Don't call me sweetie. Ever.

If you can't see what I'm talking about from the very clear statement I made, then my only response is that you just refuse, or you're incapable of doing so.

But maybe you can attack Obama the next time he praises his opponent.

Oh, but way to show civility. It proves so well how well Barack can change the tone and tenor of political discourse.

That and he hadn't heard or read the what she said when he made the statement.

Sorry, honey.

You should probably put me on ignore, because that's what I'll be doing with you after this post. You are probably my least liked poster on these boards and my tolerance has just run out.

What? Since when has it been Barack's goal, during the man's campaign, to make people like FTR less abrasive? Since when has it been his responsibility?

Well, that pretty much says it all.

Do you believe he's RFK junior is lying?


What I'm seeing is a willingness to believe and repeat the most noxious accusations against both the candidates. When people propagate the notion that Oboma and his family are anti-American, it galls me. I see those people as believing what they choose to believe because of a tribal mindset. I see the same thing happening to both candidates, and it's not something I'll support if Jesus Christ Superstar himself said that I should buy into it.

Oh, I'm so sorry that I poisoned your water supply and cast a plague unto your house.

No, RFK Jr. isn't lying. He's just, as FTR pointed out, saying that he won't let a comment he hasn't actually heard cause his support for a candidate he endorsed to waver.

But like I said, RFK Jr. is in no position to say whether or not Hillary's comment is categorically offensive since it carries the potential to offend people who aren't Kennedy's or, more specifically, RFK Jr. RFK cannot speak on behalf of these people, and to suggest that he can or should is a folly on your part.

I'm repeating myself, at this point.

I think there's a teensy weensy bit of difference between changing the tone of political discourse (i.e., the dialogue between politicians), and changing the tone of political discourse *on the internet* (i.e., the dialogue between totally anonymous fuckwads).

And no, I don't think you're *all* fuckwads, but I think we can agree that there are a lot of them on the Internet.

I'm not saying that RFK Jr.'s remarks are the only remarks that should be considered, but I am suggesting that they should, at least, be considered.

But RFK Jr. being in no position to say whether the comments are offensive, from his perspective? I don't believe so.

I'm also wondering how he's commenting on something that he hasn't heard. It seems to me that he's heard it from somewhere.

Okay, consider his comments duly noted and the idea of people being able to speak for themselves wholly reaffirmed. I never ignored the former and I never disputed the latter, and I'm not about to start out of nowhere.

And he hadn't heard Clinton's comments, even though it makes no logical sense for people to being giving opinons about things they don't haven't heard.

Anyway, I don't see how the merits of RFK Jr.'s uninformed opinion is worth arguing. The same goes for Clinton's original comment.

It was dumb and offensive, but it's too late for anything she has to say to matter either way, so let's just note it and move on.

For me, discourse is discourse is discourse. But, I'm aware that many people feel differently.

Perhaps he heard the comments later and then made a more detailed response?


Odd. This is what I was responding to:

Odd.

Unless you can find proof that he did, he didn't.

And I don't think RFK Jr.'s opinion should be the center of this discussion anyway, assuming the discussion itself is worth having in the first place.

Perhaps it's indicated in the specific comments he made yesterday:

The fact that Hillary has repeated the RFK in June line makes it clear to me that she is playing some subtle-to-not-so-subtle mind games on voters. It's clear that this was part of the strategy. Plan B or C, perhaps. I think this was worth pointing out as some asshole fuckfacery.

I also think every national campaign has its variations on this kind of shit. If Hillary were in the lead right now, she'd be taking more heat, guaranteed. Who knows how Obama's campaign prepared for the possibility of coming up short in the polls or primaries? His fans might prefer to think of the man as being morally superior to Clinton by now, but I believe there's no way to know these people's morals in a meaningful way. This is all careful acting, in my opinion. You have to have media polish to succeed in politics. Discretion and slickness mask all personal foibles. Ted Kennedy just got a huge boost in likability simply because he got sick. I recall the mystery of Chappaquiddick and wonder why any of us bother to compare these people on a moral basis. RFK Jr has been using this autism thing to gain points - does this make him a truly nice guy, or an opportunist? Can he be both, and how might that change one's opinion of the person? For me, only the policy statements and campaign promises have weight once I'm in the booth. I might be in the minority here. Clinton is no different from any other desperately ambitious politician on the ropes. They will usually come out swinging with whatever they can find., if the stakes are high enough. These people could all be Asshole Fuckfaces, and with some we may never know. With Clinton, we have confirmation.