Caveat emptor: Sean Wilentz, Clinton surrogate.

Killing the messenger, historical immaturity.

"Killing the messenger"?

No, but I do believe in full disclosure since it helps to put statements into proper perspective.

That's called "historical maturity."

Actually, by not going for full disclosure you only undermine what it is Wilentz has to say.

LOL

"helps to put statements into proper perspective." = creates prejudice.

Why not allow what the author has to say to stand on it's own merits without prejudice?

You get to have your own opinions, not your own facts.

"Why not allow what the author has to say to stand on it's own merits without prejudice?"

The author has a point of view and that point of view is reflected in his writing. I like to know what the point of view is so that when I read whatever he's written I have some idea about the lens he uses in perceiving "facts" which are often matters open to interpretation (again, the interpretation influenced by the p.o.v.).

The p.o.v. doesn't necessarily negate or render invalid what the writer says, but an awareness of it can be informative for the reader.

I'd be surprised if Sean Wilentz didn't agree with me on this.

POV's are like assholes, everyone has one. The historical facts from the article showing that Obama was the first to play the race card are not in dispute, unless you want to dispute them, which obviously from your deflections about the author's POV, you do not.

Don't be so obtuse. I wasn't deflecting at all. My initial post was, simply (and truthfully), labeled caveat emptor. All of my other posts since then have been in response to your repeated whining about me letting readers know something about Sean Wilentz's political orientation.

Sorry if a multi-dimensional perspective intrudes on your unidimensional world.

In the entire multiverse I had not yet, until now, found someone saying they were not deflecting as a deflection, having after multiple posts still failed to address the substance of the article.

"after multiple posts still failed to address the substance of the article."

When did I say I was going to "address the substance of the article"? I merely pointed out Wilentz's political orientation and allegiance and you've been going bat-shit ever since.

Where, exactly, do you "address the substance of the article"?

OK, now we've got 11 posts on a thread that's supposed to be about an anti-Obama campaign article written by a Hillary Clinton shill. I've done all I can for you, Seaton_Begg. Either RCade promotes your offering to the front page or the "story" dies a richly-deserved, ignominious death. Toodles!

"When did I say I was going to "address the substance of the article"?"

You are correct. Who am I to expect anything but the norm? I will take your aquiesance as agreement then, and thank your for your participation.

"I will take your aquiesance as agreement then"

Then you're an even dimmer bulb than I took you for initially.

Don't worry, if I run out of productive things to do today I'll spend some time analyzing the musings of a Clinton hack.

Don't call me, I'll call you.

P.S. "Aquiesance" is agreement. LOL

From Doc's link:

Her poem begins with the words, "Peace has come."

Deflections 'R Us!

Obama was still the first to play the race card.



"I will take your aquiesance as agreement then"

Then you're an even dimmer bulb than I took you for initially."

P.S. "Aquiesance" is agreement. LOL"

Caution: That post has retorted itself. Do not enter!

Ah, you misunderstand yet again. I was ridiculing you because by saying "I will take your aquiesance [you do mean 'acquiescence,' yes?] as agreement" you're saying "I will take your agreement as agreement." In other words, useless repetition. Yammer, yammer, blah, blah.

"Obama was still the first to play the race card."

According to Sean Wilentz, big slurper of Clinton Kool-Aid.

Rigidly uninformed and clearly uneducable, Seaton Begg might do better to continue playing at being The Metatemporal Detective.

Wholly unaccomplished in either linguistics or logic, Dr Sarvis, also known in the metatemporal criminal world by his alias, "Dick Shiner", and having no argument to persuade us of Professor Wilentz' inaccuracy, relies on a thread full of deflection and distraction to make his case.

Typical of the criminal mind.

"Hillary FAILS

So does Corky."

But you know, the one strategy Hillary hasn't tried yet is to disappear from the scene for a couple of days, then come back with a new name.

It just might work!

But then again.... nawwwwwwww.

"to persuade us of Professor Wilentz' inaccuracy"

Tempest, meet the Teapot.

Where do I say I was going to "persuade" anyone of Clinton Kool-Aid consumer Wilentz's accuracy or inaccuracy? I provided information about the bias Wilentz brings to the table with his piece. You choose to view Wilentz's bias and status as a Clinton surrogate as irrelevant, evidently accepting what he says as gospel and glom onto his view without letting critical thought enter into the equation. Clearly, you, too, are am imbiber of the Kool-Aid. Bon appetite!

As an aside, I wonder what Sean Wilentz has to say---as a historian rather than as a Clinton shill---about Hillary's ahistorical "historical" accounts of her "experience" and exposure to sniper fire?

Guess we'll just have to wait until the Clinton Kool-Aid wears off.

You know when your chosen candidate does something absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid as claim to have "ducked sniper fire on a trip to a foreign country", it doesn't help your case to disappear and re-emerge under a new name.

At least Bowa had the balls to stick around with his same old name, for a while.

Grow a pair.

"At least Bowa had the balls to stick around with his same old name, for a while."

Which one?

At least Bowa had the balls to stick around with his same old name, for a while.

Grow a pair.

Posted by Axiom at 2008-03-31 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yeah what SanAntonioRogue said which one?? Lokisfur??Derfla5??
Rastaninjja??LarryBowa??Bowa??

Larry Mohr