Obama just forfeited his right to complain about McCain's tactics

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

The language in that sex-ed bill did leave open the possibility of teaching explicit sex to kindergarteners. I mean, it just did. It didn't limit it to "good touch, bad touch" ... it clearly stated the course was to teach prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Which is a pretty sick thing to teach a 5-year-old.

And this to be sounds like a colossal stretch so you are able to condemn Obama while not having to do the same for McCain without the reason simply being that McCain is the Republican candidate. Sorry, but that you cannot admit the McCain bill is a complete and utter vicious distortion on par with Obama's admittedly scummy ad just seems partisan to me.

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

We wondered how you could defend those ads as having a kernel of truth when they were so obviously lies and offensive.

I mean, tell me how this means anything other than what it means:

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

And this to be sounds like a colossal stretch so you are able to condemn Obama while not having to do the same for McCain without the reason simply being that McCain is the Republican candidate. Sorry, but that you cannot admit the McCain bill is a complete and utter vicious distortion on par with Obama's admittedly scummy ad just seems partisan to me.

I don't know how many times I have to write the words, "McCain shouldn't have run that ad" before it counts as condemning it.

But if you can't see how completely inventing someone's views out of thin air, and presenting them to be 180 degrees different than what they are is so completely out of bounds ... I don't know what to say to you.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

NMyTree

Every new election season (which runs three years ), politics get more and more like a typical Jerry Springer Show.

It's dispicable and unacceptable. Nothing but crap amd more crap.

I fully expect Sarah and Michelle to have a heated exchange on a stage and then attack each other. Complete with hair pulling, bitch-slapping, bra-strap snapping, titty-twisters, the ripping of clothing and g-string archery.

On second thought, I will tune in for that. I'll even record it to my DVR:D

Of course immediately followed by John and Barack coming to their rescue, colliding with each other because of their pre-occupation with all the bouncing and jiggly titties and then having a bout of their own. Complete with hair pulling, bitch-slapping, bra-strap snapping, titty-twisters, the ripping of clothing and g-string archery. They'll record the whole thing.

They will then edit it, tranfer it to DVD and Blu-Ray and then sell it on TV during late television commercials; in between those dating line commercials and reruns of Saturday Night Live and Mad TV.

Ah, America!

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't know how many times I have to write the words, "McCain shouldn't have run that ad" before it counts as condemning it.

But if you can't see how completely inventing someone's views out of thin air, and presenting them to be 180 degrees different than what they are is so completely out of bounds ... I don't know what to say to you.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Well, to play Devil's advocate in many aspects McCain has not been on the side of immigrants. He voted yes on making English the official language. Yes on a border fence. Yes to limit social services to immigrants as well, No to driver's licenses, etc. This may have been their intention, but I'm her to defend that ad. Obama, the candidate I support, put out a bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ad. No excuse. I shall vote for him because I agree with him, but something like this makes me less passionate to vote for him.

But you are unwilling to admit to this in regards to your own candidate, that he put out several ads, including the lipstick ad, Obama the Pedophile ad, and this ad, among others: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZKxWrPQFXc, talk about bullshitting the Latin American community). You will not admit that these ads are equally bad...saying they are "Sleazy ads, but..." is not condemning them, because you immediately explain them away as having a kernel of truth that McCain exploited. It's politics, it happens, and it's acceptable. So I don't know what to say to you when you accuse me and others of being close-minded when there are those who are sad that Obama stooped to McCain's level. But even though you say McCain's ads are sleazy, you explain them and therefore condone them. And that sounds partisan for me, when refuse to fully acknowledge and repudiate the lies inherent in your own candidate's ads. I've done it for my candidate. Until then, I think you have blinders on in regards to this specific issue.

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

Well, to play Devil's advocate in many aspects McCain has not been on the side of immigrants. He voted yes on making English the official language. Yes on a border fence. Yes to limit social services to immigrants as well, No to driver's licenses, etc. This may have been their intention, but I'm her to defend that ad. Obama, the candidate I support, put out a bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ad. No excuse. I shall vote for him because I agree with him, but something like this makes me less passionate to vote for him.

But you are unwilling to admit to this in regards to your own candidate, that he put out several ads, including the lipstick ad, Obama the Pedophile ad, and this ad, among others: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZKxWrPQFXc, talk about bullshitting the Latin American community). You will not admit that these ads are equally bad...saying they are "Sleazy ads, but..." is not condemning them, because you immediately explain them away as having a kernel of truth that McCain exploited. It's politics, it happens, and it's acceptable. So I don't know what to say to you when you accuse me and others of being close-minded when there are those who are sad that Obama stooped to McCain's level. But even though you say McCain's ads are sleazy, you explain them and therefore condone them. And that sounds partisan for me, when refuse to fully acknowledge and repudiate the lies inherent in your own candidate's ads. I've done it for my candidate. Until then, I think you have blinders on in regards to this specific issue.

The situations are different in my book for several reasons ... the first being this ad DOESN'T EVEN USE MCCAIN'S RECORD ... it uses Rush Limbaugh's, then tries to make the flimsy connection between the two, irrespective of the fact that Rush OPPOSED McCain on this issue.

But, regardless of that ...

Here's the point I'm trying to make in this thread, starting with its very title:

If Obama wants to play in the mud just because he believes McCain went there first, fine. But I expect to hear no more complaints about McCain's "Rovian" tactics for the rest of the campaign. No more boo-hooing about "they're going to try to scare you, because I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bills" and all this other condescending semi-racist nonsense.

You can't "fight fire with fire" and still claim moral superiority. You can't get down and dirty in the mud, and still claim to be walking the high road. You just can't.

jimed14

digster wrote:

Well, to play Devil's advocate in many aspects McCain has not been on the side of immigrants. He voted yes on making English the official language. Yes on a border fence. Yes to limit social services to immigrants as well, No to driver's licenses, etc. This may have been their intention, but I'm her to defend that ad. Obama, the candidate I support, put out a bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ad. No excuse. I shall vote for him because I agree with him, but something like this makes me less passionate to vote for him.

But you are unwilling to admit to this in regards to your own candidate, that he put out several ads, including the lipstick ad, Obama the Pedophile ad, and this ad, among others: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZKxWrPQFXc, talk about bullshitting the Latin American community). You will not admit that these ads are equally bad...saying they are "Sleazy ads, but..." is not condemning them, because you immediately explain them away as having a kernel of truth that McCain exploited. It's politics, it happens, and it's acceptable. So I don't know what to say to you when you accuse me and others of being close-minded when there are those who are sad that Obama stooped to McCain's level. But even though you say McCain's ads are sleazy, you explain them and therefore condone them. And that sounds partisan for me, when refuse to fully acknowledge and repudiate the lies inherent in your own candidate's ads. I've done it for my candidate. Until then, I think you have blinders on in regards to this specific issue.

the ad you linked has been removed ... must have been REALLY bad!

digster

jimed14 wrote:

the ad you linked has been removed ... must have been REALLY bad!

Works fine to me. Basically it's a montage of Obama's speech at Berlin and clips together all the countries that he mentioned when he was there. "Berlin...South Africa...Zimbabwe....Canada.....Scotland" etc. etc. Then at the end, they note that Obama didn't mention any Latin American countries, and then insinuates that Obama does not care about the plight of these countries.

TDMize15

Let me point out that Rush disagreed with McCain over McCain's bill for illegal immigrants... a bill that McCain has now said he would veto if he is presented with it as president... so McCain is such a maverick he even disagrees with himself now...

The ad was one hell of a bad idea... I'm not going to argue that.

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

The situations are different in my book for several reasons ... the first being this ad DOESN'T EVEN USE MCCAIN'S RECORD ... it uses Rush Limbaugh's, then tries to make the flimsy connection between the two, irrespective of the fact that Rush OPPOSED McCain on this issue.

But, regardless of that ...

Here's the point I'm trying to make in this thread, starting with its very title:

If Obama wants to play in the mud just because he believes McCain went there first, fine. But I expect to hear no more complaints about McCain's "Rovian" tactics for the rest of the campaign. No more boo-hooing about "they're going to try to scare you, because I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bills" and all this other condescending semi-racist nonsense.

You can't "fight fire with fire" and still claim moral superiority. You can't get down and dirty in the mud, and still claim to be walking the high road. You just can't.

Well, this just goes both ways. My point to you is that I don't see much room for McCain's campaign or supporters to have any room to criticize Obama for practicing such tactics, considering how McCain fired these shots last week. There's nothing difference in the lies inherent in the ads, and the sleaziness of the ads, so I consider it somewhat hypocritical that you or any other McCain supporter would cry foul after the tactics McCain has practiced during this campaign. So it's probably best to drop the matter entirely.

drew0

slightofjeff wrote:

That isn't exactly true. But Obama would like you to believe it.

I don't know if you know this, but the president doesn't actually get to vote in the Senate. So it is impossible to know his stance on every single bill that comes to a vote on the Senate floor.

Where that 90 percent number comes from is an analysis (completely unbiased, I'm sure) of votes in which the analyzers were fairly certain they knew what Bush's stance might be on a given bill. That encompasses 22 percent of the Senate votes since Bush took office. So, to be completely fair, McCain agreed with Bush 90 percent of 22 percent of the time.

A better gauge of McCain's independent-ness might be this: Over that span, he voted with the Republicans only 81 percent of the time. That measures ALL votes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY-iTyN7c0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc

McCain was the one that said it first.

catch22

slightofjeff wrote:

The situations are different in my book for several reasons ... the first being this ad DOESN'T EVEN USE MCCAIN'S RECORD ... it uses Rush Limbaugh's, then tries to make the flimsy connection between the two, irrespective of the fact that Rush OPPOSED McCain on this issue.

But, regardless of that ...

Here's the point I'm trying to make in this thread, starting with its very title:

If Obama wants to play in the mud just because he believes McCain went there first, fine. But I expect to hear no more complaints about McCain's "Rovian" tactics for the rest of the campaign. No more boo-hooing about "they're going to try to scare you, because I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bills" and all this other condescending semi-racist nonsense.

You can't "fight fire with fire" and still claim moral superiority. You can't get down and dirty in the mud, and still claim to be walking the high road. You just can't.

i can assure you that you will be hearing no such things from me. i've been calling for obama to take some shots back for a while now. it was guaranteed to get ugly and i'd rather have him win than stick to some inane high road his opponent has clearly decided not to take. i watched john kerry go down in flames because he wouldn't hit back and tried to play nice, and i don't want to see it happen again.

it's just amusing as hell to see how whiny you repubs get when your own slimy tactics are turned on you. suddenly it's outrageous, whereas before it was maybe just slightly distasteful. :rolleyes:

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

Well, this just goes both ways. My point to you is that I don't see much room for McCain's campaign or supporters to have any room to criticize Obama for practicing such tactics, considering how McCain fired these shots last week. There's nothing difference in the lies inherent in the ads, and the sleaziness of the ads, so I consider it somewhat hypocritical that you or any other McCain supporter would cry foul after the tactics McCain has practiced during this campaign. So it's probably best to drop the matter entirely.

I disagree with you, of course, but continuing to debate the point really would be an exercise in futility.

slightofjeff

catch22 wrote:

i can assure you that you will be hearing no such things from me. i've been calling for obama to take some shots back for a while now. it was guaranteed to get ugly and i'd rather have him win than stick to some inane high road his opponent has clearly decided not to take. i watched john kerry go down in flames because he wouldn't hit back and tried to play nice, and i don't want to see it happen again.

Hey, that's a perfectly legitimate stance to take. I'm talking more about Obama himself, standing on the stump and boo-hooing every slight as "politics as usual" -- and then turning around and playing politics as usual.

If you're gonna be a liar, be a liar. But don't be a hypocrite, too.

catch22

slightofjeff wrote:

Hey, that's a perfectly legitimate stance to take. I'm talking more about Obama himself, standing on the stump and boo-hooing every slight as "politics as usual" -- and then turning around and playing politics as usual.

If you're gonna be a liar, be a liar. But don't be a hypocrite, too.

i don't see it that way. you've got to get in the game to have any hope of changing it. he can't have much influence on the usual politics if he's not in office. assuming he gets elected, we'll see what he does.

slightofjeff

catch22 wrote:

i don't see it that way. you've got to get in the game to have any hope of changing it. he can't have much influence on the usual politics if he's not in office. assuming he gets elected, we'll see what he does.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ... except this one's a black guy!

ACCBootlegGoddess

slightofjeff wrote:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ... except this one's a black guy!

Same tune can be sung about Mccain too (minus the black guy part).

jimed14

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Limbaugh_hitting_back_over_usage_in_ad_says_Obama_stoking_racism.html

NMyTree

If everyone is disgusted by the Election process and the dispicable levels all these people have stooped to, then, there is a solution.


Everyone, all of us, all of us American citizens........ drop our partisan loyalties.

We band together. Unite. And challenge the laws of the land. Time to force congress to make some drastic and serious changes in the election laws and process.

It's our country!! We can force change!! Stop permitting these jerk-offs in their dividing of us as Americans. Unite!!

Demand change!

This is what the Law should be.......

Any politician who makes a statement or comment whether through TV ads, Radio ads, Billboards (any kind of advertisement) or during interviews or debates, that embelishes, misquotes, exaggerates, spins or twists the truth and can't be proven or supported with complete facts; will be automatically disqualified from running for office or position. And will never, ever be eligible again, to run for any public office or position.

You want to see them stick to the important issues and focus on actually accomplishing something? Watch how they work under that kind of rule!!!!


Force Change!!!

JSBE

ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:

BOTH Candidates are using these tactics to manipulate the minds of Americans..Don't put it all on Obama ok.

thank you. i mean, karl rove (karl rove!!!) has already admitted that some of mccain's ads would not pass the 100% truth test.