Forums | MacLife

gozer wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

...And this current issue of Obama calling Palin a pig is clearly an issue of his own making. He used the reference of the lipstick on a pig only a week after  Palin's speech at the convention where she described herself as a pit bull who wears lipstick.

you mean the quote when taken in context is clearly talking about policy using a common phrase that is correctly applied to the situation? the one mccain has used previously as well?

are you that simple minded that you actually bought into that nonsense?

I already said I don't think that he was literally caling her a pig. But he was trying to be clever with his "lipstick on a pig" and "old fish" rhetoric, to associate those to both Palin and Mccain. And his audience clearly got the reference as they were cheering him mid sentence. This argument that he said it a year ago therefore it was purely a coincidence that he said it this week or saying that Mccain said it a year ago too therefore it means nothing is bull. A few weeks ago she had a big speech at the convention where she used the lipstick on the pitbull metaphor so it now has a different context and added resonance when brought into a conversation or put into a speech. He, Obama, was trying to be clever, and weave in the various symbolic references that we've all adopted and incorpororated into our collective understanding of political events to come across as clever. And it blew up in his face. its like using a line from a movie to get a laugh line that everyone in your audience has seen so knows what the reference is to.
And again, I said I don't think the repubs should make a big deal about it, beyond pointing out that he made such a gaffe. She's a tough woman, who cares if Obama called her a pig (if in fact he did)? She, as a I said, should counter with "at least he didn't call me sweetie". In other words zing him back.

By the way, do you really think that mr. great orator was unaware of the associations he was making. Do you think he's that inartful otherwise? His audience certainly got the reference, why didn't he?

Also, its not like he hasn't done this kind of stuff before. He clearly on mutliple occasions, at the exact same time in his stump speeches give Hillary the finger and his audience laughed at the gesture. He knows what he's speaking and he knows when he references animals with lipstick two weeks after Palin describes herself using the same metaphor (or close the same metaphor) that people are going to read into his words some significance. clearly depending on where you are on the divide, you might read it different ways. However, he's opening himself up to said attacks by being so imprecise with his language.

everlong554 wrote:

And it blew up in his face.

Actually, the coverage has been almost universally negative towards the McCain campaign's shrieks of "sexism."  Even several republicans are calling it for what it is.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Daddyo wrote:

And who really gives a smurf what this guy thinks?

I could say the same thing about you, and yet day after day you post your opinions and I read them.  Take away the fact that it's Matt Damon and he's raising exactly the same concerns that I have.  But then, you probably don't give a smurf about what I think either.

You are absolutely right, I don't give a smurf about you or what you think.

I've never thought Good Will Hunting was the shizzle. And I can't forgive him for what he did to Jimmy Kimmel.

boy reading you guys commenting on "wtf does he really know" is priceless.

if being a celebrity relegates the value of your opinion, what does being an anonymous poster in a forum say of your own?

lol... classic

StaticAge wrote:

Not only that, but Biden and Obama both have made really sad and hawkish quips to the press explaining how they think of various forms of aggression. Remember the whole time Obama talked up anti-war in Chicago, his running mate was rubbing shoulders with politicians pushing for war. Although Obama ran on an anti-war campaign to get the nomination, he talked up how "the surge was working" on Fox News. His plan now calls for thinly veiled military threatening towards Iran "keeping all options open" (translation "we might bomb Iran").

Obama's kind of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in this area. If Obama does not rattle his saber he'll be perceived as soft. If he does the hawks on the right will call him a hypocrite.

One problem, among many, with the US interventionist stance, among many, is that it's based on the presumption that the US leadership will always be on top and able to get the rest of the world behind what it wants to do.

everlong554 wrote:

Just like Obama went after Mccain over his Hundred years comment or Palin over her creationism in schools argument, or Palin again for her Iraq is gods cause argument (when in fact she was arguing that we should pray that we are following gods design, ie acting in the right, not assuming that in fact we are).They smell blood in the water and are hitting obama over it. THere is currently a feeding frenzy over Palins creationism, her supposed membership to a secessionist group, her affair, her child that wans't even hers, her suggestion that Iraq was a mission from god, etc etc etc etc etc all distortions. But Obama gets zinged for his gaffe and he's suddenly crying like a little baby.

None of those things you named are coming from Obama's camp, and you know it. 

From factcheck.org, the site that McCain quotes in one of his latest ads:

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding

A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "completely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."

Update, Sept. 10: Furthermore, the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the Journal owes them a correction.

With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said "completely false" attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

Link.

You're doing exactly what McCain's team is doing--falsely attributing the words of others to the Obama camp.  Seeing as though you obviously take your cues from them, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. 

Remember when Obama was saying ""They'll tell you that I'm not like other candiates..They'll say 'he's different, he has a funny name,he's Muslim, oh did I mention HE'S BLACK?" Or whatever the exact quote was? Who was the they that he was referring to?

Right, the "exact quote" was quite different than how you're trying to present it.  Again, not shocking.

That's exactly what they did do with the ridiculous "celebrity" campaigns.  Granted, being a "celebrity" is apparently no longer a negative in McCain's view. 

You continue cheerleading this smurf all you want, everlong.  I can't say I'm terribly surprised.

...and from factcheck.org today, regarding the current ad decrying the supposed unfair treatment of Palin:

Belittling Palin?

The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new TV ad that distorts quotes from the Obama campaign. It takes words out of context to make it sound as though the Democratic ticket is belittling Palin:

    * The ad says "they said she was doing 'what she was told.' " But the Obama adviser who's being quoted didn't accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told."

    * It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as 'good looking,' " But "they" didn't lash out at all. Obama – who is the one pictured – didn't say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama's running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the "obvious" difference between Palin and himself is "she's good looking."

    * The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.

The new McCain-Palin ad "Disrespectful" begins like an earlier ad we criticized, with its reference to Barack Obama's celebrity, but then goes down new paths of deception. It takes quotes from news organizations and uses them out of context in an effort to portray Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, as unfairly attacking Sarah Palin and making sexist remarks. We've long been a critic of candidates (Obama included) usurping the credibility of independent news organizations and peddling false quotes, and this ad is particularly egregious.

Where's the policy?  What happened to the "straight talk express?"

bratboy wrote:

You're doing exactly what McCain's team is doing--falsely attributing the words of others to the Obama camp.  Seeing as though you obviously take your cues from them, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.

He's hardly alone though, look how many things are blamed on the McCain camp that come from other sources.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

He's hardly alone though, look how many things are blamed on the McCain camp that come from other sources.

Well Kev, you let me know when I do it. 



Pretty much every great distortion covered in the media that is being sold about Obama is coming directly from McCain's team.  If and when his numbers slip again I fully expect ads challenging Obama's assertion that he's a christian.

Not accusing you, just pointing out that he isn't alone and I'm seeing a great deal of this from the other side as well.

Forget Matt Damon ... How about Pamela Anderson?

Oh no....John McCain referred to Obama as "attractive":

Letterman: Here’s what we REALLY want, is presidential campaign gossip and dirt and backstabbin’. And the Democrats now are in a position where they could come in and really make hay and all of a sudden, you have a likable young newcomer, Barack Obama …

McCain: He’s a very attractive young man.

Letterman: You have Hillary Clinton. (laughter)

McCain: A very attractive young WOMAN. (laughter) …

Link.

For shame.

everlong554 wrote:

Saying attractive and saying pretty are two different things. Attractive doens't necessarily mean physicallly attractive. Attractive could refer to the overall package. He's likable, he's clean (cut) - sorry, incorporating my Joe Biden diss in there too. Even Biden is not immune from being slammed for his racist language when it comes to "the One"
And note, Mcain even calls Hillary young. That is deferential. not necessarily accurate, unless he is comparing her age to his. In which case, it is accurate.

Saying that a woman is "pretty" while on one hand a compliment is also, potentially a slight, as in that's her only real qualification. She's the "lipstick" to Mcain's old fish.

How many more paragraphs do you need to spin this one?

I personally don't think what Biden said was all that bad, and don't think in fact the Mcain camp has dwelled on it beyond pointing out that it was done and zinging Biden with it.

They made a television ad detailing numerous false accusations of Obama and Biden being "disrespectful" to Palin.  Sure, they're not "dwelling" on it in the slightest.

everlong554 wrote:

And he's getting FAR too much credit for running a clean campaign. The link I provided laid out the various times his campaign inserted race into the race and zinged Bill Clinton, of all people, as being a racist.

If that's true, it's because his campaign's behavior pales in comparison to his opponent's.