User Tag List

First 21293031323341 Last

Results 301 to 310 of 520

  1. #301
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Saying that someone has worked with a terrorist in the past is not the same as implying that they are a terrorist, either, so your point is invalid.
    Excuse me?

    Let's look at context here: Why do you think it's being brought up, OVER and OVER and OVER again?
    So that the name "Obama" can be equated with "terrorist."

    That's the emotional connection being leveraged.
    Do you REALLY not see that?
    If that was NOT what the point was, then McCain would have stopped that attack long ago. He's trying to get the distaste and hatred for terrorists to rub off on Obama.

    Big freaking deal if he's not calling Obama a terrorist literally, the impact is still the same... and he couldn't do that because obviously Obama is not a terrorist. Obama could disprove that. Here he can just make insinuations that Obama can't disprove.

    So the point's not invalid at all. It's part of McCain's strategy.

    And calling someone "computer illiterate" is not nearly anywhere near the same thing as saying they pal around with terrorists. Lord knows that McCain has had his own relationships with undesirables in the past, and dragging them out would be as lame as well.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #302
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Excuse me?

    Let's look at context here: Why do you think it's being brought up, OVER and OVER and OVER again?
    So that the name "Obama" can be equated with "terrorist."

    That's the emotional connection being leveraged.
    Do you REALLY not see that?
    If that was NOT what the point was, then McCain would have stopped that attack long ago.

    The point's not invalid. And calling someone "computer illiterate" is not nearly anywhere near the same thing as saying they pal around with terrorists. Lord knows that McCain has had his own relationships with undesirables in the past, and dragging them out would be as lame as well.

    Your point IS invalid, actually. The reasons the terrorist charge is being repeated over and over again are that A) it's one of the few straws the McCain campaign has left at which to grasp; and B) after the Reverend Wright fiasco, Obama looks weak when it comes to associations with radicals from his days in Chicago. You must have blinders on here, because you're just wrong.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #303
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Your point IS invalid, actually. The reasons the terrorist charge is being repeated over and over again are that A) it's one of the few straws the McCain campaign has left at which to grasp; and B) after the Reverend Wright fiasco, Obama looks weak when it comes to associations with radicals from his days in Chicago. You must have blinders on here, because you're just wrong.
    The terrorist charge is all a part of the McCain campaign trying to shape public perception and paint Obama as "risky" "threatening" "hiding something"..etc.. The A) and B) points you listed have truth to them as well.

  4. #304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    There are plenty of us who've never met anyone in the McCain campaign who think Obama is risky/threatening/DEFINITELY hiding SOMETHING.

  5. #305
    Senior Member ZiL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    567?
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Your point IS invalid, actually. The reasons the terrorist charge is being repeated over and over again are that A) it's one of the few straws the McCain campaign has left at which to grasp; and B) after the Reverend Wright fiasco, Obama looks weak when it comes to associations with radicals from his days in Chicago. You must have blinders on here, because you're just wrong.

    Making a vague link between a former terrorist and a presidential candidate is TECHNICALLY not the same thing as expressly calling a person a terrorist, but for the purposes of this campaign, that's the connection they're banking on uninformed people making. And based on some of those campaign rally videos, it's worked. The McCain campaign is giving us the dots in the express hope that crazy people will connect them. That's nearly as good as implying. (Edit: But of course, if there weren't uninformed people out there, they wouldn't do it).

    As lame as the McCain-technology smear is, at least it's based in somewhere in the universe of verifiable truth.
    ALL AROUND THE WORLD PEOPLE EATIN' GUMBO

  6. #306
    Senior Member ZiL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    567?
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    There are plenty of us who've never met anyone in the McCain campaign who think Obama is risky/threatening/DEFINITELY hiding SOMETHING.
    Well that's okay if you independently reach that decision. I guess. But we're talking about what the campaign itself is doing/hoping to do, not saying that all people who are suspicious of Obama recieved their opinion solely from the McCain campaign.
    ALL AROUND THE WORLD PEOPLE EATIN' GUMBO

  7. #307
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Your point IS invalid, actually. The reasons the terrorist charge is being repeated over and over again are that A) it's one of the few straws the McCain campaign has left at which to grasp; and B) after the Reverend Wright fiasco, Obama looks weak when it comes to associations with radicals from his days in Chicago. You must have blinders on here, because you're just wrong.
    Hmm. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    I agree that it might be a tactical maneuver (as you describe) in addition to what I said earlier; but it's been an eye-opener for me to realize that the overt implications of someone's misrepresentations of another person during a campaign are actually not perceptible to some voters.

    It explains a lot of my frustration with the last two voting processes. Some people either don't know or don't care about slanderous implications of comments made by the candidates.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #308
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    I'm astonished at everyone's astonishment. Don't you all know that this is the way the game of modern politics is played? The major parties invented the game, and slander-without-technically-provable-slander is a tactic that dates back at least to the Whig party.

    It's an absurdly bankrupt system that inevitably produces a winner who is ethically compromised.

  9. #309
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    It explains a lot of my frustration with the last two voting processes. Some people either don't know or don't care about slanderous implications of comments made by the candidates.
    That's why it works. Association works under the radar of perception. And the perception of them is dependent on existing world view (filtering of the association). Almost all associations require rationalisation, ranging from "that's not what he said!" to "of course it's true, look at his <name><skin color><dress code><...>".

    The decision on interpretation comes before the reasons themselves - it's not that they don't care at all - it's literally just filtered out of their awareness. It is exceptionally hard to get past this, and virtually impossible to do it from the outside.

  10. #310
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Hmm. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    I agree that it might be a tactical maneuver (as you describe) in addition to what I said earlier; but it's been an eye-opener for me to realize that the overt implications of someone's misrepresentations of another person during a campaign are actually not perceptible to some voters.

    It explains a lot of my frustration with the last two voting processes. Some people either don't know or don't care about slanderous implications of comments made by the candidates.

    It took you how many elections to realize that most people vote based on personal biases and cartoonishly inaccurate characterizations of major party candidates? I am not trying to be a dick here at all, but you're an intelligent poster, and old enough to vote. Didn't you see how this game is played pretty much from the beginning? The voting public, in general, is completely and totally ignorant, even (sometimes, especially) the people who are totally involved and have the signs on the lawn and the whole thing. For the vast majority of people, it's half-beauty pageant, half-sports event. They want to show off their colors, and they want to be on the winning team.

    The media is complicit in it, too. They have the analysis and the pundits talking about policy and demographics, but mainly it's about personalities and speculation on the horse race. People eat it up, reporters keep their jobs with travel and respect and expense accounts, and the corporate bosses get rich.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. what the f*ck has obama done so far?
    By prplchknz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 10-15-2013, 01:40 PM
  2. How well is Obama doing with the economy?
    By Giggly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 01:30 PM
  3. Is Obama the Messiah?
    By booyalab in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 02:01 AM
  4. Obama and McCain on MNF
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 04:29 PM
  5. Is Obama the next FDR?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-19-2008, 02:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO