Skip to main content

View Diary: New! Improved! (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  While ignoring the technicality, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and thereby distracting from its merits, or lack thereof. Objection overruled!

    •  Self-appointed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ek hornbeck, Kombema, TheMomCat

      Not surprised.

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

      by Words In Action on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 12:44:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  DING, DING, EFFING DING: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kombema, TheMomCat, ek hornbeck
      and thereby distracting from its merits
      Exactly what people did to Rall's cartoon:  Distracting from its merits.

      Obama said:

      If you like your insurance, you can keep it, period.  No matter what.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.  No matter what.
      Obama also said:
      We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014. Governor Romney doesn't have a timetable. I think he's wrong. That's what's at stake in this election. And as long as I'm Commander in Chief, we will serve our veterans as well as they've served us, because nobody who fights for us should have to fight for a job or a roof over their heads when they come home. That's the choice in this election.
      pssstt... none of the above two statements were true.

      That's exactly what happened to Rall's cartoon -- distracted from the merits and turned it into something else. (Yes, I acknowledge that some people whom I respect were appalled by the drawing, which is exactly why I asked him to change it)

      •  You know that I'm aware of that, right? (0+ / 0-)

        After all, it was the freaking point I was making: that those arguing for a debate on the merits of Rall's cartoon shouldn't undermine that argument by engaging in petty distractions. If the objection was that the citation regarding Rall's length-of-tenure here is merely a technicality, that should have been stated. Not a petty grammar correction that assumes all readers will get that it's intended as a dismissive "tit-for-tat."

        Pssssst: re-read my original comment in this thread, and I think you'll find that's what I said.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site