quote:Neither Biden nor Obama attacked McCain (or even Bush) on a personal level to any significant degree.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See, when Obama said that McCain doesn't get it, I heard, "McCain is a war hero, he is just stupid." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Being a war hero shouldn't be an effective shield against criticism of one's other attributes.
I agree. I just wanted to show that Obama was just as personal as the Republicans.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't understand this generic experience argument either way - or at least not in the ways it's being presented. What does the average citizen care if Palin only has 18 months experience without getting into details the average citizen has even less experience with? It just seems obvious to me that what really matters is the candidates' actual record and current plans. You know, the tangible stuff. Not the ambiguity of "experience." But maybe I'm just oversimplifying things.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, just because she doesn't live in DC doesn't make her an outsider. The earmarks she got while Mayor and her mentoring under two great Alaskan Insiders has me worried on that count.
If her relatively short time in politics is enough for her to be accused of being inexperienced, shouldn't it also apply here? How much of an insider can she be in such a short time?
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: And she is all about the Oil. More oil = More energy in her speech last night. While Obama will be all over himself trying to prove he isn't anti-Isreal, Palin's oil first platform will keep the US dependent on oil imports--mostly from Isreal's enemies.
See, I don't get that. Seems to me it's those who want to prevent us from digging for our own oil who are sticking us with Arab oil the most.
The nuance is that oil companies already have unused drilling licenses. They are asking for more, so that they can sit on them until the future, when it will be much more valuable to have these permits. The wrinkle is that they are asking for today's prices for the permits.
Now, I am sure, were these new permits given, some new drilling would occur, but not likely proportional to the number of new permits issued:
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: It seems more to the point that you insulted him after he made a joke
He didn't make a joke. He used an obnoxious and crude term. I don't care if it's been used on 30 Rock. It's still piggish. "Mom I'd Like to F***?" That's a joke? Grow up.
Either way i think that insulting a person who made a comment, which may have been offensive and starting an argument was probably the best policy.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I could turn the same argument back at you: if Obama is so "inexperienced," how could he be a Washington insider?
I have never objected to Obama on the basis of inexperience. I opposed him when he ran for Senate. He's slick, and he's fake, and putting him in the Oval Office would be like putting any other Chicago politician in there. Imagine President Richard M. Daley.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that saying someone does not get it is the same as being stupid.
When you are talking about public business and public life to a massive crowd whose only shared expertise is that they are American voters, there seems to be a slim difference between not getting it and being stupid. "John McCain doesn't know what all you people here and everyone voting at home knows as a matter of common sense..."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that "out of touch" is more in line with the "theme" of the criticisms of Sen. McCain. "Out of touch" is not the same as stupid.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like how people keep trying to paint Palin as a moderate on gay issues because she vetoed one bill. You know, after the Supreme Court it was unconstitutional. And then she sponsored a referendum to make it constitutional. And she's anti gay marriage.
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I could turn the same argument back at you: if Obama is so "inexperienced," how could he be a Washington insider?
I have never objected to Obama on the basis of inexperience. I opposed him when he ran for Senate. He's slick, and he's fake, and putting him in the Oval Office would be like putting any other Chicago politician in there. Imagine President Richard M. Daley.
Fake? Slick? Wow, how cynical. Its funny how you keep saying these things with absolutely nothing to back it up.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Neither Biden nor Obama attacked McCain (or even Bush) on a personal level to any significant degree.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See, when Obama said that McCain doesn't get it, I heard, "McCain is a war hero, he is just stupid." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Being a war hero shouldn't be an effective shield against criticism of one's other attributes.
I agree. I just wanted to show that Obama was just as personal as the Republicans.
Completely ignorant, "doesn't get it" is an implication of being out of touch of lacking common sense, completely different from calling someone stupid I should know, my close personal friends think I am extremely intelligent but make alot of jokes about my common sense , walking into oncoming traffic... for example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I could turn the same argument back at you: if Obama is so "inexperienced," how could he be a Washington insider?
I have never objected to Obama on the basis of inexperience. I opposed him when he ran for Senate. He's slick, and he's fake, and putting him in the Oval Office would be like putting any other Chicago politician in there. Imagine President Richard M. Daley.
Could you explain this? I've never gotten the impression that Obama is fake. As for slick, well, that could be a matter of semantics. He's definitely charismatic and a great orator.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Fake? Slick? Wow, how cynical. Its funny how you keep saying these things with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Blayne. Go to a friend's house. Find a dictionary. Look up the word cynical.
Then pop down to the corner store and buy yourself a clue, annoying little boy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: It's something about him being an undercover muslim-communist.
Now, now- we can't all be flinty, unsympathetic, and easily confused.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Fake? Slick? Wow, how cynical. Its funny how you keep saying these things with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Blayne. Go to a friend's house. Find a dictionary. Look up the word cynical.
Then pop down to the corner store and buy yourself a clue, annoying little boy.
Firstly I'm 21 and white, so unless your an old former President and I happen to be secretly black leave the boy comments at the door and while your leaving it there leave your deuchbag bitchy attitude there as well.
next, stop saying Barack Obama is some fake scary anti christ, you have not once provided any evidence to support the United States will somehow be worse off then it currently is.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Fake? Slick? Wow, how cynical. Its funny how you keep saying these things with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Blayne. Go to a friend's house. Find a dictionary. Look up the word cynical.
Then pop down to the corner store and buy yourself a clue, annoying little boy.
To be fair, the definition of cynical I grabbed was "believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity." It seems to me that calling a person 'fake' implies distrust of a person's sincerity or integrity.
That said, while I don't like the way Blayne asked it, I thought he brought up a very valid point that you didn't back up how Sen. Obama was slick or fake, and you have still ignored that request. If you don't wish to spend the time to back up your claim, I can understand that, you probably have more important things to do than get in an internet based argument. But I would ask that if you do attack Blayne, first let your attack be correct, and then try not to ignore his request... Or Christine's for that matter.
I bring this up because I am interested in seeing what makes you think he is slick and fake.
EDIT TO SAY:
And looking at what Blayne posted above me while I was writing this, please don't make the mistake of thinking that I am trying to defend his offensive remarks in the post above me. I am thoroughly disgusted.
I think both of you need to cool it against each other.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly I'm 21 and white, so unless your an old former President and I happen to be secretly black leave the boy comments at the door
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly I'm 21 and white, so unless your an old former President and I happen to be secretly black leave the boy comments at the door
quote:I am interested in seeing what makes you think he is slick and fake.
Yeah, me too.
*Just became another one of the many post-Palin donors to Obama for America.*
Anyway, better "slick and fake" than temperamental and mysogynist enough to call his wife the C-word. If I ever actually call a woman that, may god strike me dead.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly I'm 21 and white, so unless your an old former President and I happen to be secretly black leave the boy comments at the door
posted
My initial reaction to McCain before reading others' analysis.
I didn't like the first half. I tend to nit-pick public speeches if there's something that doesn't sound good if I think the presenter is speaking half-heartedly. So I'd cringe when he'd stumble on his words, some of the lines I thought were poorly written. ("I will stand on your side, not in your way" There's a difference between standing BY someone's side, and standing ON it. ) But my biggest problem with the first half was that although he gave an idea of what he was proposing, he never came out and said how he would achieve it. He said he wants new energy. How? Investment? How much? He said we should be guaranteed choice in education. Does that mean he's proposing a national voucher program? Is he saying geographical confines shouldn't matter for public school attendence? What will he use to determine a poor teacher? What will it take to remove them?
I understand he couldn't provide all the details to these proposals due to time constraints, but answering some questions would have helped.
But then we came to the second half with him telling his PoW story. It was powerful, moving, and compelling. It made me remember why I liked John McCain a few years ago. And then his enthusiastic call to service was a big plus for me.
So as a whole, I guess I'd give this speech an average rating. Good at the end, bad at the beginning.
But remember, I'm biased. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only once she stops picking fights with me and escalating them. I had a valid question, she insults me, wow Ron Paul would be SO PROUD of his ardent little warrior and all of her smearing disgusting filth.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: ... Made me smile.
Unfortunately, I cannot double-check for myself. However, if thats the dueling past/present clips segment, than that is indeed awesome.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My debate coach had many suggestions on how to have a 'good' argument.
One thing he said is that when your opponent starts go mean and use more ad hominens than issue discussion, it is your job to become nicer. Let your anger be manifest through how kind and courteous you become.
In other words, one of you be the better person and stop arguing here. We want this thread to stay unlocked. If you folks really have a problem with each other, exchange e-mail addresses and keep it off here. If it's not worth arguing off hatrack, then please don't argue it on hatrack.
Edit for clarity: I realized that my last sentence would suggest that if you two found it worth your time to argue through e-mail, it would justify you arguing in the forum. So let me just modify my last bit by saying simply this: Please stop.
Edit 2: Re-did a little at the top because of bad writing.
posted
To be perfectly fair, I didn't watch all the little speeches, I didn't care about the little guys I've never heard of. I watched some of the heavy hitters like Richardson, Gore, the Clintons Biden, and Obama. Likewise on the Republican side I watched Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Giuliani and I'll be reading McCain's speech in a few minutes.
I'm sorry but, anyone who thinks they were on the same page didn't see the conventions that I saw. Democrats threw some thunderbolts, but they were policy differences. They didn't say that McCain didn't care, or that Republicans were evil, just that they were wrong and that it's the Democrats' turn to try their new ideas.
The Republican convention has thrown everything at the Democrats including the kitchen sink. Both of them were misleading in their facts, and both of them misrepresented the other side (though I think one side did it more, I'll leave that one be). But the Republicans didn't just hint, but flat out said that Obama doesn't care about America, he's only in this for himself, and that the left is full of elitist liberals that also don't care about America. Show me where the Democrats said similar things about McCain and Republicans.
Leave out the policy stuff and the lies and the facts and the positions. They were both all over that to varying degrees and both had their successes and problems. Just look at how they treat each other, how they frame the other side. The chasm between the language they used to describe each other is vast.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: My debate coach had many good philosophies on how to have a good argument.
One thing he said is that when you opponent starts go mean and use more ad hominens than issue discussion, it is your job to become nicer. Let your anger be manifest through how kind and courteous you become.
In other words, one of you be the better person and stop arguing here. We want this thread to stay unlocked. If you folks really have a problem with each other, exchange e-mail addresses and keep it off here. If it's not worth arguing off hatrack, then please don't argue it on hatrack.
I tried that once with someone unrelated to Hatrack on one of my pdox forums he did something that pissed me off, I took it up with him completely off forum on msn, blocked each and then he started taking every opportunity to make the game we were both in miserable for me, it was even apparent to the others he had it in for me.
It only ended when he quit in disgust that everyone else weren't seeing him eye to eye.
But anyways, goes to show it doesn't work, doesn't resolve issues.
Also, whats wrong with suggesting a duel? Its how they worked out feuds in the past. Pistols at dawn, 30 paces.
IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say you were. I was assuming that you wanted to "resolve issues."
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
She's a hardcore Libertarian, I'm a staunch Communist, she's female, I'm male, she's faithful, I'm secular, she's American I'm Canadian, everything we are is opposite to each other. No Common ground, fight to the death!
IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, there is no obligation for you to ignore it. But sometimes it's the better thing to do. I think this is a case where that's true. Politics is inherently a hot topic with people, and I think we've done a pretty good job in this thread of not beating our chests and throwing mud at each other. Can we please get back on topic?
Here, I'll start.
I took a similar approach as Lyrhawn. I watched the major speeches. And I saw pretty much the same thing. I agree that both sides misrepresented the other, but that's to be expected. But I do think that the RNC was far more... vicious than the DNC. I grew weary of hearing how 'liberals are destroying this country' or that Obama and other dems aren't putting their country first. We do put our country before ourselves, we just have a different approach on how to help our country. I felt as though the very fact that I disagree with the policies of the GOP makes it so that I'm less a patriot than they are. I hate that line of thinking.
I don't know, I'm probably viewing this from my limited, biased perspective.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I am under no obligation to ignore verbal abuse."
No, you're not. But the more you respond to it in kind, the more the rest of us get tired of hearing it and just start ignoring everyone involved, and that's a shame as we'll miss anything useful that's said. Right now, to be frank, I'm skimming over posts from both you and Lisa because I'd rather talk about the election.
And politeness to abuse does work. It's one of the few effective things that can be done against a troll who is determined to stay around and bug people. I've done it here, I've done it many times in the old forum at my work website. It's a form of verbal judo: you treat the troll as a respected member of the forum and only respond to actual talking points in their abuse (the "best" trolls use incendiary statements to rile people up, and the most effective declarations have enough truth in them to hurt). Keep at it and you can draw them out until they realize they're in an actual conversation. Some leave. Some laugh. I've even been complimented before ("Well played, sir.") It can be done, but you have to really be polite and not just cover your own abuse with friendly looking words.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
woah, apparently Sarah Palin would veto abortion even in the case of rape.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: woah, apparently Sarah Palin would veto abortion even in the case of rape.
IS SHE STONKING BONKERS!?
Although I disagree with Palin's stance on abortion, I don't think it's fair to outright call her bonkers. There are those who feel that abortion is not a right in any circumstance because they uphold the right to life to be paramount to any possibility. Abortion is another of those hot-button issues, and I'd suggest you treat her stance with a little more understanding and respect so as not to offend people who might share Palin's belief.
That said, it is a valid point to bring up on Palin for those who hold abortion as a key voting issue. What was the source on that?
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: My initial reaction to McCain before reading others' analysis.
I didn't like the first half. I tend to nit-pick public speeches if there's something that doesn't sound good if I think the presenter is speaking half-heartedly. So I'd cringe when he'd stumble on his words, some of the lines I thought were poorly written. ("I will stand on your side, not in your way" There's a difference between standing BY someone's side, and standing ON it. ) But my biggest problem with the first half was that although he gave an idea of what he was proposing, he never came out and said how he would achieve it. He said he wants new energy. How? Investment? How much? He said we should be guaranteed choice in education. Does that mean he's proposing a national voucher program? Is he saying geographical confines shouldn't matter for public school attendence? What will he use to determine a poor teacher? What will it take to remove them?
I understand he couldn't provide all the details to these proposals due to time constraints, but answering some questions would have helped.
But then we came to the second half with him telling his PoW story. It was powerful, moving, and compelling. It made me remember why I liked John McCain a few years ago. And then his enthusiastic call to service was a big plus for me.
So as a whole, I guess I'd give this speech an average rating. Good at the end, bad at the beginning.
But remember, I'm biased.
I didn't watch, but I read his speech. I'm glad that, like Obama, he left the rancor out of his speech. And I think both of them kept the blatent misrepresentations of the other's policies to a minimum. Seemed like a lot less specifics than Obama's speech though. He says drill here and drill now, but how and where? There are already dozens of leases not being drilled on, and the drills themselves, the actual ships that have the drilling equipment that do the drilling, are on a multiyear backorder. Even if we wanted to we literally couldn't drill right now. So I'll take it to mean that he wants to get the ball rolling on some of this stuff, okay, what else? How is he going to push nuclear? You can't do it without big time federal support, so how much will he allocate? How much will he allocate for renewables? Obama at least gives numbers. He doesn't have plans for Afghanistan or Iraq other than "victory." That's reassuring, believe me, but how do you get there? He wants to lower taxes? Lovely, what programs will you cut to pay for it? (To be fair, Obama needs to step up on that one too).
Some of this stuff is on his website, but for a speech like this (in which is monotone droning speaking voice can already make hard to listen to), I really thought he'd skip the kind of rhetoric he lambasts Obama for and get to the specifics. I could have done without the biography. Is there anyone left who DOESN'T know his personal history? All in all it was a nice speech I guess, but nothing special. I certainly appreciated the lack of viciousness that his surrogates portrayed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
