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.
Yeah I guess so. Well, I can say that his spot on my ignore list is well earned.
Luq on
FFRK:jWwH RW:Onion Knight's Sage USB
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered 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?
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.
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.
Because you're so keen to talk about positions, instead of alternately railing against or defending alleged hypocrisy and whose ads are dirtier.
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.
This is a cop-out.
Why?
ironzerg on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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 that's not what Obama was saying or what he meant when he was decrying Negative Ads.
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.
Which is exactly why we're all engaged in this argument. No one is arguing about the same thing.
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.
And this is different from the fundamental promise that McCain made to run an honorable and respectful campaign based on issues... how?
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.
This is a cop-out.
Why?
Tu quoque. "You do it to." Logical fallacy. Lie A and Lie B are not necessarily the same because both are lies. Etc, etc, so on, so forth.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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.
This is a cop-out.
Why?
Because "He wants to teach kindergardners sex!" is hugely worse than "$5mil lol out of touch!" or "He wants to stay in Iraq 100 years!"
Fencingsax on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
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.
Your wife has pretty good insurance. If my wife goes to part time, as she is considering, her health insurance contribution goes from $130/month to $750/month.
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.
This is a cop-out.
Why?
Because it's an overlybroad generalization used to excuse faults in either the candidates, or your own behaviors. It's also the mindset I most commonly see used as justification for NOT voting.
Not everyone in politics is a liar. Painting them with this brush is a cop-out.
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 that's not what Obama was saying or what he meant when he was decrying Negative Ads.
WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT AND IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CHOICE AT HAND UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO PARROT THE RHETORIC OF IDIOTIC PUNDITS.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MATTERS NOW PLEASE.
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.
Well, no one's complimented his campaign on their competence so far.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
God damn, I'm just tired of this. Why the fuck is calling McCain out on not using a computer a purely personal attack? He didn't call him out on not liking apple pie or baseball or some other shit that won't play any part into presidency. But we're talking about a man who doesn't use the device that pretty much dominates and controls the age in which we live. The world is changing so fast in regards to the Internet that normal people can barely keep up when they try, yet we're okay with a man who won't try at all?
Ignoring any issues with not using the Internet as a source for information or email correspondance, we're still faced with the issue that the Internet plays a huge part in our society and our personal lives. Legislature in the coming years and decisions about the direction of our country will need to take the Internet and computers heavily into account.
You can claim that not using computers isn't automatic grounds to not be president and there are ways to compensate for it, but it's certainly not just a personal preference issue. It's a legitimate issue that needs addressing I feel.
You don't see Obama answering (unrelated) questions with: "I'm black and I grew up with a struggling family and a single Mom who died and left me to be raised by my Grandparents" but you do see an awful lot of McCain answering (unrelated) questions with: "I was a P.O.W. for 5 years."
Yeah this is really off-topic but I'm about to bounce out of this thread and get some work done. Felt like throwing that out there. I really liked McCain and at the beginning of this whole process I genuinely thought to myself; "Great! no matter who wins it looks like there will be some real change in the White House!" McCain has gone from Jeckyl to Hyde on us and it is extremely disappointing.
Where is the straight-talker from 2000 who was not comfortable bringin up his P.O.W. experience in interviews because - his words - it felt like 'a cheap ploy to get votes'. Where's the McCain who actually fought lobbying in Washington (instead of hiring Lobbyists to be his most trusted advisors)?
The McCain of 2000 would've been so great for the U.S. Even though it *is* just a cheezy tagline invented by Olbermann, I think it's absolutely true; McCain of 2000 would NOT vote for McCain of 2008.
So how is Obama's ad about John McCain being out of touch because he doesn't use a computer, not a personal negative attack?
It is. It's worth criticizing the Obama campaign for including that in an otherwise issues-based ad.
What irks me is that McCain supporters seem to be dead-set on ignoring the beam in their candidate's eye in order to shriek hysterically about the mote in Obama's.
Lawndart on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
God damn, I'm just tired of this. Why the fuck is calling McCain out on not using a computer a purely personal attack? He didn't call him out on not liking apple pie or baseball or some other shit that won't play any part into presidency. But we're talking about a man who doesn't use the device that pretty much dominates and controls the age in which we live. The world is changing so fast in regards to the Internet that normal people can barely keep up when they try, yet we're okay with a man who won't try at all?
Ignoring any issues with not using the Internet as a source for information or email correspondance, we're still faced with the issue that the Internet plays a huge part in our society and our personal lives. Legislature in the coming years and decisions about the direction of our country will need to take the Internet and computers heavily into account.
You can claim that not using computers isn't automatic grounds to not be president and there are ways to compensate for it, but it's certainly not just a personal preference issue. It's a legitimate issue that needs addressing I feel.
it's not an attack on his policy or anything he wants to do as president. it's a personal attack. period. how valid it is or how much you personally are affected by it is another story. just like when something is a distortion of a quote it's a distortion, period. then you can talk about how big or dangerous of a distortion it is.
the thing about this thread is we don't get to those details because with this many people we just keep having the same first step of each conversation over and over again for 30 pages and then move onto a new topic.
I'll ask again- for both DeaconBlues and Ironzerg:
What's your point, other than trying to spit in our collective eye? Is there a deeper discussion of the tenor of the campaign to be had, or are we all just jerking off?*
I think what Deacon doesn't get is that there is NO WAY that Obama could have forseen the bullshit the McCain campaign has pulled.
Really? Becuase I seem to recall having this giant debate when Obama reversed course on public financing that McCain would unleash the proverbial dogs of war, so Obama needed the MONIES to properly defend himself. Please advise.
What does that have to do with attack ads that distort Obama's positions?
McCain isn't running attack ads criticizing Obama for opting out of Public Financing, he's running attack ads lying about Obama wanting to teach Sex Ed to Kindergarteners.
How do those two relate? Please advise.
Anyway your question is less a "gotcha" and more an admission that you can't quite keep up with the thread.
So I will break it down for you.
jungleroomx is claiming Obama couldn't have forseen that he'd be attacked in an underhanded way. I'm assuming that suggests that he wasn't outright lying, just being too optimistic.
I'm countering that he was well aware because his given reason for rejecting public funding was essentially "McCains going to attack me with all these lies and 527s so I need the money to defend myself."
So actually I have no idea where you're getting the idea that mccain ran ads attacking obama for public funding, the point is, jungleroomx's inital statement is demonstably false.
So maybe, do some reaserach before you ask next time, or otherwise generally try to know what you're talking about. This will prove to me that you are a speacial snowflake and not a giant waste of my time.
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered 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?
Not to mention I believe every single Obama supporter on this board groaned simultaneously when the "McSame" radio ad debuted.
So FiveThirtyEight has this cool thing where he calculated the average bounce of a political convention. The bounce after any convention looks like this:
Now, if you superimpose the bounces of the Democratic followed by the Republican national convention you get something like this:
Which means that poll numbers are still inflated in favor of the Republicans by ~2 points, and we won't be able to get an accurate perspective on polls for another 10 days.
Just thought it was worth pointing out that polling at this point is still iffy and not very trustworthy, even if it is good news right now.
Because "He wants to teach kindergardners sex!" is hugely worse than "$5mil lol out of touch!" or "He wants to stay in Iraq 100 years!"
Not really. When you examine the issue more deeply, you see that the bill in question did talk about comprehensive sex education for grades k-12, specifically noting that it would be age appropriate. Which is fine.
Except that some people don't want the government to decide what is "age appropriate" for their kindergarten kid, and would rather have nothing of the sort talked about it school, whereas some parent's would love to see the school take responsibility for teach kids about sexual predators.
The 100 Year statement is relevant, because when you look beneath the surface, we see that John McCain is committed to keeping troops in Iraq, and in the reason in order to promote stability (in his mind), while people who just want us the fuck out of the Middle East would highly disagree with McCain's stance, both exaggerated and logically explained.
And the $5million quote was a joke by John McCain, although he used it to dodge a question. It still doesn't separated it from that fact that it was a joke, not to be taken seriously, and John McCain even said afterwards that he knew that comment would be distorted by the other side.
So how is Obama's ad about John McCain being out of touch because he doesn't use a computer, not a personal negative attack?
It is. It's worth criticizing the Obama campaign for including that in an otherwise issues-based ad.
What irks me is that McCain supporters seem to be dead-set on ignoring the beam in their candidate's eye in order to shriek hysterically about the mote in Obama's.
Yes, there are two hypocrisies in play here.
• The hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. (Check.)
• The hypocrisy of McCain supporters like Deacon and ironzerg who criticize Obama on the grounds of hypocrisy, when their candidate is even more hypocritical.
Deacon and ironzerg: if hypocrisy is such an issue for you then why the hell do you support McCain? And don't say McCain never made Obama's clean-campaign promise—he did.
Qingu on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Deacon:
Obama was under the impression the Republicans would take a xenophobic route, as opposed to a completely batshit crazy one. He even said it right in your little thing about going to private financing.
So no, he had NO idea they would try to compare him to Jesus, or say he was a pedophile.
Demonstrably false? Only if you ignore common sense and the "big picture".
THIS was supposed to be the year in which America’s feminists celebrated the shattering of the highest glass ceiling. They had the ideal candidate in Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman who had been tempered in the fires of Washington. And they had every reason to think that she would whip both the young Barack Obama and the elderly John McCain.
But it was Mrs Clinton who got the whipping. She not only lost an unlosable primary race. She was dissed and denounced in the process. Chris Matthews of MSNBC said that she owed her Senate seat to her husband’s infidelity. One lobbyist created an anti-Hillary pressure group called Citizens United Not Timid. A couple of young men ordered her to “iron my shirtâ€. Mr McCain, whom she regards as a good friend, looked on benignly when a Republican asked him “How do we beat the bitch?â€
Mr McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running-mate has turned the defeat into Armageddon. Mrs Palin is everything that liberal feminists loathe: a gun-toting evangelical, a polar bear-hating former beauty queen, a mother of five who opposes abortion rights and celebrates the fact that her pregnant teenage daughter has “chosen lifeâ€. During her campaign for Alaska’s lieutenant-governorship in 2002 she called herself as “pro-life as any candidate can beâ€.
Gloria Steinem, the founder of Ms magazine, says that “Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clintonâ€. Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organisation of Women, dismisses her as a “woman who opposes women’s rightsâ€. Debbie Dingell, a leading Michigan Democrat, said that women felt insulted by the choice. Joe Biden says that, if Mrs Palin becomes the first female vice-president, it will be a “backward step for womenâ€. “Eighteen million cracksâ€, says the New Republic, (referring to Mrs Clinton’s 18m votes and the glass ceiling) “and one crackpot.â€
Mrs Palin’s arrival on the national stage is inspiring some startling political somersaults. Some feminists claim to be outraged that Mr McCain has promoted somebody just because she is a woman. Sally Quinn, a writer for the Washington Post, has even argued that, given the size of her family, she cannot possibly be both a national candidate and a good mother. At the same time, conservative traditionalists are suddenly realising that they have always been supporters of mould-breaking working mothers, whatever impression they may have given to the contrary. The whole business is also inspiring plenty of speculation about the end of feminism. One group of Hillary supporters said that their heroine’s defeat was like being told to “sit down, shut up and move to the back of the bus.â€
But is feminism really faring so badly? American women are certainly under-represented in public life. They make up less than 20% of governors and members of Congress. The number of women on the Supreme Court has recently fallen by half, from two to one, thanks to Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement. But what Ms Steinem regards as the most “restricting force†in America is nevertheless getting ever less restrictive. Some of the most culturally conservative states in the country, such as Kansas and Michigan, have female governors. In 1998 women won the top five elected offices in Arizona. Mrs O’Connor was arguably the most powerful voice on the Supreme Court for decades.
Women are also winning the most important of all gender wars—the war for educational qualifications. They earn 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 59% of master’s degrees and half of doctorates. And they are doing better all the time. In terms of higher education, women drew equal with men in 1980. By the early 1990s six women graduated from college for every five men. Projections show that by 2017 three women will graduate for every two men. The meritocracy is inexorably turning into a matriarchy, and visibly so on many campuses: the heads of Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Brown and the National Defence University are all women.
Boys, meanwhile, are more likely to drop out of high school than girls. They are also more likely to be consigned to special education classes or prescribed mood-managing drugs. Men are more likely to commit crimes, end up in prison, kill themselves or be murdered. Even their sperm count is headed south. The long-term result seems unavoidable: men are becoming ever more marginalised, while women are taking over the commanding heights of wealth and power.
The new Madonna
It is even plausible to argue that there is feminist-friendly news buried in the recent headlines. One reason why younger women did not coalesce behind Mrs Clinton in the same way as their mothers must surely be that they have simply become accustomed to living in a world of opportunities. On Super Tuesday, for example, Mr Obama did very well with women under 30, while Mrs Clinton won easily among women over 60. Convinced that they will see a woman in the White House during their lifetimes, they did not feel the same “fierce urgency of now†(to borrow a phrase from Mr Obama) as 70-somethings like Ms Steinem.
In her idiosyncratic way, Mrs Palin also represents the fulfilment of the feminist dream. She demonstrates that gender is no longer a barrier to success in one of the most conservative corners of the land, the Alaska Republican Party. She also proves that you can be a career woman without needing to subscribe to any fixed feminist ideology. Camille Paglia hails her as the biggest step forward for feminism since Madonna. One can argue, as we have, that it was astoundingly reckless of Mr McCain to have picked her on the basis of having once met her for 15 minutes. But if feminism means, at its core, that women should be able to compete equally in the workplace while deciding for themselves how they organise their family life, then Mrs Palin deserves to be treated as a pioneer, not dismissed as a crackpot.
Man, remember a few weeks ago, when we were all sitting around the dinner table, and ElJeffe was passing the tuna casserole over to Deacon, and we were all having a nice stimulating chat about the Deacon's view of John McCain's policies while the dessert sherry was being doled out?
Those were good times, man.
Edit: *sigh* Iron, you missed the part where parents can have their kids opt out of the lesson with written consent.
Alaska and Georgia are given up on. McCain is having to actively defend Florida and North Carolina, but still nothing for Indiana or Montana., and (oddly enough) he appears to be dropping off spending in VA. McCain's now outspending Obama in New Hampshire, and he's greatly increased the spending gap in PA.
Posts
Yeah I guess so. Well, I can say that his spot on my ignore list is well earned.
Or the Spanish ad. Or the E-mail bumblefuck.
This is a cop-out.
Because you're so keen to talk about positions, instead of alternately railing against or defending alleged hypocrisy and whose ads are dirtier.
I. Fucking. Hate. Election years.
Why?
Which is exactly why we're all engaged in this argument. No one is arguing about the same thing.
And this is different from the fundamental promise that McCain made to run an honorable and respectful campaign based on issues... how?
Tu quoque. "You do it to." Logical fallacy. Lie A and Lie B are not necessarily the same because both are lies. Etc, etc, so on, so forth.
Because "He wants to teach kindergardners sex!" is hugely worse than "$5mil lol out of touch!" or "He wants to stay in Iraq 100 years!"
There have been good spots. Even with PeekingDuck.
This is politics, and politics doesn't make good dinner table discussion.
it is.
I'm with you.
Eh? Most people in here would agree that that particular line was a low blow.
Of course, that one single line doesn't invalidate the message in the rest of the ad.
Your wife has pretty good insurance. If my wife goes to part time, as she is considering, her health insurance contribution goes from $130/month to $750/month.
Because it's an overlybroad generalization used to excuse faults in either the candidates, or your own behaviors. It's also the mindset I most commonly see used as justification for NOT voting.
Not everyone in politics is a liar. Painting them with this brush is a cop-out.
This. A thousand times this. I was very sad that day.
WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT AND IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CHOICE AT HAND UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO PARROT THE RHETORIC OF IDIOTIC PUNDITS.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MATTERS NOW PLEASE.
Well, no one's complimented his campaign on their competence so far.
Ignoring any issues with not using the Internet as a source for information or email correspondance, we're still faced with the issue that the Internet plays a huge part in our society and our personal lives. Legislature in the coming years and decisions about the direction of our country will need to take the Internet and computers heavily into account.
You can claim that not using computers isn't automatic grounds to not be president and there are ways to compensate for it, but it's certainly not just a personal preference issue. It's a legitimate issue that needs addressing I feel.
Yeah this is really off-topic but I'm about to bounce out of this thread and get some work done. Felt like throwing that out there. I really liked McCain and at the beginning of this whole process I genuinely thought to myself; "Great! no matter who wins it looks like there will be some real change in the White House!" McCain has gone from Jeckyl to Hyde on us and it is extremely disappointing.
Where is the straight-talker from 2000 who was not comfortable bringin up his P.O.W. experience in interviews because - his words - it felt like 'a cheap ploy to get votes'. Where's the McCain who actually fought lobbying in Washington (instead of hiring Lobbyists to be his most trusted advisors)?
The McCain of 2000 would've been so great for the U.S. Even though it *is* just a cheezy tagline invented by Olbermann, I think it's absolutely true; McCain of 2000 would NOT vote for McCain of 2008.
If Obama questioned John McCain's judgement would that also be a personal, negative attack?
Or are qualities related to performance in office a fair field for criticism.
I mean, "John McCain is a child molester" and "John McCain has bad judgement" are both personal and negative.
Yes it was a personal attack and a stupid thing to put in an ad. I wish they hadn't done it.
It is. It's worth criticizing the Obama campaign for including that in an otherwise issues-based ad.
What irks me is that McCain supporters seem to be dead-set on ignoring the beam in their candidate's eye in order to shriek hysterically about the mote in Obama's.
it's not an attack on his policy or anything he wants to do as president. it's a personal attack. period. how valid it is or how much you personally are affected by it is another story. just like when something is a distortion of a quote it's a distortion, period. then you can talk about how big or dangerous of a distortion it is.
the thing about this thread is we don't get to those details because with this many people we just keep having the same first step of each conversation over and over again for 30 pages and then move onto a new topic.
What's your point, other than trying to spit in our collective eye? Is there a deeper discussion of the tenor of the campaign to be had, or are we all just jerking off?*
*Blazing Saddles reference- no offense intended.
Does he expect people to not know how many senators there are?
Wait...
Anyway your question is less a "gotcha" and more an admission that you can't quite keep up with the thread.
So I will break it down for you.
jungleroomx is claiming Obama couldn't have forseen that he'd be attacked in an underhanded way. I'm assuming that suggests that he wasn't outright lying, just being too optimistic.
I'm countering that he was well aware because his given reason for rejecting public funding was essentially "McCains going to attack me with all these lies and 527s so I need the money to defend myself."
So actually I have no idea where you're getting the idea that mccain ran ads attacking obama for public funding, the point is, jungleroomx's inital statement is demonstably false.
So maybe, do some reaserach before you ask next time, or otherwise generally try to know what you're talking about. This will prove to me that you are a speacial snowflake and not a giant waste of my time.
Not to mention I believe every single Obama supporter on this board groaned simultaneously when the "McSame" radio ad debuted.
Now, if you superimpose the bounces of the Democratic followed by the Republican national convention you get something like this:
Which means that poll numbers are still inflated in favor of the Republicans by ~2 points, and we won't be able to get an accurate perspective on polls for another 10 days.
Just thought it was worth pointing out that polling at this point is still iffy and not very trustworthy, even if it is good news right now.
Yeah how many people in the last cycle railed against incumbents who voted for the PATRIOT Act? And what margin did that pass by?
Not really. When you examine the issue more deeply, you see that the bill in question did talk about comprehensive sex education for grades k-12, specifically noting that it would be age appropriate. Which is fine.
Except that some people don't want the government to decide what is "age appropriate" for their kindergarten kid, and would rather have nothing of the sort talked about it school, whereas some parent's would love to see the school take responsibility for teach kids about sexual predators.
The 100 Year statement is relevant, because when you look beneath the surface, we see that John McCain is committed to keeping troops in Iraq, and in the reason in order to promote stability (in his mind), while people who just want us the fuck out of the Middle East would highly disagree with McCain's stance, both exaggerated and logically explained.
And the $5million quote was a joke by John McCain, although he used it to dodge a question. It still doesn't separated it from that fact that it was a joke, not to be taken seriously, and John McCain even said afterwards that he knew that comment would be distorted by the other side.
• The hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. (Check.)
• The hypocrisy of McCain supporters like Deacon and ironzerg who criticize Obama on the grounds of hypocrisy, when their candidate is even more hypocritical.
Deacon and ironzerg: if hypocrisy is such an issue for you then why the hell do you support McCain? And don't say McCain never made Obama's clean-campaign promise—he did.
Obama was under the impression the Republicans would take a xenophobic route, as opposed to a completely batshit crazy one. He even said it right in your little thing about going to private financing.
So no, he had NO idea they would try to compare him to Jesus, or say he was a pedophile.
Demonstrably false? Only if you ignore common sense and the "big picture".
The triumph of feminism: America’s feminists may have lost a battle or two. But they are winning the war
Those were good times, man.
Edit: *sigh* Iron, you missed the part where parents can have their kids opt out of the lesson with written consent.
Last Week June-July McCain Obama McCain Obama Alaska None 88 Colorado 553 522 1,104 802 Florida 1,040 1,327 None 5,028 Georgia None 1,824 Indiana None 263 None 1,268 Iowa 352 148 946 700 Michigan 761 954 2,655 2,240 Minnesota 472 18 575 70 Missouri 353 504 1,600 1,246 Montana None 37 None 136 North Carolina 245 300 None 1,620 North Dakota 1 22 71 157 New Hampshire 225 172 342 391 New Mexico 214 155 440 260 Nevada 365 297 1,134 633 Ohio 812 801 2,568 2,486 Pennsylvania 1,612 948 4,602 3,937 Virginia 312 868 1,509 2,660 Wisconsin 487 432 1,426 1,198Alaska and Georgia are given up on. McCain is having to actively defend Florida and North Carolina, but still nothing for Indiana or Montana., and (oddly enough) he appears to be dropping off spending in VA. McCain's now outspending Obama in New Hampshire, and he's greatly increased the spending gap in PA.