RNC ad links Obama to 'union bosses'

[cali]

(AP) – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican National Committee on Wednesday began airing a television ad in Wisconsin that blames President Barack Obama and "union bosses" for standing in the way of economic reform.

The ad is an effort to bolster Republican Gov. Scott Walker as he tries to push through a measure that would take away most collective bargaining rights for state employees.

Obama has not been to Wisconsin since the protests began. But he has called Walker's proposal an assault on unions and urged other governors not to vilify public workers. Obama's political arm at the Democratic National Committee also helped mobilize demonstrators in coordination with unions.

The RNC ad shows scenes of pro-union demonstrators, saying they are "intimidating taxpayers" and "leaving classrooms empty." Some public schools closed temporarily because so many teachers were at the protests.

<snip>

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1BnX8-vrxFhadv3cLFbtGJEX8rQ?docId=3b9139b3a10048709a6ffa67bbe53fd3

[Skip_In_Boulder]

1. Did you notice the Hitler poster that was in the backgroud?

Said something about separated at birth at about 10 seconds.

[cali]

2. it's a sign some protesters were carrying.

The picture is of Walker.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

4. Yes, so you think it is appropriate?

[cali]

6. that's irrelevant to the OP but here's my take on it

Whether it's historically apropos doesn't matter, it's counterproductive to insert Hitler into the discussion- and that's almost always true.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

7. Yeah it is, and it is unfortunate that the Republicans

inserted that into the discussion.

[LooseWilly]

3. Should I presume you're trying to refute the tie between Obama and "Union bosses"?

I mean... we wouldn't want Obama "soiled" by such an association... right?

[cali]

5. say what?

I'm posting a story. I only wish Obama were more supportive of those in Wisconsin and across the country who are union members and/or fighting for unions.

As usual you fall flat.

:rofl:

And why on earth you'd presume anything so profoundly stupid from my posting a news story, only you can know.

I'm not terribly interested in anything YOU have to utter.

[LooseWilly]

8. You should really learn to better control the connotations of what you write...

if you want to avoid accusations in the future.

Your 'headline': "RNC ad links Obama to Union Bosses" sets up a linkage of RNC (connotatively bad and dishonest and so on here) with a link between Obama and "Union Bosses" ... creating the subliminal linguistic effect of making Union Bosses a group that the (connotatively bad) RNC want to link to Obama ... suggesting that the linkage must be, like the RNC itself, a bad thing.

Your posted story then goes on to explain that the Republicans are indeed trying to link Obama to union bosses, and selling the story that they are working together to "stand in the way of economic reform" (bad)

The story then goes on to mention "Obama has not been to Wisconsin since the protests began." More support for the division of Obama from the protestors?

I didn't see any sign of you highlighting this, despite your assertion that "I only wish Obama were more supportive of those in Wisconsin and across the country who are union members and/or fighting for unions."

You may argue that I fall flat all you want.. but you'll notice that my post ended with a '?'... I was asking a question.

A question that you might want to keep in mind the next time you post. Maybe...

Your assertion that my presumption... is "profoundly stupid" seems to presume that my presumption is presumed... ('How much wood could a wood chuck... blah blah blah). My intention was to point out a possible interpretation... your response has been telling in my opinion.

Heh... your aspersions on my utterances are, I daresay, more telling of your own proclivities, than of anything I may or may not deign to do or say... but I will note your aversion to any interest in genuine discussion... so as not to waste my time unduly in the future with giving you the benefit of the doubt of being an individual interested in honest, or at least reasonable, discussion... rather than... a shameless agenda pusher.

[cali]

9. It's not my headline

genius. And if you'd bothered to raise a little finger to click on the link, you'd know that. duh. duh. duh.

Here's a clue:

Just about every morning I post several stories on DU. No comments, just the stories so that folks can see what the MSM take is and stories I think may be of interest to the DU community at large.

Really, your leaping to conclusions and trying to smear me, are just pathetic. Predictably pathetic, sweets.

[LooseWilly]

14. I'm sorry... I guess I wasn't explicit enough for you to understand the implications...

I was saying that, by not injecting any of your own "editorial"... your post was open to the interpretation that I made.

If you weren't so defensive you'd notice the question I posed was "Should I presume you're trying to refute the tie between Obama and "Union bosses?" ... you could've answered... but instead you thought you'd get smart and try to question me "why on earth you'd presume anything so profoundly stupid"

So I tried to explain to you the underlying meaning of your own language... and rather than responding on that plane... rather than clarifying or trying to explain why you'd used the language you did... you are now trying to distance yourself from the headline... ignoring that I called you out for not having made any comment on the Right Wing headline to clarify where you stood in relation to it.

"I didn't see any sign of you highlighting this, despite your assertion that "I only wish Obama were more supportive of those in Wisconsin and across the country who are union members and/or fighting for unions." ... I said this to point out that there was no sign of you highlighting the points that you seemed to seemed to want to think that you were saying were objectionable... the point is that you weren't dooing anything of the sort... you were just propogating the viewpoints of the "opposition"... the Right Wing.

I know it was the headline of the article that you were quoting... but when you use the headline verbatim for your own post... it becomes your headline too... genius.

Funny that you never actually responded to the interpretation... you simply attacked me as being "pathetic".

Are you prepared to comment on your own fucking posted story?... Or are you going to pretend to some sort of "journalistic neutrality" while defending journalism that you didn't produce but rather chose to selectively share, as if it was an act of journalistic neutrality, even while you engage in personal smear attacks in order to try to defend the integrity/validity of your choice of selective journalistic story dissemination to suit your personal agenda?

Just curious... ;)

[cali]

10. oh, and Mr. Loose

I just posted a story about Walker saying Unions can give more. Now why don't you run over there and accuse me of supporting Walker. It'd just be so fitting for you to engage in more ugly, dishonest dog shit.

[LooseWilly]

11. ms. cali... loathe as I am to call you that as it makes you sound like my state rep somehow...

I did just post there... I'll see you soon.

Though... accusing me of engaging in "ugly, dishonest dog shit".... aside from the fact that it neither makes sense nor even really makes any use of the truly engaging tactility of the image... it strikes me as potentially a violation of some rule bullshit or other... are you really sure you want to get down and wrestle with me in the dogshit without rules?... (Not to suggest that admins make judgements based on any sort of equal enforcement tit-for-tat basis.... but this post really might open up a whole lot of latitude for me to really go apeshit in contravention of any supposed rules regarding "civility"... as you have just accused me of fecal posting habits with zero supporting argumentation.)

Let the games begin... ;)

[cali]

13. zero supporting argumentation? Sorry, Mr. Loose,

but your own words are my supporting argumentation.

Should I presume you're trying to refute the tie between Obama and "Union bosses"?

I mean... we wouldn't want Obama "soiled" by such an association... right?

It's an ugly aspersion on my motives for posting and on my politics. Oh, and YOU are the one who made it with NO FUCKING supporting argumentation, my dear Mr. Loose.

Have a nice little day, Mr. Loose.

:hi:

[LooseWilly]

15. It's not that big of a thread yet, is post #8 not one you've gotten to?

Here... let's just make it easy... I'll give you a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=546363&mesg_id=546414

There I laid out my argument for why your post sounded like it was trying to refute the tie between Obama and "union bosses" suggested in the linked to article.

It's mostly an analysis of your OP and the language therein.

If you'd like to present a counter argument... arguing that there is a solid tie between Obama and "union bosses" I'd be interested in reading it. Given the way you've artlessly villified me, and my resultant newly-found lack of respect for any word typed by you... you'll want to provide some sort of links to at least support major points of your arguments... you know, like any community college student would have to do.

I'm sure that won't prove to be taxing.

?

Or you can continue to try to type down to me... and I will respond by becoming more and more derogatory and dismissive in return... until any possibility of a discussion is lost in a haze of stubborn idiocy.

Your call. ;)

[underpants]

12. Great Idea there Binkley III

:eyes: every poll I have seen says that about 60% of the country backs the unions at least in the Wisconsin issue.

[no_hypocrisy]

16. Karl's back . . . . .

[bemildred]

17. I thought Republicans liked bosses. nt

[Hubert Flottz]

18. Better than being linked to super scabs.