mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Pee Dee really does try to hard. Why all of a sudden is it a problem to look at people's connections now?
-
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 Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)
- Thread starter Rur0ni
- Start date
- Status
I think you literally have to be living on another plane of existence to see President Clinton's words as "questioning Obama's patriotism" or "McCarthyite" in any way shape or form.
But lets see, is there a candidate who "questions" people's patriotism? I mean, can we come up with an example of a candidate who literally questioned people's patriotism for something as foolish as their fashion sense? for daring to want to represent their flag and country? Glass houses, guys.
But lets see, is there a candidate who "questions" people's patriotism? I mean, can we come up with an example of a candidate who literally questioned people's patriotism for something as foolish as their fashion sense? for daring to want to represent their flag and country? Glass houses, guys.
Star Power
Member
Uh, how were his words not questioning Obama's patroitism? He deliberately left Obama's name out and said Hillary and McCain would be two candidates "who love their country"... can you get any more blunt than that? I think a lot of what Pres. Clinton has said over the course of this campaign has been taken out of context and blown out of proportion and mischaracterized, but this one is pretty cut and dry.
Star Power
Member
Uh... alright then.
Star Power
Member
And you don't think he deliberately left Obama's name out when talking about candidates "who love their country"? Or are you just being really obtuse?
Frank the Great
Banned
why do people still fall for APF's obviously baiting posts?
Star Power
Member
I try to take the guy at face value and not assume that he's trolling, though it's getting harder and harder to take him seriously.
Frank the Great
Banned
Star Power said:
he IS trolling, and should not be taken seriously or at face value.
there, i just saved you a bunch of time <3
Star Power
Member
Where did I say that I agreed with McPeak's McCarthyism comment? It was obviously hyperbolic. It is also obvious that Clinton deliberately left out Obama's name as a slight on his patriotism.
President Clinton says, "gee I'd like to see my wife run against McCain and have an issues-based campaign," and the Obama team screams because he's not mentioned. It's the most pathetic drama-queen wannabe counterattack they've made in this campaign. Calling The President's words "McCarthyite" is almost worse IMO than when they suggested Hillary was responsible for the Bhutto assassination.
Edit: if you honestly believe Obama needs to be mentioned in every single comment a person makes about politics and the Presidency in this country, you are beyond intellectual reach.
Edit: if you honestly believe Obama needs to be mentioned in every single comment a person makes about politics and the Presidency in this country, you are beyond intellectual reach.
oh. my. god.
http://donklephant.com/2008/03/23/raining-mccain/
http://donklephant.com/2008/03/23/raining-mccain/
maximum360
Member
Bill is quite skilled at what he does. If Hillary had mre people like Bill running her campaign she might be in a very different position right now. Bill very strategically takes suble jabs at Obama indirectly. It's always a win for him. He can get off by saying he never said such a thing specifically. The media then picks up on it and questions the motivies behind the response. If Obama's camp reacts, they're pulled into the fray and thus begins the "distractions" Bill painfully tries to avoid.
This is nothing new. When Bill used direct attacks earlier they backfired so they strategically went to this form of attack on Obama. I think it does accomplish something. The media plays the comments over and over again while discussing what they think are Bill's motives. What gets ingrained in peoples minds after hearing it constantly is that Hillary and McCain are patriots who love their country. An ommission of this in reference to Obama is a negative to Obama because alongside this the pundits are discussing whether Bill thinks Obama is patriotic and quite possibly raising doubts in the minds of people.
At this point though I'm not sure what it can accomplish besides making Obama damaged-goods for the GE.
This is nothing new. When Bill used direct attacks earlier they backfired so they strategically went to this form of attack on Obama. I think it does accomplish something. The media plays the comments over and over again while discussing what they think are Bill's motives. What gets ingrained in peoples minds after hearing it constantly is that Hillary and McCain are patriots who love their country. An ommission of this in reference to Obama is a negative to Obama because alongside this the pundits are discussing whether Bill thinks Obama is patriotic and quite possibly raising doubts in the minds of people.
At this point though I'm not sure what it can accomplish besides making Obama damaged-goods for the GE.
Obama's church continues hate on Easter Sunday.
WHEN WILL THIS RADICAL CONGREGATION STOP HATING AMERICA!??!Rev. Moss said:
APF said:
there's two things here
is his comments "McCarthyite" and are they "questioning Obama's patriotism."
It's not McCarthyite. It does, however, imply that somehow Obama does not love his country. Which is, in turn, questioning his patriotism. There's no other feasible explanation whatsoever, and intentionally trying to act like people are attacking you because you are being dense on this subject does not give you the right to continue to bait. You don't have to be a sarcastic, ineffectual asshat at every turn merely because you think there's a lot of "messiah worship" going on about Obama.
But no, Bill Clinton's words were innocent! Yes, he did not imply anything at all in them! Give everyone here a motherfucking break for once. Yes, sometimes omitting things in extremely specific and high profile ways DOES FUCKING SAY SOMETHING. Jesus christ almighty.
He said when refering to a Clinton McCain general election:APF said:
I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country
Seeing as how the only other possibility would involve Obama running how is he not implying that Obama doesn't love his country?
quietcrown
Member
The issue isn't so much that clinton didn't mention Obama. It's that he singled out as the characteristic feature of a Clinton-McCain race the fact that it would be between two people who love their country. That fact wouldn't be the defining feature of such a race if he felt it would also apply to an Obama-McCain situation. Unless you're someone completely unable to read the implicature in what people say, It's a bit more complex than 'OMG HE DIDN'T MENTION OBAMA'.
Oh, are they glorifying the torture of a white guy again? Typical radical congregation. Oh wait, he's a Jew? Seriously? Tsk tsk.Triumph said:
Edit: you guys are seriously off the deep end on this one. How is his comment anything more than trying to place his wife on the same plane as McCain, a war hero?
No, I meant my response was baiting.Triumph said:
Amir0x: his comment had literally nothing to do with Obama. What this reveals is how paranoid the Obama camp is about being called unpatriotic--despite, as I've mentioned before, the fact that Obama himself isn't above questioning people's patriotism for even frivolous matters.
Beer Monkey
Member
APF said:
Even if it's not questioning Obama's patriotism, it's yet another soundbite that McCain can use in the campaign for the general. It's an idiotic statement.
Let us have a simple mathematical equation.
We have three candidates. C = Candidates
Two love their country and would tackle the issues without these "other things." L = Candidates who don't love their country/tackle the issues with "other things"
Answer will be B, amount of people left who would love their country and talk about the issues without "other things" if they ran for president.
C - L = B
C = 3 L = 1
C(3) - L(1) = 2(B)
This is so complicated. Let's find a way to make it more complicated.
We have three candidates. C = Candidates
Two love their country and would tackle the issues without these "other things." L = Candidates who don't love their country/tackle the issues with "other things"
Answer will be B, amount of people left who would love their country and talk about the issues without "other things" if they ran for president.
C - L = B
C = 3 L = 1
C(3) - L(1) = 2(B)
This is so complicated. Let's find a way to make it more complicated.
This reminds me of the so-called "controversy" over Hillary saying Obama wasn't Muslim. Sometimes people want to be attacked, and this is just another example.
Amir0x: you're right, it's not complicated at all. Daring to not mention His Holiness is basically a crime against humanity.
Amir0x: you're right, it's not complicated at all. Daring to not mention His Holiness is basically a crime against humanity.
I'm sorry to put this in such sarcastic terms, but I honestly think people are completely off the deep end on this one
I find it semi-ironic that your main line of attack against Obama always comes in the form of sarcasm, a language tool that employs subtle tonal variations to imply the opposite of what is actually said, but you seemingly cannot comprehend the very clear implications of huge omissions during speeches or nuanced intent during answers.
I mean really APF, you cannot possibly think Bill Clinton said that McCain and Hillary love their country and leaving Obama off this list of candidates who love their country was accidental. If you do, I'm sorry, you really must think Bill Clinton is a complete fucking idiot.
I mean really APF, you cannot possibly think Bill Clinton said that McCain and Hillary love their country and leaving Obama off this list of candidates who love their country was accidental. If you do, I'm sorry, you really must think Bill Clinton is a complete fucking idiot.
quietcrown
Member
Mmmkay, let's divorce the logic of what being said from the context. If I have a choice of two situations, A & B, and I say 'Situation A would be good because it would mean Y', doesn't this clearly indicate that situation B would mean not Y i.e B -> ¬y? When we're looking to compare two things, we can only do so based on differentials between the two. And regardless of all this, if Clinton genuinely believed that all 3 candidates love their country and if he had no interest in indicating that that wasn't the case, he simply wouldn't have had any reason for saying what he said.
I'm thinking there are two things at work here: first, the Obama campaign wants to capitalize on the paranoia that Democrats are tagged as "unpatriotic" by the right-wing, primarily in conjunction with their (Dems) opposition to the Iraq war (this is a winning issue for Obama, in terms of Dem support); second is the Obama campaign capitalizing on their supporters' relative ignorance of campaigns speaking with a tone of inevitability as to their candidates' chances, be it in terms of winning a party nomination, or the Presidency as a whole.
Really, what it comes down to is the fact that the Obama campaign wants you to believe in the truthyness of a begged question: the Clintons are conniving scheming people who use subtle non-words to insinuate unspoken meanings because they're conniving scheming people who would do this sort of thing. Sorry, no. This is manufactured outrage on the part of the Obama campaign that has even honest Obama supporters like Richardson and (ugh) Andrew Sullivan scratching their heads.
quietcrown: no, your logic is flawed there.
Really, what it comes down to is the fact that the Obama campaign wants you to believe in the truthyness of a begged question: the Clintons are conniving scheming people who use subtle non-words to insinuate unspoken meanings because they're conniving scheming people who would do this sort of thing. Sorry, no. This is manufactured outrage on the part of the Obama campaign that has even honest Obama supporters like Richardson and (ugh) Andrew Sullivan scratching their heads.
quietcrown: no, your logic is flawed there.
APF said:
The point was that the intention was veiled regardless of whether he mentioned his name or not.
So, someone as calculated as that just happens to mention two of the three candidates currently running and conveniently leaves out the one running against his wife... To say that it's not intentional and not a dig at the left out candidate is absurd.
Your distaste in Obamaniacs has made you just as delusional as they can be.
While I doubt it was his intention as he should know by now him attacking Obama is not something that would be beneficial for her campaign, do you truly believe you would have to be "living on another plane of existence" to think his comment was an effort to draw attention to the issue of patriotism? It can clearly be interpreted that way and considering the timing, it's not entirely unreasonable line of thought. Chuck Todd, for one, immediately pointed out the possibility, even before the mock outrage from Obama camp.
quietcrown
Member
It's not logically valid in a strict mathematical sense, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with an understanding of how language and human reasoning works. The fact remains that there's simply no reason for Clinton to have said what he said if he hadn't meant to imply what people think he's implying.
There are only two possible situations for the coming election and, as such, it's pretty clear anything you say about one in particular is going to be cast as a comparison between the two. It's absurd to suggest Clinton doesn't realise this.
There are only two possible situations for the coming election and, as such, it's pretty clear anything you say about one in particular is going to be cast as a comparison between the two. It's absurd to suggest Clinton doesn't realise this.
Bill Clinton meant no harm I think.
Bill never speaks from notecard or prepared speechs like Obama and Hillary do. It's always 100% off the cuff and different wherever he is. Due to this comments that can be seen as implying something bad pop up since he never combs through what he will say for anything that might not be seen to be so good.
Bill Clinton is a brilliant politican, he would never make such a rookie mistake willingly.
Bill never speaks from notecard or prepared speechs like Obama and Hillary do. It's always 100% off the cuff and different wherever he is. Due to this comments that can be seen as implying something bad pop up since he never combs through what he will say for anything that might not be seen to be so good.
Bill Clinton is a brilliant politican, he would never make such a rookie mistake willingly.
Amir0x said:
I argued that same shit with him in a previous thread. He wants us all to take him seriously with his points by throwing out a bunch of sarcastically filled rhetoric that follows no logic, and then when shit like this comes down, he fails to comprehend a simple progression of logic.
Bill called McCain and Hillary two people that love their country when discussing all three presidential candidates. Implication is that Obama does not love his country. Ergo, this questions Obama's patriotism.
Q-E-MOTHERFUCKING-D
To not see this as a good example of the almost cluelessly-arrogant sense of entitlement that's been the hallmark of the Clintons and Hillary's campaign is more an indictment against the ignorance (in the political / historical sense) of Obama's supporters than any directly-indirect slam on the part of the former President. Even people who are total Obama Kool-Aid drinkers are again scratching their heads over this manufactured outrage. The fact that people here can't even admit their campaign might have overreached in this one single solitary instance doesn't bode well for their credibility when attacking my level of objectivity.
Could you and your on-hand thesaurus please just give us a fucking break? You rarely put fourth any worthwhile arguments, your main stint revolves around labeling Obama and his supporters as some Jim Jones-esque political cult. I'm sure I am not alone when I say it's getting quite old.
maximum360
Member
CNN claims they're going to play the whole clip (probably just one) from Rev. Wright in the next few minutes. Reactions to this should be interesting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked