Support NeoGAF

[CoolTrick]

I'm sure the Obama zealots will again ignore it.

Example A: reilo. First sentence that he disagreed with, a sentence totally unrelated to the rest of the article, and he passed on it. And he's exactly the kind of person in this group: "The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that "of course" Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the "redneck states" and that once in the White House he will revert to his "true beliefs".

 

[CoolTrick]

I'm sorry, but were you just talking to yourself?

Oh, no, let me be clear, sorry if it wasn't, that I was talking to you.

 

[reilo]

Example A: reilo. First sentence that he disagreed with, a sentence totally unrelated to the rest of the article, and he passed on it. And he's exactly the kind of person in this group: "The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that "of course" Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the "redneck states" and that once in the White House he will revert to his "true beliefs".

Find a single post in this thread where I have agreed with Obama on the FISA issue?

Go ahead, I'll wait.

CoolTrick
A Logical Fallacy Since Inception

 

[CoolTrick]

To dearest reilo who thinks that Obama has a good chance of winning the south, here you go, here is the article without that aformented offending line:

Dominic Lawson: Meet the new Obama, master of the U-turn

Some of those most captivated by the Democrat candidate are now feeling distinctly queasy

"I find comfort in the fact that the longer I'm in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience."


Thus spake Barack Obama. These words appear at the conclusion of the chapter entitled "Politics" in Obama's 2006 book The Audacity of Hope. They also sum up much of what we now know about Obama: a man of stunning articulacy, but also stunning self-regard.

Both characteristics have been indispensable in powering the first-term Illinois senator to the very brink of the presidency. Now, however, some of those who were most captivated by Obama's perorations about his unflinching conscience are feeling distinctly queasy: in the brief weeks since Hillary Clinton conceded, he has made them wonder what, actually, distinguishes his politics from those of the Clintons at their most ruthlessly pragmatic.

Within days of the end of the primary campaign, Obama pledged to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he would ensure that Jerusalem would remain "the undivided capital of Israel". Even George Bush had never made such a commitment, so Obama's remarks were criticised not just by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but by the State Department itself, as prejudging complex negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Obama, however, had achieved his domestic objective – he could no longer be labelled by the Republicans as "anti-Israel"

Then, on 19 June, Obama declared that he would opt out of the regulated public campaign financing system, becoming the first presidential candidate since Richard Nixon to choose to raise unlimited private funds, instead. The reason is obvious: he is now raising vastly more than the Republican John McCain, who is committed to taking public funds. The trouble is that Obama had pledged, in writing, that he would remain within the public system, if his opponent did so.

As I say, it's an understandable volte-face: but equally understandable is the reaction of McCain's spokesman: "What's becoming clear in this campaign is that for Senator Obama the most important issue in the election is the political fortunes of Senator Obama. He has demonstrated that there really is no position he holds that isn't subject to change depending on how he calculates it will affect his political fortunes."

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Except that now some Democrats are saying the same thing, after Obama reneged on another promise, over a matter of genuine constitutional substance. During the long-drawn-out Democrat primary campaign, Obama had constantly reiterated his opposition to President Bush's plans to give retroactive immunity from prosecution to telecommunications companies who assist the government with warrantless wiretaps. This measure was passionately opposed by many Democrats as a clear infringement of the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Last week, Obama reversed his long-held position. Again, the political motivation is clear enough.

One of the few areas in which McCain has a significant poll lead over Obama is that described as "the war against terror". Doubtless, had Obama not performed this sinuous U-turn, then the Republicans would have used his opposition to Bush's legislation as a way of driving home the point. The unresolved issue, however, is this: did Barack Obama really believe the measure was unconstitutional when he opposed it? And if so, is everything negotiable?

Most recently of all, Obama, who up until now had openly backed the strict handgun ban in Washington DC, last week declared his support for a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling which overturned the restrictions. Even though his own hometown mayor, Chicago's Richard Daley, and the Los Angeles police chief William Bratton, both criticised the ruling, Obama flip-flopped once more, saying that the judgment "reinforces that if we act responsibly we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Once again, Obama's 180-degree turn is eminently understandable, from an electoral point of view. There are more than 280 million privately owned firearms in the United States and almost half of American households own at least one such weapon. That was why John Kerry, during the last US presidential election, invited the cameras to film him (looking slightly ridiculous) shooting ducks. For Barack Obama, this had become a particular point of weakness, after his unfortunate taped remarks to a dinner of sophisticated San Francisco Democrats about "bitter" Americans who "cling to guns or religion ... as a way to explain their frustrations."

On the other hand, last week Barack Obama also took issue with a different judgment by the Supreme Court, which had struck down the State of Louisiana's law authorising the death penalty for the rape of a child. Obama, who as Illinois senator had opposed the death penalty for gang murders, now explained that he believes Louisiana's death penalty for a crime short of murder "is at least potentially applicable and does not violate our constitution".

It is fascinating, in the light of this particular manoeuvre, to turn again to The Audacity of Hope, and in particular the passage in which Obama describes as "frighteningly cold-hearted" Bill Clinton's decision to "allow the execution of a mentally retarded death row inmate to go forward on the eve of an important primary."

Those in the Democrat party who supported Hillary Clinton's campaign seem to be taking a certain bleak pleasure in Obama's recent triangulations – or rather headlong plunge into Republican territory. One such is the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who put the knife in most elegantly: "Progressive activists during the Democratic primary... convinced themselves that Obama was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade. They may have had it backward."

Those who actually supported Obama during this process now divide neatly, if unevenly, into two groups. The first, smaller, group is full of buyer's remorse. The blogosphere is hissing like a catherine wheel with their anger with Obama, obviously, but above all with themselves. The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that "of course" Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the "redneck states" and that once in the White House he will revert to his "true beliefs".

To this group we must address a simple question. How do you know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny – and, of course, his conscience?

 

[reilo]

To dearest reilo who thinks that Obama has a good chance of winning the south, here you go, here is the article without that aformented offending line:

Will you stop with the straw men? Where have I said Obama has a shot at winning the south?

You really aren't this dumb, are you?

 

[scorcho]

Obama's going to take the south? all of it?

who thought that Cooltrick?

 

[Tamanon]

Obama's going to take the south? all of it?

who thought that Cooltrick?

The Left obviously.

 

[reilo]

Obama's going to take the south? all of it?

who thought that Cooltrick?

Me, apparently. And according to CoolTrick, I also unequivocally supported Obama on his FISA stance.

CoolTrick apparently knows me better than I know myself.

 

[bob_arctor]

i fail to see the lion share of Obama supporters being this mythical creation CoolTrick purports. there's been a fair number of uneasy discussion between libuurls and left-leaners over Obama's shuffle to the center, which is in plain view over the interwebs.

have fun with the straw mans cooltrick, and welcome back!

This.

 

[WickedAngel]

More fear mongering and questioning about how you know what he really believes in? More use of the term "flip flopping" from the right, of all sides?

How about we all acknowledge the fact that we never truly know what anyone believes in and just be done with it? Nobody here can read minds.

 

[scorcho]

The Left obviously.

 

[User 10639]

Obama's going to take the south? all of it?

+1 vote in Louisiana right here, bitches

 

[CoolTrick]

I didn't say that the majority of Obama supporters blindly follow him.

I said I posted this here because, PARTICULARLY during the primaries (when reilo posted his "Obama can win Louisiana and Mississippi" comment), there are still plenty of people here that think that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that "of course" Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the "redneck states" and that once in the White House he will revert to his "true beliefs".

More fear mongering and questioning about how you know what he really believes in?

Ohhhhh, so questioning where a politician really stands on the issues is now fear-mongering!

 

[scorcho]

that was quick

 

[Amir0x]

Jesus christ you are beyond freaking annoying. That is not REMOTELY the point of the article, that was but a single LINE, and if you'd stop being an immature douche for one second and READ you'd stop spewing such statements out of your ass.

Screech. There goes the tires on this bus.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Karma Kramer]

:lol

 

[reilo]

So, wait, Obama having a shot at LA and MS is me saying "Obama will win all of the south"??

:lol

Good god.

Latest Mississippi poll has Obama 6pts behind McCain.

Clinton won LA both times he ran for office. First time by 5%, the second by 11%.

But of course, continue with the logical fallacies.

Screech. There goes the tires on this bus.

This is why we can't have nice things.

lol.

 

[terrene]

:lol

Love those meltdowns where it's one dude vs. the entire thread. Good stuff.

 

[PhoenixDark]

:lol

Love those meltdowns where it's one dude vs. the entire thread. Good stuff.

Yup it's pretty awesome

 

[WickedAngel]

:lol

Love those meltdowns where it's one dude vs. the entire thread. Good stuff.

You know, I wouldn't even care if he came in here and posted some honest questions. Instead, he calls everyone zealots, trolls, acts offended/surprised when people respond poorly, and gets banned.

It's obnoxious, boring, and entirely predictable. Response upon response full of straw-mans and angst at the realization that the Republicans have launched the weakest candidate in two decades and that they're going to lose.

 

[reilo]

You know, I wouldn't even care if he came in here and posted some honest questions. Instead, he calls everyone zealots, trolls, acts offended/surprised when people respond poorly, and gets banned.

It's obnoxious, boring, and entirely predictable. Response upon response full of straw-mans and angst at the realization that the Republicans have launched the weakest candidate in two decades and that they're going to lose.

Obama will win every single state!*

- reilo

*

Spoiler

May or may not be actual belief.

 

[Amir0x]

i wanted to have a legitimate discussion with him but he's all fire and brimstone and insults and OBAMAGAFARGHHH@

maybe one day he'll see it's always just him being silly that gets the thread against him

 

[WickedAngel]

Obama will win every single state!*

- reilo

*

Spoiler

May or may not be actual belief.

:lol

Zealot!

 

[bob_arctor]

People like CT and sd remind me of Homer wishing he'd die after Marge, Bart & Lisa head to Flanders' BBQ only so he can laugh at them from his grave for neglecting him.

Do they secretly acknowledge a very possible Obama win in hopes of witnessing epic fail? Or do they just want no part of him in the White House? Either way Lisa really needs to explain the concepts of Schadenfreude & sour grapes to them.

 

[VanMardigan]

As a conservative, I'm thrilled about Obama's faith based initiative push. I knew it wouldn't sit well with atheist-gaf, but are we really questioning whether Obama is sincere in his faith? I hope not.

 

[terrene]

You know, I wouldn't even care if he came in here and posted some honest questions. Instead, he calls everyone zealots, trolls, acts offended/surprised when people respond poorly, and gets banned.

It's obnoxious, boring, and entirely predictable. Response upon response full of straw-mans and angst at the realization that the Republicans have launched the weakest candidate in two decades and that they're going to lose.

I don't know I'm more conflicted about it. For one thing, he's totally entitled to call GAF an Obama echo chamber if he feels that way. And in many cases he is trying to substantiate his shit, AND whatever it is he thinks he's doing, it's quite entertaining to watch.

But in truth it derails the thread so totally and completely that it becomes pretty obvious that a ban is in order. Better luck next time, CoolTrick. Stay gold.

 

[WickedAngel]

People like CT and sd remind me of Homer wishing he'd die after Marge, Bart & Lisa head to Flanders' BBQ only so he can laugh at them from his grave for neglecting him.

Do they secretly acknowledge a very possible Obama win in hopes of witnessing epic fail? Or do they just want no part of him in the White House? Either way Lisa really needs to explain the concepts of Schadenfreude & sour grapes to them.

I can sum up the entire first term of an Obama presidency (From their eyes) in four pictures. Mind you, they will think these things no matter what he does.

 

[User 10639]

As a conservative, I'm thrilled about Obama's faith based initiative push. I knew it wouldn't sit well with atheist-gaf, but are we really questioning whether Obama is sincere in his faith? I hope not.

The concern, I assume, was over whether Obama would provide funding to groups that discriminated based on religion in hiring practices (he won't, AP is dumb) or provide funding for the purpose of or with the effect of proselytizing (also no go, IIRC.)

 

[mckmas8808]

As a conservative, I'm thrilled about Obama's faith based initiative push. I knew it wouldn't sit well with atheist-gaf, but are we really questioning whether Obama is sincere in his faith? I hope not.

To be honest some here at GAF do. They believe that he is doing it for the votes.

 

[The Librarian]

CoolTrick.:lol :lol

 

[mckmas8808]

I can sum up the entire first term of an Obama presidency (From their eyes) in four pictures. Mind you, they will think these things no matter what he does.

What does the house mean?

 

[VanMardigan]

To be honest some here at GAF do. They believe that he is doing it for the votes.

Which is absolutely absurd. A small group wonder how someone so bright, so open minded, actually believe in God and Jesus Christ as His Son and our Savior?!?!?!? :lol

I'm not going to generalize, but Obama is clearly the most religious presidential candidate, and I see no reason to question his faith. He's been going to Church regularly for over a decade, LONG before he could even dream of being a presidential frontrunner.

 

[reilo]

Which is absolutely absurd. A small group wonder how someone so bright, so open minded, actually believe in God and Jesus Christ as His Son and our Savior?!?!?!? :lol

I'm not going to generalize, but Obama is clearly the most religious presidential candidate, and I see no reason to question his faith. He's been going to Church regularly for over a decade, LONG before he could even dream of being a presidential frontrunner.

He only went to church for 20 years to hide that he is a muslim so he can run for the presidency for over 20 years and bring the entire nation down, durr.

 

[Particle Physicist]

To dearest reilo who thinks that Obama has a good chance of winning the south, here you go, here is the article without that aformented offending line:

arent you supposed to be a democrat? you voting mccain now?

(im not saying he will win the south. im referring to you attacking fellow democrats now.)

 

[User 10639]

I'm not going to generalize, but Obama is clearly the most religious presidential candidate

Shouldn't matter, tbh. I don't have a problem with candidates being religious (if I did, I'd be screwed :lol) but I sometimes wish they didn't turn it into a "who loves Jesus more" contest. Honestly, they could do better by actually listening to JC and implementing some of his ideas as policies, but perhaps it's too much to ask.

What does the house mean?

Black? Black house?

 

[reilo]

arent you supposed to be a democrat? you voting mccain now?

(im not saying he will win the south. im referring to you attacking fellow democrats now.)

He's a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter and believes that Obama stole the nomination from her by playing dirty politics. Oh, and the fact that Obama managed to mind-trick 17million people into thinking that he was a good person with the chance to win the White House. Everyone that voted for Obama, voted for him because he is the latest fad, not because they actually believed in any of his policies or in him as a politician.

 

[VanMardigan]

He only went to church for 20 years to hide that he is a muslim so he can run for the presidency for over 20 years and bring the entire nation down, durr.

That's some Prestige-level dedication to his craft.

Shouldn't matter, tbh. I don't have a problem with candidates being religious (if I did, I'd be screwed ) but I sometimes wish they didn't turn it into a "who loves Jesus more" contest. Honestly, they could do better by actually listening to JC and implementing some of his ideas as policies, but perhaps it's too much to ask.

Muslim Obama sez:

"I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community -- while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he said.

Dude definitely agrees with you about actions speaking louder than words.

 

[mckmas8808]

Black? Black house?

:lol :lol

Okay that's funny.

 

[soul creator]

What does the house mean?

a black house that used to be white? hah

edit: bah, beaten

 

[worldrunover]

http://colboard.com/cn/greenscreen.php

BOOSH

And why is Bill Gates being mentioned as a McCain Veep prospect? He donated to both Democrats.

Sorry I don't see anything about McCain on that page... :/

 

[siamesedreamer]

I can sum up the entire first term of an Obama presidency (From their eyes) in four pictures. Mind you, they will think these things no matter what he does.

Race has nothing to do with my dislike for the guy. But hey, keep up the notion that anyone who doesn't like him is a racist. And, in doing so, continue to violate the rules of the thread.

 

[reilo]

Race has nothing to do with my dislike for the guy. But hey, keep up the notion that anyone who doesn't like him is a racist. And, in doing so, continue to violate the rules of the thread.

Weird that you didn't object to the muslim terrorist image?

 

[User 10639]

Race has nothing to do with my dislike for the guy. But hey, keep up the notion that anyone who doesn't like him is a racist. And, in doing so, continue to violate the rules of the thread.

Good to know that you think he's a flip-flopping socialist muslim terrorist, though.

 

[WickedAngel]

Shouldn't matter, tbh. I don't have a problem with candidates being religious (if I did, I'd be screwed :lol) but I sometimes wish they didn't turn it into a "who loves Jesus more" contest. Honestly, they could do better by actually listening to JC and implementing some of his ideas as policies, but perhaps it's too much to ask.

Black? Black house?

The Black House :lol

Race has nothing to do with my dislike for the guy. But hey, keep up the notion that anyone who doesn't like him is a racist. And, in doing so, continue to violate the rules of the thread.

As far as I know, I didn't make a single comment to you. I was speaking of the people who are so desperate to say "I told you so!" that they would wish harm upon America if he won the presidency, and since you responded...ya.

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-07012008-1556942.html

In an interview with reporters on the back of his campaign bus, the “Straight Talk Express” Monday afternoon, McCain said that even in retrospect he would still have voted to authorize the war, as he did in 2002.

“I think there's no question,” said the Republican's likely presidential nominee. “I owe too much to these young people who are serving there to let political considerations interfere with what I know is right.

“I believe the American people, over time, will side with me, but if they don't I'll accept that,” he said. “I'd much rather lose a political campaign than lose a war.”

Even knowing that the WMD claims were false, he still thinks it was good to go to war.

 

[siamesedreamer]

As far as I know, I didn't make a single comment to you.

Look at the post you quoted.

 

[Mandark]

This is going to sound bad, but I'm a lot more comfortable with Obama talking about a faith-based antipoverty program than I would be about a Republican doing the exact same thing.

I'm suspicious of the government giving funds or authority to religious organizations, but a lot of those groups do very good work and are pretty effective (probably the combination of dedicated volunteers + local knowledge of the poor/homeless situation).

I guess what it comes down to is that Obama's a social justice liberal and Republican politicians are not. When he says he has a plan to fight poverty, there's a good chance he's intending to use it to actually fight poverty, whereas I'd just assume the GOP was looking to funnel more resources and influence to its core constituency.

Not to say that Obama doesn't have selfish political reasons for supporting and emphasizing this approach now. But I don't need to ascribe him ulterior motives like I would if Sam Brownback proposed it.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Even knowing that the WMD claims were false, he still thinks it was good to go to war.

I'm sure the 4000+ dead soldiers would disagree.

 

[reilo]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-07012008-1556942.html



Even knowing that the WMD claims were false, he still thinks it was good to go to war.

No, fuck the WMDs. That's not even the important issue anymore.

Even in the face of 4,000 dead US soldiers, and in the face of several dozen thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, he still would have voted for the war.

He is not doing a service to the troops, and he put them in harms way, for what?

 

[bob_arctor]

Race has nothing to do with my dislike for the guy. But hey, keep up the notion that anyone who doesn't like him is a racist. And, in doing so, continue to violate the rules of the thread.

Then, what? His "flip-flopping"? As McCain is a 7th Level Grandmaster on the subject (there's no denying this unless you are Philip K. Dick and reject reality wholesale), who exactly are you voting for? Barr is an acceptable answer as it helps my candidate.

Unless of course this is all simply a case of Obama not being the Messiah you claim his supporters think him and this angers you because despite sounding the alarm, his smitten grovelers just aren't as darn let down as you. If so, you again you fall into Simpson-esque caricature, this time playing Grimey to Obama's Homer.

I strongly suspect however that your main beefs are his economic views followed closely by his universal healthcare plans, both of which are probably at odds with your political DNA. Nothing can be done about this. As Kang and Kodos would say:

"It's a two party system!"