Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

Well, ShadowRed, that's the whole Republican gameplan now. Go after the Democrats where it hurts, and make them defend lawyers, taxes, and "give-aways". What functional retard warms up to a candidate who defends the three?

 

[Ripclawe]

uh how are these "skeletons"? You know, the stuff that Republicans like to use, you like blow jobs and stuff. This is material that is well out in the open and not some "skeleton" that some Freeptard "found".


btw, you're acting like being liberal is bad.

There is a reason why John Kerry and the Democrats made it a point to say he is not a liberal all thru the campaign. So far, these are obama's negatives, easy to use as well.

 

[boredJonathan]

I still don't get what makes those points so bad. They do seem to fall in line with pretty much everything I would be for. I don't see any refrence to how he is in bed with lawyers, and taxes. Kind of silly really.

As for Ripclawe's second post about Obama's father, well damn, did you read the next paragraph? Or do you only have a radar that searches out the best way to parse information so it looks daming? The next paragraph pretty much negates any of that as 'damning' evidence, or even misleading on his part.

In his autobiography, Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama Jr. began by relaying how his aunt in Nairobi called him at Columbia University, where he was a student, to announce the death of his father. His mother and grandparents had raised him on legendary tales of his father’s brilliance and his death shattered his hope for future reunion. He recalled the last time he saw his father at age 10. That was the age he was dealing with the question of his identity and his place in his society.

So that information is all in his own freaking autobiography. I don't think you could really pull that up then as a skeleton when he has already written about it.

And really, you are still not answering the question of why these things would be considered as negatives to anyone else outside of his party. You are just making a blanket statement that these issues will be bad for him. I don't see any evidence provided to show that they would be.

 

[Incognito]

There's nothing wrong with being liberal. It's the general public perceptions of liberal that's fucked up. These people need to be fixed, and the first thing that should be done is handing out dictionaries with only the word "Liberal" defined.

 

[videogamer]

There is a reason why John Kerry and the Democrats made it a point to say he is not a liberal all thru the campaign.

It's a reaction to the right wing turning the word "liberal" into something bad. We need to be able to turn the word "liberal" back into a positive term. and erm, I'm just repeating Incognito's post.

So far, these are obama's negatives, easy to use as well.

Negatives in your view, but not "skeletons".

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

If John Kerry was as liberal as some made him out to be, I might've voted for him.

 

[boredJonathan]

I think it's more telling that Obama being honest about his druge use has forced republicans to not be able to go after him for it. I harldy heard anything on it after the first week of "OMG" reactionary type stuff.

EDIT - Those kind of things are what you would normally see as skeletons, but it seems as if Obama has been very good about being open about those kind of things which apparently difuses the situation.

 

[Shogmaster]

They're talking about Obama running for President around 2012.

Unfortunately, by that time, Jeb Bush will probably want to run for President, and will win by having exactly five-sixteenths of Americans voting for him, three-sixteenths voting for the Democratic rep, and the other half, the MAJORITY, realizing that voting is pointless and either way you're going to get the same bunch of stupid, selfish, ignorant Americans in office.

Silly boy! Jeb ain't running in 2012... He's running in 2008! :lol

Spoiler

*cries*

 

[Hitokage]

There is a reason why John Kerry and the Democrats made it a point to say he is not a liberal all thru the campaign.

Step 1: Launch smear campaign against a term, ignoring fact or reason.
Step 2: Watch members defend themselves.
Step 3: If the Big Lie method works, watch members try to shift to a related term.
Step 4: Claim victory, saying it proves there was something wrong to begin with.
... now comes...
Step 5: Salute and praise The Party.

 

[Ripclawe]

So that information is all in his own freaking autobiography. I don't think you could really pull that up then as a skeleton when he has already written about it.

And really, you are still not answering the question of why these things would be considered as negatives to anyone else outside of his party. You are just making a blanket statement that these issues will be bad for him. I don't see any evidence provided to show that they would be.

Who said that could be pulled up and used as a skeleton? It's unfair to say that his father was "just a goatherder" when in fact he worked on his Dad's farm for a while before heading off to college.

And really, you are still not answering the question of why these things would be considered as negatives to anyone else outside of his party

Yes I did above with the point about Kerry,Demos and the DLC running away from the liberal tag. These issues can play to his base, but put it out on a nationwide level and it works against him, especially anything that can be seen as soft on crime or gun control.

 

[boredJonathan]

Who said that could be pulled up and used as a skeleton?

My fault on that one, I read the posting of links so close to each other as further proof of skeletons.

Yes I did above with the point about Kerry,Demos and the DLC running away from the liberal tag. These issues can play to his base, but put it out on a nationwide level and it works against him, especially anything that can be seen as soft on crime or gun control.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree there as I don't see them running away from what could be called 'liberal' activities, just label. Personally, I think the only reason they are running from the lable is not because it won't hold up on a national level but because the Republicans have done such a good job of smearing what that word means. They've turned it into something evil and now, unfortunately, the democrats have to dance around what they really are. It's a shame that the democrats don't have as big of an echo chamber. But, that's just my personal view. So like I said, going to have to agree to disagree if that's how you feel.

However, I think your line on being soft on crime and gun control is a bit ironic considering how the assault weapons ban lapsed under this current President and apparently had little effect on him.

 

[AstroLad]

Ripclawe coming out with the skeletons! I bet people all over the country are linking to this forum just to see Ripclawe's earth-shattering revelations for themselves.

One thing you can say about Ripclawe- The man comes through on his promises!

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

However, I think your line on being soft on crime and gun control is a bit ironic considering how the assault weapons ban lapsed under this current President and apparently had little effect on him.

I'm pretty sure he meant it like

(being soft on crime) and (gun control)

rather than

being soft on (crime and gun control)

 

[boredJonathan]

I'm pretty sure he meant it like

(being soft on crime) and (gun control)

rather than

being soft on (crime and gun control)

Oh.
Well.
GOOD DAY SIR! I SAY, GOOD DAY!

~runs away~

 

[Socreges]

Well, I'll tell you what. I should have referred to what I was saying as my opinion rather than as an argument, because upon rereading what I wrote, there were certainly more fallacies than the strawman one which you mentioned. However, I'd also state that just because there are fallacies in my argument, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It just means that I poorly stated my opinions.

The problem I find, oftentimes, is that a logical fallacy can be tossed into any particular argument, and everyone is just expected to say that the argument is therefore false. Quite the opposite is actually true, as most any debate based on personal opinion would always have such fallacies. Does that mean that neither side is right? Possibly, but not definite.

What the hell are you talking about? You made a cheeky little reply and I pointed out your post only served to project what I said as something that it wasn't; and poorer.

My point that companies in general finance the same people still stands. You imply that more instances are needed to prove that this is universal, when obviously in matters of political reality there ARE no definites, which is why politics is such an ambiguous science. I could just as easily turn around to the opposite point of view, and ask for proof that voting isn't a waste of time. No matter what proponents of that view say, I could always find something to throw out to them and ruin their theory. That's what happens when dealing on a macro level of economics.

It is unfair to judge the value of a political argument purely by the reasoning and fallacies within. In order to have a fallacy, you have to have a definite on any given thing, and since, as I said before, a definite is nearly impossible to find, well, there's no need to use fallacies, especially when dealing with something on such a varied level as voting on a national, or even state, scale.

That's why politics is about ideas, and why so many people study it. There is no right or wrong.

Seriously, what's your deal? The one fallacy that I pointed out was two replies ago and was in reference to one comment that you made. Besides that, you made a huge post on why people shouldn't bother voting, but it only painted the candidates as one and the same, when, in reality, there are huge distinctions and some that WILL affect your life. If not immediately, then in the future. Why not address THAT, rather than taking a post I made prior and applying it the known universe.

Obama's father was slightly more than just a goat herder, his grandfather was a wealthy farmer, its not like they grew up in a small out of the way village and this great luck happened to them. But I chalk all that to up to good old fashion American dream politics making. Nothing wrong with that.

How can you be more than a goatherder? You either herd goats or you don't.

(the ever-changing post)

 

[whytemyke]

but it only painted the candidates as one and the same, when, in reality, there are huge distinctions and some that WILL affect your life. If not immediately, then in the future. Why not address THAT, rather than taking a post I made prior and applying it the known universe.

Prove it. Prove me wrong. It doesn't take anything to get all elitist on an argument, but it's something totally different to formulate your own. Since you obviously feel you're in a position to criticize peoples opinions and arguments, lets see your own.

 

[Mandark]

Sorry Rip, non-membership in the DLC isn't good enough. You now have about 31 hours to come up with something better.

myke: If you yourself have admitted that your own argument was full of shit (that's what having a lot of fallacies means), then I don't think the burden of proof can be on someone else just quite yet.

 

[Ripclawe]

How can you be more than a goatherder? You either herd goats or you don't.

The story is that Obama was the son of a goatherder, leaving out the fact that his dad basically worked a part time job doing work on his father's farm before going off to college. It's a great story, but it goes a lot deeper than that.

However, I think your line on being soft on crime and gun control is a bit ironic considering how the assault weapons ban lapsed under this current President and apparently had little effect on him.

my fault, should have wrote "pro- gun control" or something along those lines.

Sorry Rip, non-membership in the DLC isn't good enough. You now have about 31 hours to come up with something better.

I have posted a lot more than just "non-membership in the DLC". As of right now, if Obama was to pull an Edwards in 2008, his Illinois voting record up to him being elected senator is good enough to use by Republicans to point out that despite his "centrist" persona, he is a liberal at heart. Now add on 4 years, a couple of voting sessions in congress where he now has to either go with his liberalism or move to the right to help his national career, which ticks off his base, or be branded at the very least a hypocrite by opponents.

The Chicago Tribune pointed out in April 2004 he is moving to the right to blunt these negatives and some are defending him as saying he is no way a liberal.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...5apr27,1,3965484.story?coll=chi-elections-utl

Barack Obama, possessing an intense devotion to social justice, arrived in the Illinois Senate in 1997 and quickly became a darling of the Democratic Party's liberal wing--a label he wore like a badge of honor into the U.S. Senate primary in March.

But after winning his party's nomination, Obama is now engaged in a timeless dance of politics: The liberal stalwart is gingerly stepping toward the political center to court swing and independent voters in the general election.

An ardent supporter of stricter gun control measures, the Hyde Park state senator voted last month to allow retired police officers to carry concealed weapons. On a radio show, he compared his political style to moderate former Republican governors Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar. And Obama's allies have been staunchly defending him against the dreaded "L" word--liberal--with Democratic U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Chicago proclaiming that Obama is nothing at all like that.

It seems the liberal moniker has become something of a millstone for Obama in his November battle with Republican Jack Ryan, whose supporters have been feverishly trying to paint the Democrat as a left-wing extremist. One, state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger (R-Elgin), went so far as to deem Obama to be "to the left of Mao Tse-tung" in a comment widely disseminated by the Ryan campaign.

Nothing wrong with moving to the center or to the right in politics, but this along with disproves the notion that he is going to be open about his liberalism in congress. It's nice for his base, but beyond that his views and voting records(Illinois and votes in congress) are going to be his biggest liabilities. That's why I'm amused by all this superstar talk and the next big deal for the Democrats, its just not there.

I know that for some in this thread are thinking how can him being a liberal be such a big deal, but in national politics, it's a huge deal.


Red Mercury brings up another point I want to expand on

I think we'll have to agree to disagree there as I don't see them running away from what could be called 'liberal' activities, just label. Personally, I think the only reason they are running from the lable is not because it won't hold up on a national level but because the Republicans have done such a good job of smearing what that word means. They've turned it into something evil and now, unfortunately, the democrats have to dance around what they really are. It's a shame that the democrats don't have as big of an echo chamber. But, that's just my personal view. So like I said, going to have to agree to disagree if that's how you feel.

The tag of Liberal would not get the stigma that it has because people keep repeating it on talk radio, there has to be actions, ideas, policies, examples that go along with it that Republicans can use to make it work, which there has been. That's why Obama is running away from it, but unfortunately for him, he is going to be held accountable by his base more so than say Hillary Clinton because they see him as their biggest liberal star. That brings me back to the black commentator articles and the quote about him not being seen as "black enough"

He has to move to the right to be a national figure, but that will just piss off his supporters who will not be as pragmatic as they were with John Kerry saying he has to say certain things to appeal to other voter groups.

 

[Dilbert]

I don't understand why Ripclawe isn't banned, given that his 48 hours are LONG over.

If you say (or imply) that someone has "skeletons in his/her closet," you mean that he/she has an undisclosed secret. That's the common -- no, the ONLY -- usage of that phrase. Further, given that the image references a dead body, the secret has to pass a certain level of scandal to truly be a "skeleton."

The only thing that Ripclawe provided as evidence is that Obama's voting record is liberal, which in Ripclawe's OPINION makes him unelectable. Letting go (for the moment) the blanket statement about the word or the set of beliefs "liberal," how does that match up against the "skeletons in the closet?" Obama's voting record is PUBLIC, not secret. Further, since when is a liberal voting record on the same par as committing a crime or having a severe personal indiscretion?

I'm sorry, but Ripclawe failed, as far as I'm concerned. It's Mandark's challenge, so I'm not going to interfere. But out of all the weak shit that Ripclawe has passed off over the years, this is among the weakest. You fucking WISH you had dirt on Obama, because ad hominem is all you know how to do.

 

[ShadowRed]

I thought he was banned.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

This guy is just what the Democratic party needs.

I'd vote for him, and I'm flagged Conservative. You get the feeling he makes decisions to work, not be popular. Pragmatism in DC is like water in the desert.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Guys, i think i've found some skeletons in the closet of a few other notable conservatives. Rumour has it that they've got a conservative voting record. Just wait 'till the public hears about THIS!

And i have a question.

Of all the potential democratic candidates for the next election, which is the _most_ liberal? We should probably get this out right now. I've got a good feeling that whichever it ends up being, the one that receives the democratic nomination will end up being deemed the "most liberal ever". Librul scum.

 

[Mandark]

I gave Ripclawe a week. He obviously didn't find so much as a femur in Obama's closet, but on the other hand, it seems entirely plausible that he believes a liberal voting record is scandal-worthy. Sheer idiocy isn't as banworthy as deliberate dishonesty, which will always work in Rip's favor.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

Why is being liberal so bad? For example, a liberal wants to save the environment from being raped and pillaged. A conservative wants to stick his dick so far up mother nature she won't be able to sit for a millenium.

I cannot fathom how people want "values" over keeping the world a good place to live. (And no, I'm not a tree-hugger it's just the best example I have right now.)