaging.  However, it is ok for Bill to go on the Rush Limbaugh show and ask the dittoheads to vote for Hillary in Texas.  Yeah, all those “real” Democrats putting her over the top.

Come on, Bill on the Limbaugh show?  Isn’t that a sign of the impending apocalypse or something?

Well Maani,

First, I never claimed to be a college professor, and I’ve already corrected you once on that. I won’t do it again.

As for your statement about Hillary ‘winning’ Texas, you did say it, and I may now, (despite the fact that I have better things to do) have to go in search of that comment. Let that serve as a reminder to me, that I too should always adhere to the practice that Outraged uses, in order to make sure that I am quoting from your own posts.

Thing is, you may very well have posted what you did, in reference to the count in Texas as it was happening last week.

HOWEVER, at a later time, and on a different thread, (which I may try to find) you responded to a post from me, that questioned Hillary’s claim of a ‘win’ in Texas.

YOU RESPONDED by saying, HILLARY DID WIN TEXAS! This was AFTER the stuff that you’ve quoted here.

So no, I won’t claim that I ‘don’t remember’ because I remember just fine. I remember the above stuff that you posted. And I remember you later response to my questioning Hillary’s victory speech, when she claimed a ‘win’ in Texas, and I remember your response that she DID ‘WIN’ Texas.

I think the apologies should be from you Maani, though I’m not really asking for one, since I don’t really much give a damn.

But no, I’m not a college professor per se, and I NEVER SAID THAT I WAS. As I mentioned, I also corrected you on that once before.

You don’t sound much like a successful litigator either. None of your posts provide any indication that you even know the standard, basic rules of litigating anything. And that’s because of the arrogance Maani. Yep, I’ve always told you, it’s the very first rule…NEVER ASSUME. But, you always do.

You assume all the time, either because of the arrogance, or because of your ignorance, (you obviously don’t even read things thoroughly) or maybe both.

That’s how you wind up with shit on your face.

Meantime, I’ll look for the post, so you can be reminded of your own words, and when you wrote them.

Your quote on the other thread:

“Au contraire! I have litigated over 20 cases - and have never lost.  Even against attorneys making $450 per hour.  So I think I know what I’m talking about when I talk about litigation and how one creates a winning case.”

You didn’t win this one in my book, so..I’m wondering… are you conceding your FIRST loss?

Your quote: “I never suggested that it was “acceptable” for Hillary to get “down and dirty.” I only suggested that it was absurd for Obama to assume that just because HE might not engage in “politics as usual,” that she would not either, thus leaving himself with nowhere to go.”

My quote:
“You absolutely “suggested” it was acceptable......

“Your “Blame Hillary all you want”, rhetoric is disgusting.  In effect you are saying “Blame Hillary all you want BUT OBAMA WAS STUPID TO NOT PLAY DIRTY LIKE HILLIARY, which, implies she was RIGHT.  And when you make the implication or qualification that Clinton was RIGHT and Obama was WRONG you are “suggesting” it is acceptable.”

Scroll to conversation:  http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080307_o bama_aide_quits_over_clinton_comment/

Yet, you never qualified your statement Maani.  I’ll ask it again:  “Qualify that Maani.....what is it that makes you believe Obama made that assumption, other than your imagination?”

BTW Maani, “I expect an apology - a sincere and humble apology.”

For the record Maani, “I very clearly post your quote before commenting on it”

Cyrena:

“Nevertheless, Maani came right back with the assurances that Hillary HAD WON TEXAS.”

Cyrena, you are a bald-faced liar.  That is NOT what I posted.  What I posted - very clearly - was that, with 100% of the precincts reporting, Hillary had won the the PRIMARY by 51% to 47%.  I also noted that with 41% of the precincts reporting, Obama was ahead of Hillary in the CAUCUSES, though no delegates had been awarded yet.

Through all of our many dust-ups, I have not ONCE claimed you said something that you did not (since I very clearly post your quote before commenting on it), much less blatantly LIED about any of your posts.

I expect an apology - a sincere and humble apology. And no, I will NOT accept that you “did not remember” - because your statement to Louise makes it VERY clear that it was not a matter of bad memory, but a flat-out lie.

I expect better from a self-proclaimed college professor.

Peace.  (maybe...)

Louise,

I’m giggling as well.

I just don’t know where Maani is. I so much wanted to share this news with him. Because, when we were all discussing this very thing after Hillary’s victory speech in Ohio, where she claimed WINS in TEXAS, MICHIGAN and FLORIDA, I sort of ‘cautioned’ that the word wasn’t in yet on Texas. (because of this convoluted 2-Step process, which I didn’t even PRETEND to explain in factual detail, since I didn’t understand myself, all of the intricacies of it.

I only knew that the fat lady hadn’t finished singing in Texas, at the time that Hillary claimed her ‘WIN’ of that state. (not to mention the two other ‘wins’ of states that had also NOT been recognized at the time or since).

BUT...nevertheless, Maani came right back with the assurances that Hillay HAD WON TEXAS. Some folks just love to embarrass themselves, and if we temporarily forget their ignorance, they insist on continuing to re-affirm it.

I just don’t understand.

Anyway, it’s one thing to have egg on ones face, since that can in fact be good for the complexion, and it’s easily enough removed with an addmission that one has goofed, but learned from it. (ergo, the enhanced complexion after the egg has been removed).

But well, SHIT on ones face provokes a different result, and I guess it’s just a whole lot more difficult to remove.

So, maybe after Maani gets cleaned up, he’ll decide to join the party.

Then again, maybe not.

Now Bill as a Second Lady in Waiting? That is just too much!!

Hillary and her support monkeys have shown us how low they will go, by throwing down the race card.  It seems there will be a slime trail all the way to Pennsylvania, may even slime into Florida and Michigan.  Appealing to bigots seems to be what Hilary and company feels the need to do to capture those states. 

One thing, I heard Hillary speak in double speak against the lobbies, so she stands the same on the issue with Obama?  Maybe issues are not enough, I suppose my premise that the three candidates are very similar on substance issues, but in how they obtain votes now that is another thing.

Shrills for Hillary, your kitchen sink approach may work, so be it.  Viva Hillary and the bigots who stand with her.

What can I say? Oh Joy! Oh happy day!

This makes the appeal of having the winner as the Vice president to the candidate coming in second even more appealing, right?

Hee-Hee.

I just had a freaky thought. What if Obama wins the Convention and Hillary becomes an Independent so she can be McCains Vice? What would that make Bill? Second Lady In Waiting?

I think I better get off line, I’m getting positively giddy!

Besides, Obama would win anyway.