Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The American Presidency: This Thread Is 'Inartful'.
Posts
He tried to put it in context by comparing the future of Iraq to the way Korea is now, sorta skipping over the fact that it's going to take years (probably more than 5) to "stabilize" the country. Having permanent bases over there isn't going to help with stabilization either. Personally, I think his 100 years comment reflects more on his desire to have us in constant conflict in the middle east. Because that's exactly what putting down permanent bases is going to imply and engender.
His experience shouldn't give him a free pass on promoting horrible foreign policy, and if Obama can get the mainstream media to finally take a critical look at what McCain is saying, he's going to go a long way to completely de-toothing McCain.
That's not journalism, it's a long string of pundits trying to stir up shit.
Which would be fine, if it wasn't the only thing approaching journalism far too many Americans get.
That's because your navel isn't bigoted.
Haha, you must be new here. The "liberal media" is going to treat this issue like any other concerning McCain, namely using it to toss his salad. Saying they're fellating him wouldn't do justice to the stupidity that pundits have descended to.
BLAAAAAGGGH.
That is the only response I could gather.
Not allowing McCain to wave his military experience wang around freely, and it's horribly timed because it's never a good time to raise legitimate questions about a person's military service unless the person is a Democrat.
Whatever.
I'm well aware the media has a huge stiffy for McCain.
I also know the only thing they love more than blowing him is creating controversy where there is none. So if the idea of questioning McCain's experience in terms of command readiness and how valid his foreign policy is in an objective sense takes root, the very fact the media hasn't stopped fawning over him will get the tons of discussion coverage with dueling talking heads. And given pretty much every military leader who isn't insane hates the McCain/Bush strategy, we can get same damn fine surrogates out there hammering him, hopefully without putting their foot in their mouth like Clark did.
Pretty much.
In context? Nothing. When you cut out the fact that he's parroting Schiefer it sounds tone deaf to most people and provides an opening to claim that someone's attacking Saint McCain.
It's poorly timed because this is going to be obsessed over for another day or so completely undercutting Obama's big speeches that he had planned for this week.
It's a blunder because Clark used too many damn clauses to get across an idea in sound byte city, and it's horribly timed because it shit all over Obama's speech on patriotism, which was actually damn good, but gets either completely ignored in favor of tearing down Obama's image by association, or is mentioned only as a weak rebuttal of Clark.
Except the ones who need to be questioning McCain's experience are the media. And it's more than clear that they would prefer that someone else say something so they can go all "OMG, on no he di'int!"
Edit: Here's an easy soundbite version of the attack: "McCain made honorable sacrifices for his country, but that doesn't mean he is qualified to run it." Pick a variation of something like that, and run with it.
Well, they could talk about Iraq or Afghanistan.
Every day at lunch on my way out of the building I walk passed a cafe. Every day I walk passed, the television has Barack Obama giving a speech and the room is full of people. The television is tuned to Fox News.
I don't think Obama's speeches are getting tuned out.
So fucking true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
I agree.
Who else wants Dracomicron to cry?
I'd like to think that, but what I've seen of fox news makes me pretty sure that if they're showing anything Obama is saying it's either out of context, or to give the talking heads a specific focus for their bile in the next 30 minutes.
I'd love to be wrong, but somehow I doubt they decided to become a real news network while I wasn't looking.
Not if you're reliant on evening broadcasts/summaries on Nightly, or equivalent. The obsessives will find it out, but my parents just watch the 5 o'clock news and it doesn't even mention anything substantial on the election that isn't a tit for tat tiffy.
People
When's the last time a Democratic candidate got more donations from military personnel than a Republican candidate?
-Barack Obama says that voters are bitter.
-Hillary Clinton says white people are voting for her.
-Some McCain surrogate says that a terrorist attack would help John McCain.
-Wesley Clark says that getting shot down in a plane is not a qualification to be President.
-Barack Obama says that his grandmother's racism was embarrassing.
-Ron Paul and Reverand Wright says that a lot of the terrorist animosity towards us is because of our actions in the Middle East.
-McCain says he would not have a problem being in Iraq for 100 years if the situation became like how we're stationed in Germany and South Korea now with no combat deaths.
Does anyone else notice the pattern of these huge blunders?
Here's the problem- we don't discuss the actual issues, just these stupid quotes. Sometimes they're simply taken out of context (e.g., Barack Obama "throwing his grandmother under the bus"). But a lot of time our insistence on stupid quotes prevents us from seeing the actual truth. This Wesley Clark quote is just another example of how people can't see the underlying truth because there's a political blunder we can all get upset about.
And the Democrats are guilty of this as well. I hate how Democrats keep pulling out the line that McCain doesn't care if the Iraq war goes on for 1000 years. It earns them votes, but it prevents America from having an actual discourse about the underlying issues. The truth is that McCain doesn't want the war to continue BUT he wants to develop an American empire. He wants permanent military bases, influence in the region and a say in where the oil goes. That's what Democrats should be attacking him on, but it doesn't fit into a damn sound bite so it never gets brought up.
Argh.
Especially the 100 years thing. I agree with them that it's damning, but for your reasons rather than zomg war forever!
Check your local-listings for the time it'll reair.