Conquer Club

heavycola wrote:Over the past few weeks, the presidential race has once again descended into the sort of petty nonsense that papers over any actual discussion of the important issues. Obama is forced to defend his use of an everyday colloquialism, used about hillary's healthcare policies by mccain himself, instead of either of them saying anything that matters.

Once again our TV news is filled with images of thousands of screaming, flag-waving morons, screaming wildly at empty rhetoric that has been written for morons, while the intellectuals have sad, pointless debates about healthcare and energy (when all that matters is who got Palin's kid pregnant, or that Obama has Jay-Z on his ipod).

This will reach a peak with a series of televised debates, managed and controlled by teams of lawyers.

Jesus this is depressing. What is really depressing is that white women are apparently deserting Obama because of Sarah Palin, which begs the question: what do these people actually give a f*ck about? Skin colour? Gender? Certainly not abortion, or oil exploration, or budget deficits.

Please. China. Hurry up and nuke them already.

jay_a2j wrote:If people voted on what really matters, like the state of our economy and such, someone like Ron Paul would have the nomination and win in a landslide. Both of the current candidates talk about change, but nothing will change. It never does. A guy said one of the reason's he's voting for McCain is because he's pro-life. Now, do you honestly think it even matters? Like McCain will reverse Roe vs. Wade? We have an ignorant voting population, and we will get the government we deserve.

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:If people voted on what really matters, like the state of our economy and such, someone like Ron Paul would have the nomination and win in a landslide. Both of the current candidates talk about change, but nothing will change. It never does. A guy said one of the reason's he's voting for McCain is because he's pro-life. Now, do you honestly think it even matters? Like McCain will reverse Roe vs. Wade? We have an ignorant voting population, and we will get the government we deserve.

Haha, exactly (Ron Paul bit aside ). Abortion will never go away, guns are here for good, and gay marriage isn't going to fly outside of places like California and Massachusetts. What's the point of siding with a party over that crap?

Frigidus wrote:
(ugh, over half of America is against it, we disgust me).

heavycola wrote:Please. China. Hurry up and nuke them already.

Matroshka wrote:

heavycola wrote:Please. China. Hurry up and nuke them already.

Wait, you're not even American? Why even read/watch about the election if it is causing you so much grief?

Matroshka wrote:

heavycola wrote:Please. China. Hurry up and nuke them already.

Wait, you're not even American? Why even read/watch about the election if it is causing you so much grief?

Dear Limey Assholes ... wrote:A crazy British plot to swing Ohio to Kerry—and how it backfired.
By Andy Bowers
Updated Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, at 8:04 PM ET

Imagine being an undecided voter in Clark County, Ohio, last month. You kind of think John Kerry has some good points about the war in Iraq and the economy, but you feel more comfortable with George Bush's faith and his resolve. One day, you open your mailbox to find a letter from someone in England you've never met. It starts like this:

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don't let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden's dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.

It's signed Richard Dawkins, a professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. And you're thinking, ashamed of Bush? Canadian accent? Who is this pretentious Brit and why is he writing to me?

Of course this letter (as every Clark County resident undoubtedly knows) was part of one of the election's biggest backfires: the British Guardian's now-notorious "Operation Clark County." The idea was simple: Give U.K. readers frustrated with the Bush administration a way to help drive him from office. The left-wing newspaper targeted one swing county in one swing state and invited readers to send one-on-one letters to independent American voters.

The response was huge and immediate. More than 11,000 Guardian readers across Britain and, soon, around the world signed up for the project. Spy novelist John Le Carré, for example, drafted this beaut and mailed it to some unnamed Clark County resident:

Probably no American president in all history has been so universally hated abroad as George W Bush: for his bullying unilateralism, his dismissal of international treaties, his reckless indifference to the aspirations of other nations and cultures, his contempt for institutions of world government …

But almost as soon as Operation Clark County was announced, right-leaning media and bloggers counterattacked. They masqueraded as interested lefties and got the paper to hand over some of the voters' addresses (The Guardian was only giving out each address once, so as not to overwhelm the good citizens of Clark County). A hacker managed to shut down the paper's Internet sign-up page.

And even as the pro-Kerry notes were still being written, Americans who had heard about the project (most of them not from Clark County) fired letters back at the Guardian. A few were appreciative. Many more were vicious. The paper printed some of them under the headline "Dear Limey assholes":

Have you not noticed that Americans don't give two shits what Europeans think of us? Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies. ... I don't give a rat's ass if our election is going to have an effect on your worthless little life. I really don't. …

There were numerous variations on the bad-teeth theme. Other letters verged on the threatening:

Consider this: stay out of American electoral politics. Unless you would like a company of US Navy Seals—Republican to a man—to descend upon the offices of the Guardian, bag the lot of you, and transport you to Guantanamo Bay, where you can share quarters with some lonely Taliban shepherd boys.

One said simply: "Please be advised that I have forwarded this to the CIA and FBI."

Even the director of Clark County's board of elections got into the debate. She was widely quoted as saying: "The American Revolution was fought for a reason."

The Guardian editor responsible for the project, Ian Katz, finally wrote a piece on Oct. 21 crying uncle. He noted, among other things, that the paper had decided not to send the winners of the letter-writing contest to Clark County during election week, because it "would be bound to prolong the media brouhaha." (The Guardian did not exactly endear itself to Americans after it canceled Operation Clark County, either. Click here for its other deft election stunt.

Katz also said he knew all along that the letter-writing project could backfire. So, did it? Almost certainly, yes. In 2000, Al Gore won Clark County by 324 votes. And since Ralph Nader received 1,347 votes, we can assume Gore's margin would have been larger without Nader on the ballot. On Tuesday George Bush won Clark County by 1,620 votes.

The most significant stat here is how Clark County compares to the other 15 Ohio counties won by Gore in 2000. Kerry won every Gore county in Ohio except Clark. He even increased Gore's winning margin in 12 of the 16. Nowhere among the Gore counties did more votes move from the blue to the red column than in Clark. The Guardian's Katz was quoted as saying it would be "self-aggrandizing" to claim Operation Clark County affected the election. Don't be so modest, Ian.

heavycola wrote:
Please. China. Hurry up and nuke them already.

heavycola wrote:Over the past few weeks, the presidential race has once again descended into the sort of petty nonsense that papers over any actual discussion of the important issues. Obama is forced to defend his use of an everyday colloquialism, used about hillary's healthcare policies by mccain himself, instead of either of them saying anything that matters.

Once again our TV news is filled with images of thousands of screaming, flag-waving morons, screaming wildly at empty rhetoric that has been written for morons, while the intellectuals have sad, pointless debates about healthcare and energy (when all that matters is who got Palin's kid pregnant, or that Obama has Jay-Z on his ipod).

This will reach a peak with a series of televised debates, managed and controlled by teams of lawyers.

Jesus this is depressing. What is really depressing is that white women are apparently deserting Obama because of Sarah Palin, which begs the question: what do these people actually give a f*ck about? Skin colour? Gender? Certainly not abortion, or oil exploration, or budget deficits.

Please. China. Hurry up and nuke them already.

Obama wrote:Some of you may have -- I'm assuming you guys have heard this, watching the news. I'm talking about John McCain's economic politics, I say, "This is more of the same, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."

And suddenly they say, "Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska."

[Laughter from audience]

See it would be funny, it would be funny except -- of course the news media all decided that that was the lead story yesterday. They'd much rather have the story -- this is the McCain campaign -- would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future.

This happens every election cycle. Every four years. This is what we do. We've got an energy crisis. We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive. We have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We've got two wars going on, veterans coming home not being cared for -- and this is what they want to talk about! this is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about.

You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It's not the Democratic candidate, It's not the republican candidate. It's you, the American people. Because then we go another year or another four years or another eight years without addressing the issues that matter to you. Enough.

I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift-boat politics. Enough is enough.

gdeangel wrote: So Obama's little "pig" comment about Palin (quite a different usage than reference to a policy)

McCain and Palin have a right to take issue.

Referring, even indirectly, to a woman as a pig (meaning she is fat and undesirable) is very different than calling "big oil" pigs (i.e., insatiable appetite for profits), or calling a guy a pig (meaning he is someone who objectifies women as sexual objects).

If Obama wants to get by this one, he will have to make a public apology.

GabonX wrote:The fact that McCain used the comment in a different context is irrelevant. The reason we know that the comment was directed at Pallin is because of her much spoken about comment that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick which was made prior to Obama's attack. If Hillary had made a comment about lipstick in reference to herself before McCain used the phrase then he would have taken flack too, and as a Republican the media wouldn't be vouching for him.

got tonkaed wrote:

GabonX wrote:The fact that McCain used the comment in a different context is irrelevant. The reason we know that the comment was directed at Pallin is because of her much spoken about comment that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick which was made prior to Obama's attack. If Hillary had made a comment about lipstick in reference to herself before McCain used the phrase then he would have taken flack too, and as a Republican the media wouldn't be vouching for him.

I do think it was a rather questionable thing to say in hindsight. There are two points in his favor though. First as you suggest mccain made a similar comment and he could have potentially been referencing that (still silly to do in light of the palin reference). Secondly its a chopped part of the quote, the other part talking about the 8 years probably should have come first if you were going to use it (that way you couldnt really chop the quote into youtube clips the way it was done).

An odd slip up at best imo.

gdeangel wrote:Let's recap the "recent decent" of the American political debate...

0) Bill Clinton defeats George Bush, whose tax increases and spending cuts put the country back on track after years of Reagan's "binge" economics. Bill Clinton does so by being young, charismatic, appearing on MTV, and playing the saxophone.

1) George Bush beats Al Gore (and McCain in the primary) by hawking his "good old boy" charm on the sliver haired Jesus crowd.

2) George Bush beats Al Gore through the support of the same "silver hairs", along with the military supporters who are reacting to the resurgence of 1970's "war is evil" idiocy which leftist talking-heads have found appeal with to hawk their books and news "exposes", and which, despite a very deliberate effort, Mr. Kerry and the democrats are unsuccessful in distancing themselves from.

3) Barack Obama runs a "feel good" primary, and the rank and file voters fall in line for the primary.

4) John McCain goes toe-to-toe at Obama's level to challenge his "broad consensus" as elitist and out of touch.

Now all of a sudden we've descended into "fluff" politics? My fellow American chumps, it's been that way for a long time, going all the way back to Kennedy (who nearly got the country blown up because of missiles in Cuba... sound like anything that's going on now in with Russia and the interceptor bases??) Nixon got a famous bump from talking about his little dog "Checkers".

The bottom line, in a large country where people have to vote for candidates that they have no personal knowledge of, and where there is no "official" state propaganda and intimidation, people will by a large margin, pick the candidate that they can identify with. So Obama's little "pig" comment about Palin (quite a different usage than reference to a policy) cuts to the quick at the decision criteria people make. Nobody wants to identify with a pig. Very few people want to identify with a neo-nazi pit-bull dog. These are the lowest form of political attack. They are dumbing down what is already a "choice not on the issues" to the level of a popularity contest on the grade school playground. McCain and Palin have a right to take issue. Referring, even indirectly, to a woman as a pig (meaning she is fat and undesirable) is very different than calling "big oil" pigs (i.e., insatiable appetite for profits), or calling a guy a pig (meaning he is someone who objectifies women as sexual objects). From a bunch of third graders you expect to hear people saying: don't pick Sara to the team captain... she's fat and ugly. But, even though American's may not understand how to balance a check book, let alone evaluate economic stimulus proposals, they do sometimes take note of offensive behavior.

If Obama wants to get by this one, he will have to make a public apology. But for a man whose base idolize him, that is not without it's own risks. So he's testing the waters... just like he did before he denounced Farakan publicly. You watch. By this time tomorrow, he won't be talking about "the silly party of the campaign season"... he'll be saying "I sincerely apologize to Governor Palin for any offense she took personally from what was intended as a general figure of speech about my opponent's campaign."

GabonX wrote:The fact that McCain used the comment in a different context is irrelevant. The reason we know that the comment was directed at Pallin is because of her much spoken about comment that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick which was made prior to Obama's attack. If Hillary had made a comment about lipstick in reference to herself before McCain used the phrase then he would have taken flack too, and as a Republican the media wouldn't be vouching for him.

gdeangel wrote:Just for you, snorri, since you seem to have been so well schooled in the art of quoting out of context... here is my post again for others to judge for themselves. If you don't believe me that it means a different thing depending on what you call a pig, go call a guy at your gym a pig, and the go call a woman there a pig. Then call your 12 MPG Hummer a pig. The object of the derision does make a huge difference based on mutually understood connotations about what is being said. If you still don't believe me, call McCain a porch monkey in a crows of white guys... then go call Obama a porch monkey in a crowd of African Americans.

Snorri1234 wrote:

gdeangel wrote:Just for you, snorri, since you seem to have been so well schooled in the art of quoting out of context... here is my post again for others to judge for themselves. If you don't believe me that it means a different thing depending on what you call a pig, go call a guy at your gym a pig, and the go call a woman there a pig. Then call your 12 MPG Hummer a pig. The object of the derision does make a huge difference based on mutually understood connotations about what is being said. If you still don't believe me, call McCain a porch monkey in a crows of white guys... then go call Obama a porch monkey in a crowd of African Americans.

I DON'T GIVE A f*ck ABOUT THAT!

The problem here is not that calling someone a pig can be interpreted differently depending on who you call it, but that not calling someone a pig is suddenly calling someone a pig. Obama didn't call her a pig, republicans think he did but that's because from all the evidence I've seen most of them are fucking idiots.

Seriously, stop watching Fox-news.

gdeangel wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

gdeangel wrote:Just for you, snorri, since you seem to have been so well schooled in the art of quoting out of context... here is my post again for others to judge for themselves. If you don't believe me that it means a different thing depending on what you call a pig, go call a guy at your gym a pig, and the go call a woman there a pig. Then call your 12 MPG Hummer a pig. The object of the derision does make a huge difference based on mutually understood connotations about what is being said. If you still don't believe me, call McCain a porch monkey in a crows of white guys... then go call Obama a porch monkey in a crowd of African Americans.

I DON'T GIVE A f*ck ABOUT THAT!

The problem here is not that calling someone a pig can be interpreted differently depending on who you call it, but that not calling someone a pig is suddenly calling someone a pig. Obama didn't call her a pig, republicans think he did but that's because from all the evidence I've seen most of them are fucking idiots.

Seriously, stop watching Fox-news.

Your idol is in trouble and you know it.

It was a fair interpretation given the context of what the Democrats have been criticizing the McCain ticket of doing that he was referring to Palin as a pig. He put his foot in his mouth, but apparently his devoted disciples will all tell us that his feet actually taste like yummy candy!

Get over yourself. The unequivocal devotion to this guy by the jet-set is one of the things that make him a very unattractive person to trust with leadership. And BTW I don't watch Fox news, in case you haven't figured that out.

GabonX wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

GabonX wrote:The fact that McCain used the comment in a different context is irrelevant. The reason we know that the comment was directed at Pallin is because of her much spoken about comment that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick which was made prior to Obama's attack. If Hillary had made a comment about lipstick in reference to herself before McCain used the phrase then he would have taken flack too, and as a Republican the media wouldn't be vouching for him.

I do think it was a rather questionable thing to say in hindsight. There are two points in his favor though. First as you suggest mccain made a similar comment and he could have potentially been referencing that (still silly to do in light of the palin reference). Secondly its a chopped part of the quote, the other part talking about the 8 years probably should have come first if you were going to use it (that way you couldnt really chop the quote into youtube clips the way it was done).

An odd slip up at best imo.

Prior to the comment he was talking about the past 8 years but immediatly after the comment he started attacking Pallin. It's pretty clear what he was trying to say given Pallin's prior self referencing lipstick comment.