• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Iksenpets

Banned
Ether_Snake said:
Oh my god, try this: Hide a bit over half of the left side of the face with your hand. It's like she's just getting angrier instead of transforming into Cheney!


Even better. Cover the right side. It's like Cheney is turning into his demon form.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
This McCain economic advisor on MSNBC blinks like 100 times per minute.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
First off, the author of the editorial is not a McCain supporter. He never has been. He is a Columbia graduate who is very liberal.
articles like this doesn't help the argument that Cohen has never in the tank for McCain. no. not at all.

Cohen never claimed he was conservative, and it wasn't beyond the realm in 2000 for moderates to support McCain - hell, Cohen states it in his very column!

and what does it matter that he graduated from Columbia? afraid of higher education?

edit: beaten by GhaleonEB
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I love Matthews, but he has gone from potential Russert fill-in to an openly biased talking head. He does this thing where he tries to make cute points w/o actually holding his guests accountable that drives me nutzo.

I do like the fact that he's openly critical of the McCain campaign now, though. I just liked his even-handed from years past so much more. MSNBC lurching to the left won't make FOX go away, it will only justify their strategy.
 

devilhawk

Member
GhaleonEB said:
I haven't read many of his columns, but he's been pretty friendly to McCain in the past. Heck, this is from June, where he defends McCain's character while knocking Obama's when he backed out of public financing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301829.html


I get the sense that he really thought McCain would never stoop this low.

Also: watch Tucker Bounds get owned so hard the feed cuts out and bails him out.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/15/technical-difficulties-shut-down-damaging-mccain-interview/

Literally running from questions now?
It sounds like he was about to change the subject and take a shot at Obama. Doesn't seem like anything they haven't done before, so I doubt it necessitated the feed cutting out.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
PantherLotus said:
I love Matthews, but he has gone from potential Russert fill-in to an openly biased talking head. He does this thing where he tries to make cute points w/o actually holding his guests accountable that drives me nutzo.

I do like the fact that he's openly critical of the McCain campaign now, though. I just liked his even-handed from years past so much more. MSNBC lurching to the left won't make FOX go away, it will only justify their strategy.
Well, I gotta ask... how DOES an evenhanded person treat a campaign that shamelessly peddles outright lies rather than the usual distortions or half-truths?
 

Crayon Shinchan

Aquafina Fanboy
PantherLotus said:
I love Matthews, but he has gone from potential Russert fill-in to an openly biased talking head. He does this thing where he tries to make cute points w/o actually holding his guests accountable that drives me nutzo.

I do like the fact that he's openly critical of the McCain campaign now, though. I just liked his even-handed from years past so much more. MSNBC lurching to the left won't make FOX go away, it will only justify their strategy.

Lurching?

Shit man, all media in America is already quite far right of center. Just because Fox is on the extreme right, doesn't make a shift towards the left (i.e. the real centre) anything like duplicating Fox.

You guys may not have noticed it, but when Dems try to compromise, and Republicans don't... the 'centre' constantly gets shifted, to the point where the dems are now where conservatives used to be.

Reality... is centrist biased... but it's to the left of both positions! It's ridiculous (how we've all let ourselves arrive at this point!)
 
It's really starting to look like the McCain campaign went too far with their negative Ads and media bashing. Pretty much everyone acknowledges there is a back-lash in the media right now. The question though is will it filter down to the public.

I really think Palin is one gaffe away from imploding. Her ABC interview was mediocre at best. The drip drip of negative stories about her past from the media is now becoming a steady drumbeat. The highly praised (and replayed) SNL sketch basically made her look like a joke. I don't think Palin can afford any slip-ups between now and the VP debates.

McCain isn't doing much better either. Ever since he walked into the land mine that was The View, he's had a disastrous few days. It seems he may have used up all of his "honorable" political capital with the last wave of negative ads. He's in real danger of appearing just like another lying POS politician.

I gotta give credit to Joe Scars. Scars warned the McCain campaign a couple of weeks ago about picking a fight with the media. Sure the conservative base will always have contempt for the media but there's still a lot of people in the middle who aren't as distrustful toward the media. You know things are bad when even Karl Rove has trouble defending McCain's Ads.
 
speculawyer said:
It is a total flip-flop in a single statement.

McCain: "My friends, the fundamentals of our economy our sound . . . but we are going through some tough times."

Well which is it Captain Waffle?
"I'm on your side"/Hellboy. You are charmingly abrasive. I like you.

Rather than abuse the quote function--Its effective in that it turns Obama's message into a pessimistic one. I'm not talking about my own reaction, I'm trying to suss out how a certain group of voters might perceive that message. (In other words, consciously trying not to think logically) Do they feel the sting when bad things happen on Wall Street or is it "them city boys getting their come-uppance"? Maybe some of these undecided voters dont want to believe the worst because it might hurt their pride.

Anyway if this post makes no sense at all I'll just say its late.
 
No offense NeoGAF, but is there a more bipartisan, center-focused forum that I can visit and read up on? I'm a far left Dem, but sometimes I get overwhelmed by the "enthusiasm" to be had here.

Aside from that, what gaffe did Biden make earlier thats become such big news?
 

MaddenNFL64

Member
I have noticed Campbell Brown & CNN getting some balls today. Lou Dobbs hates every human being who ever existed, so thats still the same.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I think the Obama camp should push for renewable energy inniciatives in their campaign by focusing on the message that it will lead to more money in people's pockets, and that we can't wait for a crossing of unfortunate events for this to become a priority (economical downturn+drop in supply due to hurricanes or war for example).
 

maynerd

Banned
The Abominable Snowman said:
No offense NeoGAF, but is there a more bipartisan, center-focused forum that I can visit and read up on? I'm a far left Dem, but sometimes I get overwhelmed by the "enthusiasm" to be had here.

Aside from that, what gaffe did Bidem make earlier thats become such big news?

50408yv.jpg
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
GhaleonEB said:
I haven't read many of his columns, but he's been pretty friendly to McCain in the past. Heck, this is from June, where he defends McCain's character while knocking Obama's when he backed out of public financing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301829.html


I get the sense that he really thought McCain would never stoop this low.

Also: watch Tucker Bounds get owned so hard the feed cuts out and bails him out.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/15/technical-difficulties-shut-down-damaging-mccain-interview/

Literally running from questions now?

That Tucker guy is a really poor spokesman, and it's the second time he gets owned by a hot female reporter!
 

MaddenNFL64

Member
The Abominable Snowman said:
No offense NeoGAF, but is there a more bipartisan, center-focused forum that I can visit and read up on? I'm a far left Dem, but sometimes I get overwhelmed by the "enthusiasm" to be had here.

Aside from that, what gaffe did Bidem make earlier thats become such big news?

Youtube comments are ideologically varied. You get both sides there. Check out a political vid, and enjoy the discourse.
 

devilhawk

Member
scorcho said:
articles like this doesn't help the argument that Cohen has never in the tank for McCain. no. not at all.

Cohen never claimed he was conservative, and it wasn't beyond the realm in 2000 for moderates to support McCain - hell, Cohen states it in his very column!

and what does it matter that he graduated from Columbia? afraid of higher education?

edit: beaten by GhaleonEB
Him and Obama are both alums of Columbia, though that means little. The article you both linked I had read beforehand. It doesn't even praise McCain other than the undeniable aspects of his military service. If this is the highest level of support he has given to McCain, then it furthers my point in that he isn't the definitive example or proof of media supporters turning against McCain.

I just don't think editorials should be taken as fact so quickly. I find it hard to agree with a guy's view when his only apparent proof of ever supporting a candidate is in the same paragraph where he states he no longer does.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Cohen's article (which I know without even clicking the link, it is so burned into my brain) doesn't just recount the facts of McCain's record. It imputes him with some sort of reliable ethical guidelines as a politician because of his experience as a POW, while saying that Obama doesn't have anything similar.

The larger point is that Cohen is a huge goddam dingus and shouldn't be taken seriously, except as a weathervane for what certain DC media elites are thinking.

He was basically the first person to demand that Obama make a statement against Farrakhan, despite having no direct connections with him. Richard Cohen is a very silly man.
 
Guts Of Thor said:

Did you or the author of the article watch the entire interview played on 20/20.. cause I don't know if any of that stuff was edited. I remember most of it. On top of that, the stuff that was edited out was classic "ooooo, I don't know the answer to this essay question... better talk for a while and seem like I do". I mean saying russia/georgia was unprovoked and following that up with how unfortunate it is and how Georgia is a democratic nation doesn't really show any more knowledge on the issue. Actually show a bit of her ignorance on it.
 

Guts Of Thor

Thorax of Odin
Byakuya769 said:
Did you or the author of the article watch the entire interview played on 20/20.. cause I don't know if any of that stuff was edited. I remember most of it. On top of that, the stuff that was edited out was classic "ooooo, I don't know the answer to this essay question... better talk for a while and seem like I do". I mean saying russia/georgia was unprovoked and following that up with how unfortunate it is and how Georgia is a democratic nation doesn't really show any more knowledge on the issue. Actually show a bit of her ignorance on it.

I agree with you, I just thought it was funny.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
devilhawk said:
I just don't think editorials should be taken as fact so quickly.
They are not fact, they are opinion.
I find it hard to agree with a guy's view when his only apparent proof of ever supporting a candidate is in the same paragraph where he states he no longer does.
Um, the other column was from June.

Regardless, today's column was a concise indictment of McCain's character, irrespective of the author's history with McCain.
 
Guts Of Thor said:
I agree with you, I just thought it was funny.

Haha, my bad.. didn't know if you were a CG bomb thrower (cognitive dissonance), some like to come here from time to time and post a crap story while giggling.
 
Guts Of Thor said:

I'm too lazy to do a count-counter point tonight on this interview and no one is more wary of media manipulation than I am but all non-live interviews are generally edited in some form or fashion.

They general aim is lopping off redundancy, evasion, and spin and get to the meat of the question and the meat of the answer and get in as many questions and answers as possible.

For example here was the question about the head of state.
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?


PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

All the bolded is cut because its not overly relevant to establishing anything.
 
Rapping Granny said:


What? Pro-choice/pro-life positions are basically irrelivant. Most presidents are pro-life but it doesn't matter. Abortions aren't going to become magically illegal because the president is pro-life. Bush is pro-life and abortions are still legal. It takes 2/3rds of congress to be against abortion for that to happen and since democrats control the house right now...it doesn't matter that Palin is pro-life, anti-safe sex. The 1st trimester abortions are here to stay for a long long time.
 

Jak140

Member
perfectchaos007 said:
What? Pro-choice/pro-life positions are basically irrelivant. Most presidents are pro-life but it doesn't matter. Abortions aren't going to become magically illegal because the president is pro-life. Bush is pro-life and abortions are still legal. It takes 2/3rds of congress to be against abortion for that to happen and since democrats control the house right now...it doesn't matter that Palin is pro-life, anti-safe sex. The 1st trimester abortions are here to stay for a long long time.

Supreme court appointees.
 
AndyIsTheMoney said:
yeah bristol had a choice, that girl had a choice...i guess the only one without a choice is the baby
This kind of attempt to guilt trip really doesn't work coming from people that drop bombs on brown people at the drop of a hat.
 
The Abominable Snowman said:
No offense NeoGAF, but is there a more bipartisan, center-focused forum that I can visit and read up on? I'm a far left Dem, but sometimes I get overwhelmed by the "enthusiasm" to be had here.

Aside from that, what gaffe did Biden make earlier thats become such big news?
ENTHUSIASM = BAD

When people like something a whole lot, that can't be good amirite guys
 

Jak140

Member
AndyIsTheMoney said:
yeah bristol had a choice, that girl had a choice...i guess the only one without a choice is the baby
Can I ask you an honest question?

Over 20% of all minors in the United States live in poverty. In addition, our education system is in shambles and we have the worst infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. Outlawing abortion would bring even more unwanted and uncared for children into the US.

Which is the greater sin, stopping some cells from multiplying or allowing hundreds of thousands of children to starve in our own country every year? Why force women to bring even more children into poverty when we can't even care for the ones we've already got? To me, that is true immorality.
 

Jak140

Member
avatar299 said:
because our present conservative SC loves abortion. That's why it's still legal.
Right now the court is split about evenly between liberal and conservative judges. The next two judges to retire within the next 4-8 years will likely be liberal. As soon as they are replaced, it is very possible that Roe v. Wade could be in danger of being overturned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom