Support NeoGAF

[gkryhewy]

It's hard to interpret what you're saying, but you want more Obama lies? Like, when he said John McCain wants "another 100 years of war in Iraq?" That sort of lie? Or like when he says none of his people have talked to Canadian government officials about NAFTA, when they had?

Not at all analogous. "100 years" is taking a quote out of contest, but essentially true as a way of referencing McCain's committment to the war. The Canadian issue is so messed up on both sides that it can't be used to make any claims.

An analogous gaffe would be if Obama turned out not to actually have a white grandmother. Find one of those.

 

[mckmas8808]

IN UR FACE HILLARY!!!

 

[CoolTrick]

Where?

Over and over again. You need to do something called read. I know you have a history of needing everything utterly, blatantly spelled out for you, but you need to work a little bit on your reading comprehension and realize I've answered multiple times in the past 2 pages of this thread my thoughts about Hillary's Bosnia stuff and her experience cred. Don't accuse people of not answering if you're not willing to read. You're so annoying because you actually try and debate and then put your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA" when anyone answers you.

how do you expect to be taken seriously when you constantly refer to us with those childish names?

I say this with the utmost respect:

You're kind of, shall we say, out of the loop if you don't think I've been treated just as badly. So, really, get off this issue. Trying to point blame at who treated the other one shittily first is just annoying and we've done that.

What questions are those exactly?

That if you truly believe in the ideals that the Obama campaign spouts, why don't Obamaniacs spend their time scrutinizing their own candidate a bit more, too? Because they'd find plenty and plenty of contradictions with Obama's judgement and how he also embellishes too. Why, if you're supporting a candidate whose entire campaign is based on these things, not challenge him and check up on him to make sure he actually really IS holding himself to that standard?

 

[reilo]

Over and over again. You need to do something called read. I know you have a history of needing everything utterly, blatantly spelled out for you, but you need to work a little bit on your reading comprehension and realize I've answered multiple times in the past 2 pages of this thread my thoughts about Hillary's Bosnia stuff and her experience cred. Don't accuse people of not answering if you're not willing to read.

Love the ad-hominem. Keep it up.

Then again, you accusing others of lacking reading comprehension is the biggest joke of this thread yet.

 

[APF]

Not at all analogous. "100 years" is taking a quote out of contest, but essentially true as a way of referencing McCain's committment to the war.

It's not just taken out of context, it's almost the exact opposite of what he was trying to convey. A better point would have been if you said, this is an attack being pounced on by the Democratic party as a whole, and not just Obama, but even there Obama's people seem to take particular delight in that alleged "opening."

 

[Triumph]

Love the ad-hominem. Keep it up.

Then again, you accusing others of lacking reading comprehension is the biggest joke of this thread yet.

Personally, I liked the "double standard" thing.

 

[CoolTrick]

Then again, you accusing others of lacking reading comprehension is the biggest joke of this thread yet.

No, reilo, I'm being serious. You don't read. You constantly do this: People answer what you've posted, you ignore what their response was, and then accuse them of not having responded.

Over and over and over again.

 

[Insertia]

omg this thread is so fucking painful to read nowadays. PA can't come here soon enough

lol get out of my head. I was scrolling down the page ignoring the pointless text APF and Cooltrick continually post and started thinking to myself 'god damn PA is soooo far away'.

 

[APF]

I'm still waiting for him to show me where I said Hillary's Bosnia thing was a quote "innocent mistake" unquote.

CoolTrick: don't expect honest responses from people who are literally part of a candidate's campaign.

 

[CoolTrick]

Personally, I liked the "double standard" thing.

You still haven't answered why you think it's okay to ignore mislaps in judgement and honesty and all that jazz from the candidate who claims to have the judgement, and be honest.

 

[Hitokage]

Wow, that Gallup poll is the largest lead Obama has ever had.

 

[thekad]

CoolTrick: Just 5 minutes ago you said that though Hillary's experience* is highly fabricated, she still possesses more than Obama, so there is no argument. So why now do you question Obama's honesty and trustworthiness, claiming it exaggerated, when - by your own admission - he is more honest than Hillary. By your own logic, questions over Obama's honesty are pointless, because Hillary herself is dishonest. I sense a double standard.

 

[Lefty42o]

You still haven't answered why you think it's okay to ignore mislaps in judgement and honesty and all that jazz from the candidate who claims to have the judgement, and be honest.

casue there are none. provide us a gaffe on the level of hillary's bosnia lie. many of us obama supporters had no issues with the wright issue. obama can not b e held responsible for what others say.

but the bosnia scandal were all hillary's words.

so provide us examples so we can honestly answer your questions.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Obama rally in PA drew 22k, pretty impressive

woah! did that happen today?

 

[CoolTrick]

CoolTrick: don't expect honest responses from people who are literally part of a candidate's campaign.

I know. I'm hoping you see how I actually, ya know, respond to shit, yet the Obamaniacs just plug their ears.

 

[ralexand]

woah! did that happen today?

Looks like a security nightmare.

"He won't stand still." spoken in a hick voice, Eddie Murphy.

 

[thekad]

CoolTrick: don't expect honest responses from people who are literally part of a candidate's campaign.

Surely you're not claiming that you're unbiased.

 

[reilo]

No, reilo, I'm being serious. You don't read. You constantly do this: People answer what you've posted, you ignore what their response was, and then accuse them of not having responded.

Over and over and over again.

I don't read? You have yet to answer a single one of my points in regards to Bosnia and WHY it constitutes strong scrutiny from the media. I gave you a clear example as to WHY her statements were wrong and why she deserved every bit of negative feedback from it.

Of course, you, in all your glory, just spin it right around and say that we should attack Obama just as vigorously because in your mind, somehow, what his pastor said some odd six to seven years ago, is equal in every way, shape, or form to Clinton's Bosnia lie.

Guess what? It is not equal. It is not equal because Clinton has failed, time after time and again, to raise herself above the standard. But wait, that's okay to you because, well, she is below the standard so why scrutinize her on all the dumb shit she said? I gave you a clear example as to why Clinton's Bosnia lie is so degrading and downright wrong on so many levels.

Somehow, in the alternative reality that you live in, it's more appropriate to hammer a candidate negatively with a more pristine judgement record than the one with a laundry list of bad judgements.

It's like saying we should not scrutinize the Bush White House for all their fuck-ups in Iraq and Afghanistan and on the economy because, well, they just did not know any better.

 

[Kaeru]

jesus christ stop the fucking bickering already.

Obama leading with 52-42 in the gallup poll is what needs to be discussed!

 

[Cheebs]

CoolTrick I often sided with you with the early clinton attacks here but the fact you still attack Obama makes NO sense to me.

Once it became clear he is 100% the nominee I dropped almost all defense of Clinton. Aren't you a dem? You really should stop attacking the nominee you'll be voting for in the fall, come on.

 

[Triumph]

You still haven't answered why you think it's okay to ignore mislaps in judgement and honesty and all that jazz from the candidate who claims to have the judgement, and be honest.

I wasn't aware that I was being asked, but here goes: I think judgment in national security matters outweighs the judgment of saying factually misleading things regarding essentially meaningless crap in your personal life. If he had said something like, "I graduated from the Sorbonne in 1975 at the top of my class" it would be cause for concern. Misspeaking about the timeline of Selma re: his birth when it's blatantly obvious that any white woman open enough to shack up with a black man in the early 60's has to be attributed to new ideas of racial openness is not equivalent to repeatedly saying you ran from sniper fire in Bosnia when videotape shows you playing with a little girl on the tarmac next to your daughter. The fact that you're trying to equate the two shows how warped your view of things is.

 

[APF]

many of us obama supporters had no issues with the wright issue. obama can not b e held responsible for what others say.

Can he be held responsible for suggesting he didn't know Wright had made controversial comments, while he had multiple conversations with Wright over those controversial comments, and how he (BO) would need to distance himself from the Pastor due to those comments, before this whole controversy actually blew-up?

thekad: no, I've already openly-stated which candidate I support. I'm claiming I don't share the conflict of interest.

Triumph: the lie about Selma matters when you're speaking there trying to collect votes.

 

[Lefty42o]

CoolTrick I often sided with you with the early clinton attacks here but the fact you still attack Obama makes NO sense to me.

Once it became clear he is 100% the nominee I dropped almost all defense of Clinton. Aren't you a dem? You really should stop attacking the nominee you'll be voting for in the fall, come on.

i noticed that. did not realize you had a bigger reason behind your pivot in support. cool to know

 

[reilo]

And who has ignored Obama's mishaps? Who?

Where did any of us Obama supporters claim that what Rev. Wright said was nothing but wrong? A few? Maybe?

Did the media? HEEEEELL no.

Just look at that Gallup poll! Obama took a good hit from the Rev Wright fall-out, and guess what? As the superior candidate, he overcame it with a great 37 minute speech where he dissected the issues of race and his former pastor's comments.

But of course, you choose to ignore that and think that Obama is just getting a free ride.

 

[Particle Physicist]

CoolTrick I often sided with you with the early clinton attacks here but the fact you still attack Obama makes NO sense to me.

Once it became clear he is 100% the nominee I dropped almost all defense of Clinton. Aren't you a dem? You really should stop attacking the nominee you'll be voting for in the fall, come on.

he wont be voting for obama because he has muslim links.

 

[Lefty42o]

Can he be held responsible for suggesting he didn't know Wright had made controversial comments, while he had multiple conversations with Wright over those controversial comments, and how he (BO) would need to distance himself from the Pastor due to those comments, before this whole controversy actually blew-up?

thekad: no, I've already openly-stated which candidate I support. I'm claiming I don't share the conflict of interest.

once again i said on the level of her bosnia trip. but to defend he was talking bout his 9-11 comments and that has been known since he made those statements.

he than came out and said he heard him say other statements that might be controversial when he gave his race speech. thus reaffirming what he said about not hearing the 9-11 comments.

 

[thekad]

Can he be held responsible for suggesting he didn't know Wright had made controversial comments, while he had multiple conversations with Wright over those controversial comments, and how he (BO) would need to distance himself from the Pastor due to those comments, before this whole controversy actually blew-up?

Are you really unaware of what actually happened or are you purposely fudging the facts again?

thekad: no, I've already openly-stated which candidate I support. I'm claiming I don't share the conflict of interest.

Doesn't compute.

 

[belvedere]

The epitome of hypocrisy.

don't expect honest responses from people who are literally part of a candidate's campaign.

don't expect honest responses from people

don't expect honest responses

honest responses

honest responses

honest responses

honest responses

 

[APF]

I'm familiar with the Official Response, yes. I'm incredulous as to its veracity, and feel he was being disingenuous--or I guess a better term is "lawyerly" in that response.


belvedere: I feel that's an unwarranted attack; I've been very honest and rational in my responses here, and unless you feel you can demonstrate otherwise, kindly STFU.

 

[CoolTrick]

CoolTrick: Just 5 minutes ago you said that though Hillary's experience* is highly fabricated, she still possesses more than Obama, so there is no argument. So why now do you question Obama's honesty and trustworthiness, claiming it exaggerated, when - by your own admission - he is more honest than Hillary. By your own logic, questions over Obama's honesty are pointless, because Hillary herself is dishonest. I sense a double standard.

No, I don't think Hillary's experience is highly fabricated. I think using this Bosnia example as a way of discrediting her experience is not right, imo. Wrongfully painting a picture of the way she landed in visiting a foreign country doesn't discredit the time she's spent in politics and doing other legislative governmental things.

I think she has way more experience than Obama. Period, and even the most bare bones of comparisons would still result in her having more experience than Obama.

In answer to your question, experience and judgement have to naturally be accounted for slightly differently, particularly with these circumstances. Obama doesn't have much he can point to to back himself up in some of his core campaign ideas. For example, his "judgement" about the war in Iraq was him alligning himself with the ideals of a very anti-War district, and it was a position he didn't need to be as politically responsible for as he would've been as a Senator. (Supported by Clinton and Obama's almost identical Senate voting records.) Judgement is also an even more fickle thing than experience, because you can tangibly back up experience. That's why even if people think Hillary Clinton did absolutely nothing at all until she had to go to the Senate, the fact remains that she'd still have more experience than Obama.

But judgement, that's a different matter entirely. When you don't have much of a political resume, why is it okay for Obama to get away with minor to major lapses in judgement all the time? THAT'S a double standard that Obama's own supporters don't hold him to.

 

[Lefty42o]

No, I don't think Hillary's experience is highly fabricated. I think using this Bosnia example as a way of discrediting her experience is not right, imo. Wrongfully painting a picture of the way she landed in visiting a foreign country doesn't discredit the time she's spent in politics and doing other legislative governmental things.

I think she has way more experience than Obama. Period, and even the most bare bones of comparisons would still result in her having more experience than Obama.

In answer to your question, experience and judgement have to naturally be accounted for slightly differently, particularly with these circumstances. Obama doesn't have much he can point to to back himself up in some of his core campaign ideas. For example, his "judgement" about the war in Iraq was him alligning himself with the ideals of a very anti-War district, and it was a position he didn't need to be as politically responsible for as he would've been as a Senator. (Supported by Clinton and Obama's almost identical Senate voting records.) Judgement is also an even more fickle thing than experience, because you can tangibly back up experience. That's why even if people think Hillary Clinton did absolutely nothing at all until she had to go to the Senate, the fact remains that she'd still have more experience than Obama.

But judgement, that's a different matter entirely. When you don't have much of a political resume, why is it okay for Obama to get away with minor to major lapses in judgement all the time? THAT'S a double standard that Obama's own supporters don't hold him to.

you have yet to answer what major or minor gaffes obama has gotten away with? till you can back up your rants STFU.

 

[Hitokage]

belvedere: I feel that's an unwarranted attack; I've been very honest and rational in my responses here, and unless you feel you can demonstrate otherwise, kindly STFU.

The boy who cried troll.

 

[APF]

The boy who cried troll.

Seriously?

 

[thekad]

So you're saying he said something he didn't, even though you know full well he did not say that. Interesting.

CoolTrick: But he has better judgement than Hillary (Iraq), so questioning his judgement is meaningless. According to you.

 

[APF]

So you're saying he said something he didn't, even though you know full well he did not say that. Interesting.

I didn't say he said something he didn't--you're thinking about the Obama supporters who attacked President Clinton for daring to not mention Obama in a sentence. I'm saying it was a lawyerly response that was disingenuous and misleading.

 

[Particle Physicist]

i think this thread is ready to be nuked.

 

[Hitokage]

Seriously?

You bring this on yourself, so don't expect me to be sympathetic when you whine about it.

 

[Lefty42o]

I didn't say he said something he didn't--you're thinking about the Obama supporters who attacked President Clinton for daring to not mention Obama in a sentence. I'm saying it was a lawyerly response that was disingenuous and misleading.

:lol yeah cause clinton is old and forgot obama likes america as well. next defeats the point that he forgot them when his comments where we would get a chance to have 2 people who love their country if we have clinton and mcain. if that does not mean obama does not love his country why say it at all.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Looks like a security nightmare.

"He won't stand still." spoken in a hick voice, Eddie Murphy.

TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND PEOPLE???

That has to be wrong!

 

[APF]

You bring this on yourself, so don't expect me to be sympathetic when you whine about it.

I didn't consider that a whine, nor did I ask for your sympathy--although sure I'd be glad to have it if that's in question. I asked the poster to back up his attack or not make it in the first place.


Lefty42o: it had nothing to do with Obama. Talk about double-standards when it comes to parsing words: you're literally fabricating the notion that someone said something, while attacking me for accepting what someone actually said.

 

[thekad]

You said that Obama had conversations with Wright about the comments Obama said he had never heard. You know this to be false - or at least there is no evidence to suggest otherwise - yet said so anyway. Still interesting.

 

[XxenobladerxX]

I hope this thread doesn't get locked.

 

[CoolTrick]

CoolTrick I often sided with you with the early clinton attacks here but the fact you still attack Obama makes NO sense to me.

Once it became clear he is 100% the nominee I dropped almost all defense of Clinton. Aren't you a dem? You really should stop attacking the nominee you'll be voting for in the fall, come on.

I'm not 100% on voting for Obama in the fall.

I also can't stand the radicalism here. It's awful. It's not that I HAVE to play devil's advocate, but the sheer Obama jerk off a thon that goes on around here 24/7 has pushed me much more into Clinton's camp.

I don't read? You have yet to answer a single one of my points in regards to Bosnia and WHY it constitutes strong scrutiny from the media. I gave you a clear example as to WHY her statements were wrong and why she deserved every bit of negative feedback from it.

I did answer you. I said I felt that the underlying intent about the whole Bosnia thing doesn't really work for me because there's nothing new that's revealed there.

Clinton embellishes? No surprise. (As does Obama.)
Clinton isn't totally honest? No surprise. (Neither is Obama.)

So if they try and discredit Hillary's experience, well, I think she still has way more experience than Obama. Period. Nor does any attack of Hillary's experience make me go
"Hm, she might've embellished her experience, so let me go for the candidate who barely has a resume!"

Of course, you, in all your glory, just spin it right around and say that we should attack Obama just as vigorously because in your mind, somehow, what his pastor said some odd six to seven years ago, is equal in every way, shape, or form to Clinton's Bosnia lie.

I think the whole Bosnia thing is more of an honesty thing than an experience thing. Hillary Clinton doesn't try to portray herself as a new kind of politician. Obama does. AND one of his core campaign talking points is his judgement. When something happens that puts his judgement into question, I think that's worth talking about.

I'd say the same if Hillary Clinton proposed a policy that was just, frankly, stupid and contradicted the notion that she has a clear cut plan to get the country back on its feet.

Guess what? It is not equal. It is not equal because Clinton has failed, time after time and again, to raise herself above the standard.
But wait, that's okay to you because, well, she is below the standard so why scrutinize her on all the dumb shit she said? I gave you a clear example as to why Clinton's Bosnia lie is so degrading and downright wrong on so many levels.

This is a problem many Obama fans here seem to have: They can't look at another person's perspective.

I'm sorry you have ties to what went down in Bosnia, but for me and almost every other American, we don't have relatives who were killed in sniper fire in Bosnia. Infact, what she did not only is typical of a politician to do, Obama does it too.

That's why I keep saying what I'm saying. Obama's the one who holds himself to a higher standard, and yet, when he fails it, his supporters don't hold him accountable.

I think judgment in national security matters outweighs the judgment of saying factually misleading things regarding essentially meaningless crap in your personal life.

Okay, but then how do you explain Clinton and Obama's almost identical voting records when they have to actually be accountable for their stances? How do you answer the fact that for Obama to go out and speak against the war in Iraq at that point wasn't actually going on a political limb, when there's evidence he may not have had he actually been in the Senate?

 

[Hitokage]

I didn't consider that a whine, nor did I ask for your sympathy--although sure I'd be glad to have it if that's in question. I asked the poster to back up his attack or not make it in the first place.

I realize I got the metaphor backwards. What I meant to imply is that you do have a record of contrarianism and being disingenuous, so you shouldn't act shocked when people don't believe you when you claim you're being honest for once.

 

[Lefty42o]

I didn't consider that a whine, nor did I ask for your sympathy--although sure I'd be glad to have it if that's in question. I asked the poster to back up his attack or not make it in the first place.


Lefty42o: it had nothing to do with Obama. Talk about double-standards when it comes to parsing words: you're literally fabricating the notion that someone said something, while attacking me for accepting what someone actually said.

than what did it have to do with? i aint parsing shit. your blind.

 

[APF]

You said that Obama had conversations with Wright about the comments Obama said he had never heard. You know this to be false - or at least there is no evidence to suggest otherwise - yet said so anyway. Still interesting.

Uh, there's plenty of reportage out there, including a response from Wright affirming the truth of such conversations, that Obama was aware of Wright's sometimes controversial sermons / etc.

Lefty42o: huh? Edit for below: asked and answered. Your hypocrisy here is telling, but I expect no less from an official campaign member. smh.

Hitokage: oh, meh, can't argue with that.

 

[Lefty42o]

Uh, there's plenty of reportage out there, including a response from Wright affirming the truth of such conversations, that Obama was aware of Wright's sometimes controversial sermons / etc.

Lefty42o: huh?

you said clintons comments were not a attack on obama and his patriotism when it clearly was. thats why he left obamas name out and said we would finally get a chance to have 2 people who love this country.

your ignorance on this is telling.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Obama rally in PA drew 22k, pretty impressive

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Obama/Penn/psu-4.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Obama/Penn/psu-3.jpg

May I ask where you got these pics? I need to verify this 22k number.

 

[CoolTrick]

Considering the awful way Obama handled the Wright issue before his speech, I don't think that's the path any Obama defender wants to take. There's a ton of contraditions in what he said that are really easy to find. That's not gonna help your argument.

 

[Lefty42o]

May I ask where you got these pics? I need to verify this 22k number.

not sure about those exact pics but the rally was documented on obama's website.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/caitlinharvey/gGB5qn

Considering the awful way Obama handled the Wright issue before his speech, I don't think that's the path any Obama defender wants to take. There's a ton of contraditions in what he said that are really easy to find. That's not gonna help your argument.

than explain and lets debate those contradictions.