I'm fairly certain we've never had someone in the White House who didn't lie to get there.
News Flash! George Washington was a human being!
Okay, fine, I was going to say "Except for maybe George Washington" but I assumed someone would come in to talk about what a big fat lying bastard he was. Now I get hit on what a big-fat truth telling bastard he was. I can't win!
But you keep saying that any sort of negative ad - that is, any ad that says anything bad about McCain's ideas or policies in any context - is an act of hypocrisy. So please, back this up. With an actual quote or video link.
We’ve come to be consumed by a 24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics that doesn’t move us forward.
Throughout my years in Springfield, I had clung to the notion that politics could be different, and that the voters wanted something different; that they were tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems
Still searching for his unconditional renunciation of ads that criticize John McCain.
It's like you've got nothing and are googling furiously.
Speaker on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
And he only took it because nobody else put their name forward since everyone wanted him to have it.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Actually John McCain's support of charter schools, Arizona style, makes every one of those statements true. They are unaccountable and used as a method of cutting state funding for education.
And Arizona is one of the dumbest states in the Union.
I'll be in Arizona next week. Phoenix metro and Sedona, no possibility of getting to Nevada or New Mexico. Extremely unlikely I'll make contact with the sole Arizona field office.
Are there any suggestions, or should I just say fuck it and enjoy my vacation?
I'd say just take a break.
And make it up to Flagstaff/the Grand Canyon while you're in the state if you're able.
Oh no. Nononononononono. Not the Big Scary Hole In The Ground again. Place sucks you in trying to peer over the side to see where the bottom of the cliff is, people have fallen in doing that.
Also, fuck the tour bus drivers. They drive way too fast along the cliff and I do NOT need to know that the road will fall into the canyon in a few years, thank you very much.
Nah, the big hole in the ground is Meteor Crater - other direction out of Flagstaff. And you took the tour busses? The only way to do it is to hike along the rim where there's no railings 'course, rafting it is better, but it's a tad late to try to organize that.
Wait...politics...hmm.....do you think that either candidate would be in support of turning Meteor Crater into a National Monument/Park?
I see Deacon isn't willing to answer my question. Perhaps he doesn't have an answer and is avoiding it?
Hey.
Did you happen to notice that I'm responding to like 15 different people?
No soup for you! :x
Still not answered. That's ok, my question was a 'gotcha' question that clearly 'got ya'. I don't blame you for still refusing to touch it.
So take the point I've made and learn from it. Defend McCain on his political views, his policies, his beliefs and his ideas/goals; people will disagree with you but they can't call YOU out, because you're defending the man based on who he is.
But don't defend his lies. There's simply no defense no matter how many times you try and spin it or how many deflecting answers you want to throw out, there's simply no justification.
Pick your battles, sir... and you'll come out ahead more often than not. You won't see me defending Obama's lies. I'm an Obama supporter but not an Obama zealot.
Don't be a dick to the guy if you expect him to pick your post out of the 30 directly targeted at him as the one to respond to.
He did respond, and still didn't answer. You want to think I'm a dick because I'm calling him on it, go ahead. I think I can live with that.
Wait... yes. Yes I can live with being called names. I'm pretty sure I found a few defense mechanisms for it back on the schoolyard playground.
Look, dude, I don't recognize your name, so you must be new to the thread.
We've rehashed this particular point with Deacon and Iron and any other conservative voice in this thread over and over and over and over the fuck over again.
Trust me, it's not worth distracting the main track of discussion by going down this direction again. Please.
I see Deacon isn't willing to answer my question. Perhaps he doesn't have an answer and is avoiding it?
Hey.
Did you happen to notice that I'm responding to like 15 different people?
No soup for you! :x
Still not answered. That's ok, my question was a 'gotcha' question that clearly 'got ya'. I don't blame you for still refusing to touch it.
So take the point I've made and learn from it. Defend McCain on his political views, his policies, his beliefs and his ideas/goals; people will disagree with you but they can't call YOU out, because you're defending the man based on who he is.
But don't defend his lies. There's simply no defense no matter how many times you try and spin it or how many deflecting answers you want to throw out, there's simply no justification.
Pick your battles, sir... and you'll come out ahead more often than not. You won't see me defending Obama's lies. I'm an Obama supporter but not an Obama zealot.
Don't be a dick to the guy if you expect him to pick your post out of the 30 directly targeted at him as the one to respond to.
Also, this. Both what Deacon said and what ElJeffe said. It's been nicely phrased in an earlier thread, but let me try to remember it well enough to get the message across once more:
When you argue on a forum as the ideological minority, it's very difficult. Every comment you make will be retorted by 30 people. It's draining, seeing everything you say flamed and rejected, and requiring replies to everything from grammatical mistakes to quotes taken out of context to real issues. If you want these people to stay on our forums and not have it turn into an Obama circle-jerk, show them a bit more respect and compassion.
Deacon responds to SO many messages per day that it's simply not very fair to portray him as someone who avoids the tough questions. Perhaps he's already had to discuss your point 10 times and doesn't feel like it, or perhaps he's in a different conversation he likes more, or perhaps he just doesn't like debating with you. No matter the case, he's made it clear he DOES respond to all sorts of difficult questions but there's simply too many coming in at too rapid of a pace to respond to them all, not that he has any responsibility to even try.
He quoted my question to him but edited the quote to remove the question itself, rather than take the time to answer the question. That's what I'm taking issue with.
If you don't like the fact that I've called him out on this; too bad.
Obama's position has always been against negative campaigning, as defined as "a campaign that focuses on smearing the opponent by attacking them personally, lying about their voting record, and generally avoiding the issues."
A definition you just made up so it doesn't look like Obama's lying.
"He didn't mean these negative ads, he means those other negative ads."
Prove him wrong with quotes from Obama.
So are we arguing that throughout the primaries, Obama didn't run on the promise of a new kind of politics?
He certainly did.
So you should have a stock of quotes from Obama in which he contradicts Houn's definition of negative campaigning. I've bolded it for your convenience.
Actually I've already cited Obama denouncing the evils of negative ads and sound bite politics. The onus is on him (or you I guess) to cite that he actually meant some of them are okay.
I still think Gallup is a bunch of statistical noise at this point, but I think we can safely say the convention bump, as far as they're concerned, is gone.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Jesus guys, it's not like it's an important point anyway. Just admit that Obama has not run the completely positive campaign he would have liked, chalk it up to 'necessary evil' or 'mccain did it first', and move on.
Obama's position has always been against negative campaigning, as defined as "a campaign that focuses on smearing the opponent by attacking them personally, lying about their voting record, and generally avoiding the issues."
A definition you just made up so it doesn't look like Obama's lying.
"He didn't mean these negative ads, he means those other negative ads."
Prove him wrong with quotes from Obama.
So are we arguing that throughout the primaries, Obama didn't run on the promise of a new kind of politics?
He certainly did.
So you should have a stock of quotes from Obama in which he contradicts Houn's definition of negative campaigning. I've bolded it for your convenience.
Actually I've already cited Obama denouncing the evils of negative ads and sound bite politics. The onus is on him (or you I guess) to cite that he actually meant some of them are okay.
Only if I were to agree that Obama has participated in "a 24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics that doesn’t move us forward."
Which I don't.
So we are still in search of the quote in which Barack Obama renounces ads which criticize John McCain, so that you can support your sense of offended outrage with something.
Jesus guys, it's not like it's an important point anyway. Just admit that Obama has not run the completely positive campaign he would have liked, chalk it up to 'necessary evil' or 'mccain did it first', and move on.
everyone in the thread is admitting that.
Bingo!
Some people are just trying to hold the other side accountable... the side defending McCain's lies.
If they want to admit that McCain has run a nasty - and at times disgusting - attack ad campaign, then the argument is over and we can move on to argue policy or political records, etc.
So, have we given up on LondonBridge getting back to us on that "olol has the economy really hurt you" question?
I think at this point I've decided it wasn't rhetorical at all, and that rather LB is just completely out of touch with all the more average or even poor people he sees out the windows of his Beamer as he drives to his job. Maybe he was just honestly wondering whether or not it sucked for those of us not pulling in $70K a year and driving a BMW.
In which case I think he got his answer.
mcdermott on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Obama's position has always been against negative campaigning, as defined as "a campaign that focuses on smearing the opponent by attacking them personally, lying about their voting record, and generally avoiding the issues."
A definition you just made up so it doesn't look like Obama's lying.
"He didn't mean these negative ads, he means those other negative ads."
Prove him wrong with quotes from Obama.
So are we arguing that throughout the primaries, Obama didn't run on the promise of a new kind of politics?
He certainly did.
So you should have a stock of quotes from Obama in which he contradicts Houn's definition of negative campaigning. I've bolded it for your convenience.
Actually I've already cited Obama denouncing the evils of negative ads and sound bite politics. The onus is on him (or you I guess) to cite that he actually meant some of them are okay.
"I understand, so I'm just going to answer your question. Every campaign is going to be looking at, you know, did they flip flop on a health care issues or, you know, are they consistent on their trade policy -- that I think is exactly what presidential debates should be about and I have no problem with that at all. I have been very clear to my campaign. I do not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally. If find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired. I've been absolutely crystal clear about this and I've been clear about this for a very long time and, you know, you're free to talk to my campaign manager who is around here somewhere for confirmation of that. That's not what I believe in. That's not who I am and frankly just from a practical, political perspective it's contrary to the kind o fmessage of change that I've been talking about in this campaign."
But you keep saying that any sort of negative ad - that is, any ad that says anything bad about McCain's ideas or policies in any context - is an act of hypocrisy. So please, back this up. With an actual quote or video link.
We’ve come to be consumed by a 24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics that doesn’t move us forward.
Throughout my years in Springfield, I had clung to the notion that politics could be different, and that the voters wanted something different; that they were tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems
Still searching for his unconditional renunciation of ads that criticize John McCain.
It's like you've got nothing and are googling furiously.
:winky:
The notion that Obama is somehow more vulnerable to claims of hypocrisy is pretty ludicrous. McCain is a guy who has been a champion of deregulation for decades, who was calling for more deregulation last spring, and is now suddenly a raging populist who's going to set things straight on Wall Street.
Jebu on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I see Deacon isn't willing to answer my question. Perhaps he doesn't have an answer and is avoiding it?
Hey.
Did you happen to notice that I'm responding to like 15 different people?
No soup for you! :x
Still not answered. That's ok, my question was a 'gotcha' question that clearly 'got ya'. I don't blame you for still refusing to touch it.
So take the point I've made and learn from it. Defend McCain on his political views, his policies, his beliefs and his ideas/goals; people will disagree with you but they can't call YOU out, because you're defending the man based on who he is.
But don't defend his lies. There's simply no defense no matter how many times you try and spin it or how many deflecting answers you want to throw out, there's simply no justification.
Pick your battles, sir... and you'll come out ahead more often than not. You won't see me defending Obama's lies. I'm an Obama supporter but not an Obama zealot.
Don't be a dick to the guy if you expect him to pick your post out of the 30 directly targeted at him as the one to respond to.
Also, this. Both what Deacon said and what ElJeffe said. It's been nicely phrased in an earlier thread, but let me try to remember it well enough to get the message across once more:
When you argue on a forum as the ideological minority, it's very difficult. Every comment you make will be retorted by 30 people. It's draining, seeing everything you say flamed and rejected, and requiring replies to everything from grammatical mistakes to quotes taken out of context to real issues. If you want these people to stay on our forums and not have it turn into an Obama circle-jerk, show them a bit more respect and compassion.
Deacon responds to SO many messages per day that it's simply not very fair to portray him as someone who avoids the tough questions. Perhaps he's already had to discuss your point 10 times and doesn't feel like it, or perhaps he's in a different conversation he likes more, or perhaps he just doesn't like debating with you. No matter the case, he's made it clear he DOES respond to all sorts of difficult questions but there's simply too many coming in at too rapid of a pace to respond to them all, not that he has any responsibility to even try.
He quoted my question to him but edited the quote to remove the question itself, rather than take the time to answer the question. That's what I'm taking issue with.
If you don't like the fact that I've called him out on this; too bad.
The point has been made, this subtangent can end now.
And by "can" I mean "will".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Obama's position has always been against negative campaigning, as defined as "a campaign that focuses on smearing the opponent by attacking them personally, lying about their voting record, and generally avoiding the issues."
A definition you just made up so it doesn't look like Obama's lying.
"He didn't mean these negative ads, he means those other negative ads."
Prove him wrong with quotes from Obama.
So are we arguing that throughout the primaries, Obama didn't run on the promise of a new kind of politics?
He certainly did.
So you should have a stock of quotes from Obama in which he contradicts Houn's definition of negative campaigning. I've bolded it for your convenience.
Actually I've already cited Obama denouncing the evils of negative ads and sound bite politics. The onus is on him (or you I guess) to cite that he actually meant some of them are okay.
I guess technically the onus is on Obama. I interpret it one way, you interpret it another. neither of us can prove the other wrong.
however, I'd like to compare the terms ATTACK ad with NEGATIVE ad. see how they're different? I'd argue an ATTACK ad uses policy and quotes to attack your opponent. a NEGATIVE ad uses distortions of the truth and out of context soundbytes (edit) and personal attacks.
I'm not saying Obama hasn't done both, I'm just saying, not every ATTACK ad is a NEGATIVE ad.
If you want these people to stay on our forums and not have it turn into an Obama circle-jerk, show them a bit more respect and compassion.
Deacon responds to SO many messages per day that it's simply not very fair to portray him as someone who avoids the tough questions. Perhaps he's already had to discuss your point 10 times and doesn't feel like it, or perhaps he's in a different conversation he likes more, or perhaps he just doesn't like debating with you. No matter the case, he's made it clear he DOES respond to all sorts of difficult questions but there's simply too many coming in at too rapid of a pace to respond to them all, not that he has any responsibility to even try.
Hey opposing opinions are great. But people should still be upheld to a standard of intelligent debate no matter who they support, and if shaky rhetoric and LondonBridge one-liners is the best we can get, hell I'll switch sides and defend McCain.
Because I'm pretty sure I could do it better. And with less fanboyish posting.
I still think Gallup is a bunch of statistical noise at this point, but I think we can safely say the convention bump, as far as they're concerned, is gone.
Yeah, it looks like we nicely flowed between 'convention bump ended' with:
1. Media calling McCain out on some of his more bullshitty ads
2. McCain making it clear he has no idea what computers are, plus Palin getting in hot-water over using personal email for government business, plus Palin's email getting hacked which just shows even more weakness and not understanding how our modern day world works.
3. McCain calling our economy fundamentals strong, plus McCain's economic advisor saying Palin would have no ability to run the company.
Overall, not such good things for the Republican Party, however none of those issues are particularly unrelated and gossipy. No 'McCain is a pedophile' or 'McCain hugs terrorists' shit up there that lowered his ratings so much, just things that could quite feasibly be considered issues, even if not the most important ones.
But you keep saying that any sort of negative ad - that is, any ad that says anything bad about McCain's ideas or policies in any context - is an act of hypocrisy. So please, back this up. With an actual quote or video link.
We’ve come to be consumed by a 24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics that doesn’t move us forward.
Throughout my years in Springfield, I had clung to the notion that politics could be different, and that the voters wanted something different; that they were tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems
Still searching for his unconditional renunciation of ads that criticize John McCain.
It's like you've got nothing and are googling furiously.
"negative ads".
It's right there.
I could bold it if you want.
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Nah, the big hole in the ground is Meteor Crater - other direction out of Flagstaff. And you took the tour busses? The only way to do it is to hike along the rim where there's no railings 'course, rafting it is better, but it's a tad late to try to organize that.
Wait...politics...hmm.....do you think that either candidate would be in support of turning Meteor Crater into a National Monument/Park?
I got nothin
Dude, by the time the tour bus got to "The Abyss", I just wanted off at the gift shop. Where they oh-so-conveniently placed the entrance about two yards from the cliff.
By the time I heard the one about 'we won't be using this road much because it'll fall into the canyon', my brain was imitating Marge Simpson on the plane-- "LEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFF..." and didn't come back down until we were well past Tusuyan.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
AIG is not a bad buy, but the studious ignoring of ten pages of 'yes we are getting hurt mistar benz' is not a bad point, either. Care to respond?
Regarding McCain's interview: If it was really conducted in English, I'd need to hear the audio, but this is quite stupid--he obviously didn't understand the question.
'What about Europe?'
'What about me, what?'
He thought she said 'What about you.'
Except that a campaign advisor came out and SAID that McCain understood the question, he was just refusing to commit to meet with the president of a member nation of NATO, under which treaty we have a mutual defense pact.
Here's a hint: If your ally that you are obligated by treaty to defend says "Hey, we should meet" the answer is not "No, I won't commit to that", it's "Yes."
I didn't get to that part because I was distracted, but I think that's a case of the campaign overcorrecting on their response. Had they just said 'he didn't understand the interviewer' that would have been the end of it. Instead, he 'understood it perfectly' and thus gave a...strange...answer.
Jesus guys, it's not like it's an important point anyway. Just admit that Obama has not run the completely positive campaign he would have liked, chalk it up to 'necessary evil' or 'mccain did it first', and move on.
everyone in the thread is admitting that.
Bingo!
Some people are just trying to hold the other side accountable... the side defending McCain's lies.
If they want to admit that McCain has run a nasty - and at times disgusting - attack ad campaign, then the argument is over and we can move on to argue policy or political records, etc.
I fail to understand why we can take it as a given that Obama supporters do not necessarily agree with everything he's done, but McCain supporters have an intrinsic belief that he does no wrong.
So, have we given up on LondonBridge getting back to us on that "olol has the economy really hurt you" question?
I think at this point I've decided it wasn't rhetorical at all, and that rather LB is just completely out of touch with all the more average or even poor people he sees out the windows of his Beamer as he drives to his job. Maybe he was just honestly wondering whether or not it sucked for those of us not pulling in $70K a year and driving a BMW.
In which case I think he got his answer.
Actually, that's the way I read him the first time. I rag on LB on a lot of things, but his inquiry this time sounded pretty sincere.
Jesus guys, it's not like it's an important point anyway. Just admit that Obama has not run the completely positive campaign he would have liked, chalk it up to 'necessary evil' or 'mccain did it first', and move on.
everyone in the thread is admitting that.
No, they're not. Which is really annoying because Deacon is right, and Obama has sacrificed principle for political expediency.
Look, he's a politician, guys, not the messiah. Every politician says they are after a new kind of politics, but the reason politics is the way it is is because politics always has been and always will be a tough game played by ruthless men. The fact that Barack Obama is even in the position he is in shows he is a canny political mind.
Now, again, "other virtures" applies, and I think Obama would bring pragmatism to the office which we haven't seen in a while, and "scale" applies, since while Obama has marred his principles with the dark blotches of distortion and "gotcha!" sound-bite politics, John McCain has taken his principles out back and done something unspeakable to them.
EDIT: Okay Deacon is fundamentally right but a critical ad=/= a 'negative' ad. We usually mean that to be lies and personal attacks. Obama has lied by omission and done some really half-assed personal attacks. (John McCain can't use a computer!) Everyone else is right by saying that Obama never said he wouldn't criticize McCain. I mean, seriously, Deacon. You've got a good point but you don't need to burden yourself with bad equivocation.
So, have we given up on LondonBridge getting back to us on that "olol has the economy really hurt you" question?
I think at this point I've decided it wasn't rhetorical at all, and that rather LB is just completely out of touch with all the more average or even poor people he sees out the windows of his Beamer as he drives to his job. Maybe he was just honestly wondering whether or not it sucked for those of us not pulling in $70K a year and driving a BMW.
In which case I think he got his answer.
I recall a similar instance a while back in which he questioned whether health insurance was really all the high, because his insurance only cost $30 per month. He was incredulous to learn that my wife was paying $300 per month at the time.
Jesus guys, it's not like it's an important point anyway. Just admit that Obama has not run the completely positive campaign he would have liked, chalk it up to 'necessary evil' or 'mccain did it first', and move on.
everyone in the thread is admitting that.
Bingo!
Some people are just trying to hold the other side accountable... the side defending McCain's lies.
If they want to admit that McCain has run a nasty - and at times disgusting - attack ad campaign, then the argument is over and we can move on to argue policy or political records, etc.
I fail to understand why we can take it as a given that Obama supporters do not necessarily agree with everything he's done, but McCain supporters have an intrinsic belief that he does no wrong.
Because that's how the arguments have been playing out for 30+ pages. Obama supporters saying; "yeah, our guy has screwed up sometimes" and McCain supporters saying; "McCain is only doing this because Obama said <X> or did <X>".
McCain supporters - quite a few from what I've read in the entirety of this thread - are going to great lengths to justify McCains' BS instead of having a more interesting and robust debate on actual issues.
Headspace Cools on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited September 2008
Who was the poster that had the sick wife whose insurance wouldn't help with the medical bills?
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
But you keep saying that any sort of negative ad - that is, any ad that says anything bad about McCain's ideas or policies in any context - is an act of hypocrisy. So please, back this up. With an actual quote or video link.
We’ve come to be consumed by a 24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics that doesn’t move us forward.
Cool, now find me Obama defining "negative ad" in such a way that it precludes him from saying, "McCain's policies and/or ideas don't help things."
Throughout my years in Springfield, I had clung to the notion that politics could be different, and that the voters wanted something different; that they were tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems
He doesn't say sound bites are bad. He says "sound bit solutions" are bad. And Obama is actually pretty damned good at presenting well-thought-out solutions when given a forum to do so. If you expect every mention of his policies in every ad to be a portrait of nuance, of course, you're asking for more than is possible.
As to the distortion, yes, we've all conceded that Obama has done that at times. We don't like it. We decried it. We just pointed out that Obama is doing a lot better at avoiding that particular sin than most people, and while we should hold him accountable, we should also give him limited props for running a comparatively distortion-free campaign.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The notion that Obama is somehow more vulnerable to claims of hypocrisy is pretty ludicrous. McCain is a guy who has been a champion of deregulation for decades, who was calling for more deregulation last spring, and is now suddenly a raging populist who's going to set things straight on Wall Street.
Why this sticks out for Obama is he ran through the entire primary and into the general on the promise of a new kind of politics. He made it absolutely clear that this was a reason why you should vote for Obama.
Hence, when his campaign turns negative, and results to the "politics as usual" approach", it goes back against one of the fundamental promises of his campaign.
I'm not arguing for or against dirty politics. I wish everyone would keep it above the board, and that's why I regularly peruse the fact checking sites to see what's really going on.
The best way I can speak about this election is, everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans are spinning lies, half-truths and exaggerations. The goal of us as voters is to decide who's lying about stuff that matters and is important to you as a voter, and who's just bullshitting about the things you genuinely care about.
Define "Negative Ad". I've already defined it as "Attacking the Opponent's Character"; what do you define it as?
I disagree with this. A Negative ad is an ad that attacks an opponents stance on an issue, or their record, or their stated goals. An Attack Ad is one that attacks the opponent's character.
Negative ads are fair game in my opinion. Attack ads aren't.
But you keep saying that any sort of negative ad - that is, any ad that says anything bad about McCain's ideas or policies in any context - is an act of hypocrisy. So please, back this up. With an actual quote or video link.
We’ve come to be consumed by a 24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics that doesn’t move us forward.
Throughout my years in Springfield, I had clung to the notion that politics could be different, and that the voters wanted something different; that they were tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems
Still searching for his unconditional renunciation of ads that criticize John McCain.
It's like you've got nothing and are googling furiously.
"negative ads".
It's right there.
I could bold it if you want.
Hahahaha.
If I tell my wife I'm tired of hot, greasy diner food I am not then a hypocrite for eating a hot bowl of oatmeal. I am not even a hypocrite if I eat a hot bowl of oatmeal in a diner.
Strings of adjectives - we use them in English. It's a cool language.
I disagree that "24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics" accurately describes the campaign Obama has run.
Speaker on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Jesus guys, it's not like it's an important point anyway. Just admit that Obama has not run the completely positive campaign he would have liked, chalk it up to 'necessary evil' or 'mccain did it first', and move on.
everyone in the thread is admitting that.
No, they're not. Which is really annoying because Deacon is right, and Obama has sacrificed principle for political expediency.
who is saying that, for example, the 5 million dollar ad wasn't shitty and against what we expected and hoped for from Obama?
Posts
Okay, fine, I was going to say "Except for maybe George Washington" but I assumed someone would come in to talk about what a big fat lying bastard he was. Now I get hit on what a big-fat truth telling bastard he was. I can't win!
Still searching for his unconditional renunciation of ads that criticize John McCain.
It's like you've got nothing and are googling furiously.
Nah, the big hole in the ground is Meteor Crater - other direction out of Flagstaff. And you took the tour busses? The only way to do it is to hike along the rim where there's no railings
Wait...politics...hmm.....do you think that either candidate would be in support of turning Meteor Crater into a National Monument/Park?
Look, dude, I don't recognize your name, so you must be new to the thread.
We've rehashed this particular point with Deacon and Iron and any other conservative voice in this thread over and over and over and over the fuck over again.
Trust me, it's not worth distracting the main track of discussion by going down this direction again. Please.
He quoted my question to him but edited the quote to remove the question itself, rather than take the time to answer the question. That's what I'm taking issue with.
If you don't like the fact that I've called him out on this; too bad.
Actually I've already cited Obama denouncing the evils of negative ads and sound bite politics. The onus is on him (or you I guess) to cite that he actually meant some of them are okay.
everyone in the thread is admitting that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceHhRdaO_Gs
Only if I were to agree that Obama has participated in "a 24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics that doesn’t move us forward."
Which I don't.
So we are still in search of the quote in which Barack Obama renounces ads which criticize John McCain, so that you can support your sense of offended outrage with something.
Bingo!
Some people are just trying to hold the other side accountable... the side defending McCain's lies.
If they want to admit that McCain has run a nasty - and at times disgusting - attack ad campaign, then the argument is over and we can move on to argue policy or political records, etc.
I think at this point I've decided it wasn't rhetorical at all, and that rather LB is just completely out of touch with all the more average or even poor people he sees out the windows of his Beamer as he drives to his job. Maybe he was just honestly wondering whether or not it sucked for those of us not pulling in $70K a year and driving a BMW.
In which case I think he got his answer.
"I understand, so I'm just going to answer your question. Every campaign is going to be looking at, you know, did they flip flop on a health care issues or, you know, are they consistent on their trade policy -- that I think is exactly what presidential debates should be about and I have no problem with that at all. I have been very clear to my campaign. I do not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally. If find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired. I've been absolutely crystal clear about this and I've been clear about this for a very long time and, you know, you're free to talk to my campaign manager who is around here somewhere for confirmation of that. That's not what I believe in. That's not who I am and frankly just from a practical, political perspective it's contrary to the kind o fmessage of change that I've been talking about in this campaign."
:winky:
The notion that Obama is somehow more vulnerable to claims of hypocrisy is pretty ludicrous. McCain is a guy who has been a champion of deregulation for decades, who was calling for more deregulation last spring, and is now suddenly a raging populist who's going to set things straight on Wall Street.
The point has been made, this subtangent can end now.
And by "can" I mean "will".
I guess technically the onus is on Obama. I interpret it one way, you interpret it another. neither of us can prove the other wrong.
however, I'd like to compare the terms ATTACK ad with NEGATIVE ad. see how they're different? I'd argue an ATTACK ad uses policy and quotes to attack your opponent. a NEGATIVE ad uses distortions of the truth and out of context soundbytes (edit) and personal attacks.
I'm not saying Obama hasn't done both, I'm just saying, not every ATTACK ad is a NEGATIVE ad.
Hey opposing opinions are great. But people should still be upheld to a standard of intelligent debate no matter who they support, and if shaky rhetoric and LondonBridge one-liners is the best we can get, hell I'll switch sides and defend McCain.
Because I'm pretty sure I could do it better. And with less fanboyish posting.
Yeah, it looks like we nicely flowed between 'convention bump ended' with:
1. Media calling McCain out on some of his more bullshitty ads
2. McCain making it clear he has no idea what computers are, plus Palin getting in hot-water over using personal email for government business, plus Palin's email getting hacked which just shows even more weakness and not understanding how our modern day world works.
3. McCain calling our economy fundamentals strong, plus McCain's economic advisor saying Palin would have no ability to run the company.
Overall, not such good things for the Republican Party, however none of those issues are particularly unrelated and gossipy. No 'McCain is a pedophile' or 'McCain hugs terrorists' shit up there that lowered his ratings so much, just things that could quite feasibly be considered issues, even if not the most important ones.
Oh I'm sorry, this is abuse. Arguments are down the hall.
"negative ads".
It's right there.
I could bold it if you want.
By the time I heard the one about 'we won't be using this road much because it'll fall into the canyon', my brain was imitating Marge Simpson on the plane-- "LEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFFLEMMEOFF..." and didn't come back down until we were well past Tusuyan.
I didn't get to that part because I was distracted, but I think that's a case of the campaign overcorrecting on their response. Had they just said 'he didn't understand the interviewer' that would have been the end of it. Instead, he 'understood it perfectly' and thus gave a...strange...answer.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
I fail to understand why we can take it as a given that Obama supporters do not necessarily agree with everything he's done, but McCain supporters have an intrinsic belief that he does no wrong.
Actually, that's the way I read him the first time. I rag on LB on a lot of things, but his inquiry this time sounded pretty sincere.
Define "Negative Ad". I've already defined it as "Attacking the Opponent's Character"; what do you define it as?
He is running a campaign on the issues, not using slash and burn tactics, and not attacking McCain personally.
What, were you expecting sunshine and puppies?
No, they're not. Which is really annoying because Deacon is right, and Obama has sacrificed principle for political expediency.
Look, he's a politician, guys, not the messiah. Every politician says they are after a new kind of politics, but the reason politics is the way it is is because politics always has been and always will be a tough game played by ruthless men. The fact that Barack Obama is even in the position he is in shows he is a canny political mind.
Now, again, "other virtures" applies, and I think Obama would bring pragmatism to the office which we haven't seen in a while, and "scale" applies, since while Obama has marred his principles with the dark blotches of distortion and "gotcha!" sound-bite politics, John McCain has taken his principles out back and done something unspeakable to them.
EDIT: Okay Deacon is fundamentally right but a critical ad=/= a 'negative' ad. We usually mean that to be lies and personal attacks. Obama has lied by omission and done some really half-assed personal attacks. (John McCain can't use a computer!) Everyone else is right by saying that Obama never said he wouldn't criticize McCain. I mean, seriously, Deacon. You've got a good point but you don't need to burden yourself with bad equivocation.
I recall a similar instance a while back in which he questioned whether health insurance was really all the high, because his insurance only cost $30 per month. He was incredulous to learn that my wife was paying $300 per month at the time.
Sunshine and Puppies are easier to beat in an election.
Because that's how the arguments have been playing out for 30+ pages. Obama supporters saying; "yeah, our guy has screwed up sometimes" and McCain supporters saying; "McCain is only doing this because Obama said <X> or did <X>".
McCain supporters - quite a few from what I've read in the entirety of this thread - are going to great lengths to justify McCains' BS instead of having a more interesting and robust debate on actual issues.
Cool, now find me Obama defining "negative ad" in such a way that it precludes him from saying, "McCain's policies and/or ideas don't help things."
He doesn't say sound bites are bad. He says "sound bit solutions" are bad. And Obama is actually pretty damned good at presenting well-thought-out solutions when given a forum to do so. If you expect every mention of his policies in every ad to be a portrait of nuance, of course, you're asking for more than is possible.
As to the distortion, yes, we've all conceded that Obama has done that at times. We don't like it. We decried it. We just pointed out that Obama is doing a lot better at avoiding that particular sin than most people, and while we should hold him accountable, we should also give him limited props for running a comparatively distortion-free campaign.
Why this sticks out for Obama is he ran through the entire primary and into the general on the promise of a new kind of politics. He made it absolutely clear that this was a reason why you should vote for Obama.
Hence, when his campaign turns negative, and results to the "politics as usual" approach", it goes back against one of the fundamental promises of his campaign.
I'm not arguing for or against dirty politics. I wish everyone would keep it above the board, and that's why I regularly peruse the fact checking sites to see what's really going on.
The best way I can speak about this election is, everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans are spinning lies, half-truths and exaggerations. The goal of us as voters is to decide who's lying about stuff that matters and is important to you as a voter, and who's just bullshitting about the things you genuinely care about.
I disagree with this. A Negative ad is an ad that attacks an opponents stance on an issue, or their record, or their stated goals. An Attack Ad is one that attacks the opponent's character.
Negative ads are fair game in my opinion. Attack ads aren't.
Hahahaha.
If I tell my wife I'm tired of hot, greasy diner food I am not then a hypocrite for eating a hot bowl of oatmeal. I am not even a hypocrite if I eat a hot bowl of oatmeal in a diner.
Strings of adjectives - we use them in English. It's a cool language.
I disagree that "24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics" accurately describes the campaign Obama has run.
who is saying that, for example, the 5 million dollar ad wasn't shitty and against what we expected and hoped for from Obama?