Obama '08?

McCain at least can stand up and say "I was wrong about that" or "I realize now that the American people see it differently" or "I have changed my opinion about that and here's why" or whatever. Obama by contrast dodges and weaves with something to the effect of "What I really meant to say was. . . ." With that tactic he never has to accept responsibility for ANYTHING he says that turns out to be unpopular with his constituency.

McGentrix wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

McCain at least can stand up and say "I was wrong about that" or "I realize now that the American people see it differently" or "I have changed my opinion about that and here's why" or whatever. Obama by contrast dodges and weaves with something to the effect of "What I really meant to say was. . . ." With that tactic he never has to accept responsibility for ANYTHING he says that turns out to be unpopular with his constituency.

So, what are YOU meaning to say....? :wink:

If that is what I did, I would admit it, Cyclop, but that isn't what I did. Try again.

I don't think you hit the rim, Kicky. Try going back and rereading the exchange and I have hopes that you have enough sense to see that.

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

The assumption can easily be made, foxfyre; when you criticize one opponent and omit criticism from the other opponent for doing the same thing. I think you are operating under the assumption that the rest of us are fools if you expect anyone to believe even a little of what you say. Make of that what you will; I am not going to get into it further knowing in advance how it would go.

I think both have given a little in order to win over the center to their camp. However, all I have to do is follow McCain and I know I don't want that nut in the white house anywhere close to any trigger buttons. I think the guy is a loose screw with his remarks about killing Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Only in the addled liberal world, Revel. Many people have the ability to focus on a specific issue and address that issue directly. Many, maybe most liberals, seem unable to do that but instead bring in non sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominem references as Cyclop and CI just did rather than consider whether the original statement made is accurate or inaccurate. Most of you can't or won't discuss anything that question's Obama's integrity, credentials, or ability without dragging Bush or McCain or somebody else you want to attack into the discussion and/or trying to kill the messenger.

If I say Obama flipflopped, rational people say that 'yes he did' or 'no, he didn't and here's why. . . .' Irrational people say that Bush or McCain is the flipfloppers as if that fact absolves Obama of any criticism whatsoever.

Personally, I think that's pretty dumb. It sure wouldn't make it as legitimate argument in a formal debate.

Woah there; nobody claimed that Obama cannot be criticized, b/c McCain is a flip-flopper. Of course he can, and McCain's status doesn't excuse Obama's changes.

What it DOES do is remove legitimacy from those Concerned Citizens who constantly go after Obama on flip-flops while NEVER going after McCain on them. It weakens your argument to focus your ammo strictly on one side, when the other side is guilty of so many worse violations of the same thing.

If you were intellectually honest, you would admit this...

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think you hit the rim, Kicky. Try going back and rereading the exchange and I have hopes that you have enough sense to see that.

And taking a cue from McCain's playbook, maybe I should explain, not that I think you are capable of being fair as I never saw you criticize CI when he makes a pointed ad hominem insult much as you do.

I think you would be hard put to find anybody on this forum who has stated that they are considering or have decided to vote for McCain who is really happy with him. McG might be the one closest to that as he has been a McCain supporter ever since I've been on A2K. I rather suspect you won't find a single one who is not critical of McCain in some aspect, however, and most of us are critical in several aspects. I think there is probably not one of us who has not observed the flipflops and commented on them and also criticized issues that he has not flipflopped on. So Cyclops accusation is a lie, intended or unintended, on the face of it.

It simply does not follow that if you don't criticize both in the same post, criticism of one is a blanket endorsement of the one not criticized.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

The assumption can easily be made, foxfyre; when you criticize one opponent and omit criticism from the other opponent for doing the same thing. I think you are operating under the assumption that the rest of us are fools if you expect anyone to believe even a little of what you say. Make of that what you will; I am not going to get into it further knowing in advance how it would go.

I think both have given a little in order to win over the center to their camp. However, all I have to do is follow McCain and I know I don't want that nut in the white house anywhere close to any trigger buttons. I think the guy is a loose screw with his remarks about killing Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Only in the addled liberal world, Revel. Many people have the ability to focus on a specific issue and address that issue directly. Many, maybe most liberals, seem unable to do that but instead bring in non sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominem references as Cyclop and CI just did rather than consider whether the original statement made is accurate or inaccurate. Most of you can't or won't discuss anything that question's Obama's integrity, credentials, or ability without dragging Bush or McCain or somebody else you want to attack into the discussion and/or trying to kill the messenger.

If I say Obama flipflopped, rational people say that 'yes he did' or 'no, he didn't and here's why. . . .' Irrational people say that Bush or McCain is the flipfloppers as if that fact absolves Obama of any criticism whatsoever.

Personally, I think that's pretty dumb. It sure wouldn't make it as legitimate argument in a formal debate.

Woah there; nobody claimed that Obama cannot be criticized, b/c McCain is a flip-flopper. Of course he can, and McCain's status doesn't excuse Obama's changes.

What it DOES do is remove legitimacy from those Concerned Citizens who constantly go after Obama on flip-flops while NEVER going after McCain on them. It weakens your argument to focus your ammo strictly on one side, when the other side is guilty of so many worse violations of the same thing.

If you were intellectually honest, you would admit this...

Cycloptichorn

So where are your cut and pastes about Obama's many flip flops? All I have seen from you in this regard is your excusing them and rationalizing why he did them yet here you are castigating someone else for doing the SAME EXACT THING YOU ARE GUILTY OF... and you dare call them intellectually dishonest... It boggles the mind.

Honestly, you have absolutely NO stance on this issue at all. none. Zilch. nada.

teenyboone wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

McCain at least can stand up and say "I was wrong about that" or "I realize now that the American people see it differently" or "I have changed my opinion about that and here's why" or whatever. Obama by contrast dodges and weaves with something to the effect of "What I really meant to say was. . . ." With that tactic he never has to accept responsibility for ANYTHING he says that turns out to be unpopular with his constituency.

So, what are YOU meaning to say....? :wink:

I'm saying that McCain usually, not always but usually, provides an explanation or rationale for why what he is proposing now is a change from what he said or proposed or how he voted previously. Does this mean he isn't changing positions for political expediency? Of course not. But he insults my intellgience less in how he does it than does Obama with his all-too-frequent 'what I intended to say. . .' or 'what I meant was. . ." lines. Now and then a clarification of a position would be understandable. But it is happening too frequently and is often way too much of a stretch and there are far too many shifts in the sands to be very believable. And, taking from the thesis of the article I posted, it is a trait that is not good in a Head of State when unfortunate statements are not easily retracted.

Foxfyre wrote:

teenyboone wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

McCain at least can stand up and say "I was wrong about that" or "I realize now that the American people see it differently" or "I have changed my opinion about that and here's why" or whatever. Obama by contrast dodges and weaves with something to the effect of "What I really meant to say was. . . ." With that tactic he never has to accept responsibility for ANYTHING he says that turns out to be unpopular with his constituency.

So, what are YOU meaning to say....? :wink:

I'm saying that McCain usually, not always but usually, provides an explanation or rationale for why what he is proposing now is a change from what he said or proposed or how he voted previously. Does this mean he isn't changing positions for political expediency? Of course not. But he insults my intellgience less in how he does it than does Obama with his all-too-frequent 'what I intended to say. . .' or 'what I meant was. . ." lines. Now and then a clarification of a position would be understandable. But it is happening too frequently and is often way too much of a stretch and there are far too many shifts in the sands to be very believable. And, taking from the thesis of the article I posted, it is a trait that is not good in a Head of State when unfortunate statements are not easily retracted.

....And what I'm saying is, I don't care what McSame is USUALLY saying or not! He's got NO message, period!