Midnight Judges Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I not a fan of compromise for the sake of compromise, it's not always a good thing. Civil liberties should never be compromised.Sure McCain may be more right that Obama when it comes to foreign policy, but yes Obama is on the right when it comes to foreign policy. The entire establishment is (which he is a part of it). The NY post beef is that he isn't neoconservative enough. Nobody compromises for the sake of compromising. They compromise to avoid gridlock and to get something done. Agree on civil liberties although I don't think the immunity in that legislation hurts your civil liberties. The damage was done, it merely changes the retribution this time but outlaws it in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I guess that is what he means by "change"... Why don't you know what he means by change yet? Go do a little research. Also allow me to point out the obvious, if he didn't respresent change his name would be McCain and you'd be voting for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 19, 2008 Author Share Posted September 19, 2008 Negative ads don't neccessarily mean they aren't truthful. So Obama's negative ads are truthful and McCain's are a bunch of lies? I just knew the excuses were going to be entertaining. :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 So Obama's negative ads are truthful and McCain's are a bunch of lies? I just knew the excuses were going to be entertaining. :rotflmao: I don't think I specifically said that Obama's ads were true and McCain's were all false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 McCain's little whispering lady in his ad's get on my last nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Well, he is getting good advice. I thought the Palin attacks would backfire, but I was wrong. The attacks have clearly worked ( her poll numbers are falling dramatically). Obama has surged in some polls.Negative attacks always work. Yeah, they took a short-term hit from Palin, but the attacks started to work after Palin's new car smell wore off.Negative works. Oh well. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 In the last week, Obama has started running ads slamming McCain for the lies in his own campaigning. This technically is negative campaigning, but what other choice does he have? If you just stand there and let the other guy tell lies about you you will lose - just ask John Kerry. This study expressly defines "negative ad" as any ad that mentions the name of the other candidate, which is a pretty broad definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 19, 2008 Author Share Posted September 19, 2008 In the last week, Obama has started running ads slamming McCain for the lies in his own campaigning. This technically is negative campaigning, but what other choice does he have? If you just stand there and let the other guy tell lies about you you will lose - just ask John Kerry.This study expressly defines "negative ad" as any ad that mentions the name of the other candidate, which is a pretty broad definition. What it does tell us is that Obama wants to avoid talking about his own views? 77%? Come on. I guess when there's very little record to run on, you have to attack the other guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkFan8 Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 So Obama's negative ads are truthful and McCain's are a bunch of lies? I just knew the excuses were going to be entertaining. :rotflmao:Hang on, I've got TON (I mean TONS) of different sources that say McCain's negative adds include more lies than Obama's.Want me to post them in this thread, or another thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 What it does tell us is that Obama wants to avoid talking about his own views? 77%? Come on. I guess when there's very little record to run on, you have to attack the other guy. It tells us you aren't paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Negative ads don't neccessarily mean they aren't truthful. I understand that. So Obama is running truthful negative ads? OLS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 19, 2008 Author Share Posted September 19, 2008 Hang on, I've got TON (I mean TONS) of different sources that say McCain's negative adds include more lies than Obama's.Want me to post them in this thread, or another thread? No. I've seen enough Daily Kos postings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Hang on, I've got TON (I mean TONS) of different sources that say McCain's negative adds include more lies than Obama's.Want me to post them in this thread, or another thread? Note the use of the word MORE. Something being MORE truthful doesn't make it true. 2+2 = 6 and 2+2 = 1,000 are both false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Note the use of the word MORE. Something being MORE truthful doesn't make it true.2+2 = 6 and 2+2 = 1,000 are both false. Truth isn't a math equation. There are degrees at play here. Take the immigration ads just as an example. The Rush quote, out of context to be sure, so we can say it's not true. McCain's ad however went a hell of a lot farther than taking something out of context: he took the actions of his own party and projected it on to democrats. That's a disgraceful lie with one intention, to trick hispanics into voiting for him thinking that they are supporting an issue his party opposes and he has walked away from. 2+2=6 and 2+2=1000 are both false. But when it comes to political ads, there are small lies and massive con jobs. McCain's political ad aims to gain support by misrepresenting the issue so extremely that people are tricked into voting for the wrong party. If Obama were to have an add that said "McCain and his party opposed the troop surge" in spanish it would be about the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Truth isn't a math equation. There are degrees at play here. Take the immigration ads just as an example. The Rush quote, out of context to be sure, so we can say it's not true. McCain's ad however went a hell of a lot farther than taking something out of context: he took the actions of his own party and projected it on to democrats. That's a disgraceful lie with one intention, to trick hispanics into voiting for him thinking that they are supporting an issue his party opposes and he has walked away from.2+2=6 and 2+2=1000 are both false. But when it comes to political ads, there are small lies and massive con jobs. McCain's political ad aims to gain support by misrepresenting the issue so extremely that people are tricked into voting for the wrong party. If Obama were to have an add that said "McCain and his party opposed the troop surge" in spanish it would be about the same thing. By any measure of error 2+2 = 6 is closer to being right than 2+2=1000. Both are wrong. Obam is wrong. McCain is wrong. McCain is MORE wrong. That doesn't make Obama true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Well its dumb to bring a knife to a gunfight. Glad he is firing back...lets see if he gets a bump like McCain did while Barry was on vaca. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 By any measure of error 2+2 = 6 is closer to being right than 2+2=1000.Both are wrong. Obam is wrong. McCain is wrong. McCain is MORE wrong. That doesn't make Obama true. So you don't see a difference between the same game of associating a person with members of his party (which isn't unfair considering electing McCain puts republicans in control of the white house, and electing Obama puts the democrats in control of the whitehouse) and completely misrepresentin your party in hopes that latinos will vote for seeking when they are trying to support the democrats position on the issue? All the same. Anything wrong is wrong and the degree or effect of the lie shouldn't matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 So you don't see a difference between the same game of associating a person with members of his party (which isn't unfair considering electing McCain puts republicans in control of the white house, and electing Obama puts the democrats in control of the whitehouse) and completely misrepresentin your party in hopes that latinos will vote for seeking when they are trying to support the democrats position on the issue?All the same. Anything wrong is wrong and the degree or effect of the lie shouldn't matter? McCain is MORE wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 So much for the outcry from the liberals that McCain has been running a dirty campaign. Let's see what excuses the liberals will have on this one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091703581.html Excerpt: "Despite perceptions that Sen. John McCain has spent more time on the attack, Sen. Barack Obama aired more negative advertising last week than did the Arizona Republican, says a study released yesterday. Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican National Convention, compared with 56 percent of the spots run by McCain." Just another example of the liberal media bias that gives Obama a free pass on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 What it does tell us is that Obama wants to avoid talking about his own views? 77%? Come on. I guess when there's very little record to run on, you have to attack the other guy. Actually, Obama has spent a great deal of time talking about his views on different issues. Agree or disagree, the problem is that folks such as yourself either don't take the time out to listen, or seem completely unaware of this bit of detail. Just a week ago, Obama spent a fair amount of time talking about various issues, and I would bet that you didn't spend one second watching it. Again - agree or disagree with Obama, but don't say he "wants to avoid talking about his own views" when you can Youtube a number direct interviews with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Is calling the other guy a liar a negative ad? What if its true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 In this case... no. But it is against "the rules" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 "Recent Obama Ads More Negative Than McCain's " about time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 When did Democrats join the "the end justifies the means" crowd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Is calling the other guy a liar a negative ad? What if its true? It's still negative even if it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.