|
|
|
double standard definition Another Obama "Junior Moment"
|
|
|
liberal and conservative are treated equally in our society. Thanks largely to conservative spinmasters, the term liberal is on par with child molester or communist to many in our country, whereas the term conservative does not have the same perjorative connotation. The author of the article conveniently glosses over that critical distinction. Moreover, the author attempts to give the impression of a double standard by stripping all context out of the discussion. To say that a subject cannot be discussed because it amounts to fear-mongering, for example, is pure bullshit because it ignores the context of a SPECIFIC statement and Barack's SPECIFIC response to it. I'll give you an example. If McCain said that al Qaeda would attack us if Barack is elected and Barack referred to that comment as fear mongering, THIS author would respond Ooh, now Obama says we can't talk about national security. I am not saying that Barack is above double standards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
double standard definition Another Obama "Junior Moment"
|
|
|
liberal and conservative are treated equally in our society. Thanks largely to conservative spinmasters, the term liberal is on par with child molester or communist to many in our country, whereas the term conservative does not have the same perjorative connotation. The author of the article conveniently glosses over that critical distinction. Moreover, the author attempts to give the impression of a double standard by stripping all context out of the discussion. To say that a subject cannot be discussed because it amounts to fear-mongering, for example, is pure bullshit because it ignores the context of a SPECIFIC statement and Barack's SPECIFIC response to it. I'll give you an example. If McCain said that al Qaeda would attack us if Barack is elected and Barack referred to that comment as fear mongering, THIS author would respond Ooh, now Obama says we can't talk about national security. I am not saying that Barack is above double standards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
double standard definition Another Obama "Junior Moment"
|
|
start from a POV that assumes Obama does not craft his statements so folks can infer far more than what the words said... AND it also is reasonable to assume Obama's statement was crafted to allow for an inference of a swipe if one is more suspect of Obama's motives... Take the 100 year comment... Obama knew it was false, still he crafted his speeches to allow the influence... So I knew he is skilled enough to do it AND is willing to do it... I also know of Obama's willingness to play hardball (ie his first campaign and challedging the petitions)... I also know Obama is willing to do dirty tricks , as in sponsoring a bill that restates the current law on defining a natural born citizen ... Now I could analyize McCain's statement concerning Hamas' spokesman endorsing Obama, and then point out Obama was just crazy to see it as a personal attack... And be as logical and reasonable as you are here.... And that is the rub.... The Obama camp does not have the right to infer an attack and condemn it as such and then have their statements not subject to the same inspection by his opponents... Language can be used for clarity or to obscure... We all do both and politicans devote considerable effort to craft their wordsmithery for both ends... On May 12, 9:50 pm, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Different situation. McCain's was just another Cheneyesque Osama wants you to vote for dems kind of statement. It's as valid as suggesting that the fact the klan supports a candidate should sway voters. Obama's statement was, as I have explained, very simple and straightforward and was in no way a veiled reference to McCain's age. I swear, if McCain's camp tried to spin Barack's saying Good Morning into a personal dig, you guys would buy it. Don't be so gullible, JGG. On May 12, 4:11 pm, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: FYI, here is the NYT trying to do what you are. You will note that McCain never said Obama was a Hamas supporter... The NYT claimed this Conversely, he has tried to portray Mr. Obama as sympathetic to Hamas. which McCain did not... McCain said Hamas was sympathetic to Obama... This is a case where both sides and their allies imply and infer in the manner of plausible denialiblity ... After a while the water's all muddy... Frankly, if the NYT and you have the fight to infer from McCain's comments Mr. Obama as sympathetic to Hamas then surely other's have the same right to infer a slur when lose one's direction is said in retort... And that is the point... Obama has no right to infer slurs and then demand others do not have that right... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?_r=2∂... On May 12, 12:24 pm, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: There are no changing standards at work, JGG. there is one standard: the plain and simple meaning of the phrase to lose one's bearings. That is it. It means what it means: to lose one's direction. It does not mean what the McCain camp is saying it does (and they know it, too). And the fact that a number of people are gullible enough to buy into McCain's manipulation doesn't change the DEFINITION of the phrase. On May 12, 12:21 pm, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: As per usual, when you have been proven wrong on issue You have yet to prove Obama did not intend for a dig or that it was not taken as a dig by many otherwise well meaning people... Second you ask what the implications of the changing standards were. On May 12, 11:49 am, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: As per usual, when you have been proven wrong on issue X, you respond by deflecting to issue Y (and issue Y invariably involves Reverand Wright). Not gonna play this game anymore, JGG. If you wish to discuss Barack's statement regarding lost bearings, fine. But as soon as you start sputtering off into b..b...but listen to what he said here land, I'm giving up on you. On May 12, 11:46 am, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: It is the context in which Obama's statements are considered... And why he was forced to toss Wright under the Bus... Change often involves shifting standards and those used to the old ones too rigidly get crapped on... The standard for transending race is NOT merely being able to vote for an AA but applying similar standards to words and deeds... One side of this is applying the harsh no-racist-can-reform-if-they-make-one- offensive-comment to Wright... Now personally I think that has been a very wrong-headed standard... A far more humanistic standard assuming man's imperfection is required... But that requires many men of the Left to apology for their racism and intolerance... Or take his statement on Lebanon... Suggesting diplomacy while an armed coup is taking place... I know Obama is no expert on the ME, but such boilerplate nonsense in today's world is dangerous... Or take his SF statement... Insult a hillbilly and they, like any rapper, remember... But Obama seems not to understand that he did insult many hillbillies... I hope his new set of alliances can make up for their flocking to McCain as no Democratic has won the WH without WV... And that was WIlson... The Democrats have always been a party of the South... Obama's question is can a new Democratic party by reformed without being a party of the South (ie become as the GOP was from 1860 to 1968). On May 12, 11:13 am, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Which means? On May 12, 11:11 am, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: One defining difference in this year's campaign is the the higher standard of what is considered an insult normally applied to Republicans and whites is now being applied to previously EXEMPt GROUPS as Democrats, AA and women... So what Wright said said is now considered an insult (or what Obama said in SF) where a mere 2 years ago the Press would NOT have applied it it possible for someone to be offended standard... Equal opportunity means equal rights AND equal standards... Previously only selected groups had the right to claim an offense when a comment might be offensive ... On May 12, 10:28 am, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: It is not an explanation, JGG, it is the simple truth. It is what Barack said, plain and simple. The fact that many people apparently confuse the phrases to lose one's bearings (i.e., to lose one's direction) with to lose one's marbles (i.e., to lose one's mental faculties) is hardly Barack's fault. He very clearly said that McCain began this campaign in one direction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
double standard definition Another Obama "Junior Moment"
|
|
Obama endorses a Democratic Candidate... Democratic spinners claim that is racist... Listen to the ad... read the entire blog... In the end the point is The ad is too effective, so because Obama's name is mentioned, we will say the ad is racist ... What crap... Saying what someone's political philosophy is, or stating who opening supports a candidate is NOT attack politics... And yes I know the Obama is going to try to run a non ideological campaign and then seek to claim any mention of ideology is divisive ... NPR reported that the Obama campaign was going to shift FROM ideology (in the primraries) to specific proposals (in the general)... I thought this funny as there was no serious ideological divide between Obama and Clinton... http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/shocker-dems-scream-racism-... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/13mississippi.html?_r=2... In advertisements and speeches, Republicans have repeatedly associated Travis Childers, the white Democrat threatening to take the seat away from the Republican Party, with Mr. Obama. Republicans say Mr. Obama's liberal values are out of place in the district. But for many Democratic veterans here, the tactic is a throwback to the old and unwelcome politics of race, a standby in Mississippi campaigning. Former Gov. William Winter, a Democrat, expressed shock at the current campaign. I am appalled that this blatant appeal to racial prejudice is still being employed, said Mr. Winter, who lost the 1967 governor's race after his segregationist opponent circulated handbills showing blacks listening to one of his speeches. Mr. Winter went on to win the governor's office 12 years later. On May 13, 9:27 am, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Raz, you have a logical valid way of viewing the statement... If you start from a POV that assumes Obama does not craft his statements so folks can infer far more than what the words said... AND it also is reasonable to assume Obama's statement was crafted to allow for an inference of a swipe if one is more suspect of Obama's motives... Take the 100 year comment... Obama knew it was false, still he crafted his speeches to allow the influence... So I knew he is skilled enough to do it AND is willing to do it... I also know of Obama's willingness to play hardball (ie his first campaign and challedging the petitions)... I also know Obama is willing to do dirty tricks , as in sponsoring a bill that restates the current law on defining a natural born citizen ... Now I could analyize McCain's statement concerning Hamas' spokesman endorsing Obama, and then point out Obama was just crazy to see it as a personal attack... And be as logical and reasonable as you are here.... And that is the rub.... The Obama camp does not have the right to infer an attack and condemn it as such and then have their statements not subject to the same inspection by his opponents... Language can be used for clarity or to obscure... We all do both and politicans devote considerable effort to craft their wordsmithery for both ends... On May 12, 9:50 pm, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Different situation. McCain's was just another Cheneyesque Osama wants you to vote for dems kind of statement. It's as valid as suggesting that the fact the klan supports a candidate should sway voters. Obama's statement was, as I have explained, very simple and straightforward and was in no way a veiled reference to McCain's age. I swear, if McCain's camp tried to spin Barack's saying Good Morning into a personal dig, you guys would buy it. Don't be so gullible, JGG. On May 12, 4:11 pm, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: FYI, here is the NYT trying to do what you are. You will note that McCain never said Obama was a Hamas supporter... The NYT claimed this Conversely, he has tried to portray Mr. Obama as sympathetic to Hamas. which McCain did not... McCain said Hamas was sympathetic to Obama... This is a case where both sides and their allies imply and infer in the manner of plausible denialiblity ... After a while the water's all muddy... Frankly, if the NYT and you have the fight to infer from McCain's comments Mr. Obama as sympathetic to Hamas then surely other's have the same right to infer a slur when lose one's direction is said in retort... And that is the point... Obama has no right to infer slurs and then demand others do not have that right... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?_r=2∂... On May 12, 12:24 pm, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: There are no changing standards at work, JGG. there is one standard: the plain and simple meaning of the phrase to lose one's bearings. That is it. It means what it means: to lose one's direction. It does not mean what the McCain camp is saying it does (and they know it, too). And the fact that a number of people are gullible enough to buy into McCain's manipulation doesn't change the DEFINITION of the phrase. On May 12, 12:21 pm, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: As per usual, when you have been proven wrong on issue You have yet to prove Obama did not intend for a dig or that it was not taken as a dig by many otherwise well meaning people... Second you ask what the implications of the changing standards were. On May 12, 11:49 am, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: As per usual, when you have been proven wrong on issue X, you respond by deflecting to issue Y (and issue Y invariably involves Reverand Wright). Not gonna play this game anymore, JGG. If you wish to discuss Barack's statement regarding lost bearings, fine. But as soon as you start sputtering off into b..b...but listen to what he said here land, I'm giving up on you. On May 12, 11:46 am, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: It is the context in which Obama's statements are considered... And why he was forced to toss Wright under the Bus... Change often involves shifting standards and those used to the old ones too rigidly get crapped on... The standard for transending race is NOT merely being able to vote for an AA but applying similar standards to words and deeds... One side of this is applying the harsh no-racist-can-reform-if-they-make-one- offensive-comment to Wright... Now personally I think that has been a very wrong-headed standard... A far more humanistic standard assuming man's imperfection is required... But that requires many men of the Left to apology for their racism and intolerance... Or take his statement on Lebanon... Suggesting diplomacy while an armed coup is taking place... I know Obama is no expert on the ME, but such boilerplate nonsense in today's world is dangerous... Or take his SF statement... Insult a hillbilly and they, like any rapper, remember... But Obama seems not to understand that he did insult many hillbillies... I hope his new set of alliances can make up for their flocking to McCain as no Democratic has won the WH without WV... And that was WIlson... The Democrats have always been a party of the South... Obama's question is can a new Democratic party by reformed without being a party of the South (ie become as the GOP was from 1860 to 1968). On May 12, 11:13 am, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Which means? On May 12, 11:11 am, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: One defining difference in this year's campaign is the the higher standard of what is considered an insult normally applied to Republicans and whites is now being applied to previously EXEMPt GROUPS as Democrats, AA and women... So what Wright said said is now considered an insult (or what Obama said in SF) where a mere 2 years ago the Press would NOT have applied it it possible for someone to be offended standard... Equal opportunity means equal rights AND equal standards... Previously only selected groups had the right to claim an offense when a comment might be offensive ... On May 12, 10:28 am, Raz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: It is not an explanation, JGG, it is the simple truth. It is what Barack said, plain and simple. The fact that many people apparently confuse the phrases to lose one's bearings (i.e., to lose one's ... wi?cej »
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
