Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/11/06 19:26:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Never said otherwise. I even said it shouldn't have started that firestorm as there were better things to ding Obama. Like his associate to Ayers.
And yet you also said that Obama did not receive the vetting that Carson is now getting. You can have that argument, or the above one, but not both.
BS.
Obama's was the Democrat's savior. Thus he had favorable media treatment as it was always "Republicans overreach with this story on Ayers... what's the next crazy thing they'll do".
But, many of you dearly wished it was germinated by Clinton's camp.
That's a fiction of your own invention. I doubt many people here particularly care who started the scandal, as it isn't especially relevant given that it did not come from Clinton's campaign; a point you admitted to when arguing with me earlier in this thread.
Not my invention as it was started during the 2007 Democratic Primary season.
And yes, it was a ridiculous point of attack.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/06 19:30:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
2015/11/06 19:36:35
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
During the primary... yes. That's what the Clinton's are known for. But afterwards? During the General Election?
Didn't you know Obama was going to halt the rising sea level and heal earth?
That's the worship we were dealing with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back to Carson.
FWIW: I want him to flame out as he's too fething green for me and too zonky. (although, I'm interested if it was a Civ II fan. Loved that game. lol )
WIth that said... all I can do is groan at this. From my twittah:
"Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
That's going to feed the idea that this is a witchhunt is only going to make him more popular as the media is generally hated by the Republican party.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 19:40:41
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/06 19:40:54
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Obama's was the Democrat's savior. Thus he had favorable media treatment as it was always "Republicans overreach with this story on Ayers... what's the next crazy thing they'll do".
Many such stories existed, true, but there were just as many stories about how Obama's association with Ayers meant that he hated America, was a terrorist, or liked terrorism. It was a vitriolic issue fought over in opinion pieces across the internet, with both sides largely appealing to a readership that was firmly in one camp or the other. Claiming that the Ayers scandal wasn't a matter of vetting is simply the result of your own selective memory, likely driven by the mistaken belief that conservatives are treated unfairly by the media.
Indeed, I would hazard that at the time you considered any story which didn't try to hammer Obama for the association to be in his favor by default.
Not my invention as it was started during the 2007 Democratic Primary season.
The fiction of your own invention is that many liberals didn't want the issue to be started by a Clinton supporter. I doubt many liberals care about who started the scandal, because it isn't all that important.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/11/06 19:41:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
Many many Clinton supporters would disagree with you vehemently on that. I believe there was even an SNL skit about it.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/11/06 19:45:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: I'm not actually 100% sure anymore. I still think it's true but I'm not positive.
Nice stealth edit again...
My second "stealth edit" was to add the second sentence which supports you. It's an accurate statement. I've always believed the rumor started in the Clinton camp and I never really dug into it too closely. I'm digging more into it and now I'm not that sure, there are some sources for both sides of the argument. My personal opinion is that it is in dispute. I am willing to change my opinion because one of the best pieces of advice I've gotten on this forum is from Sebster and Ahtman, respectively - I try as much as I can to not let my beliefs harden to the point that new information can't change them, and that "being a flip flopper" might be a good political attack but that's about it.
- his frequently changing stance on gay marriage
- his pastor
- his flag pin
- his drug use
- his voting record consisting of "present"
- his wife not being a proud American before this
- wearing his true Muslim clothes when visiting "home"
- tax records
- birth certificates
- bitter Americans clinging to guns
- his race
- his citizenship
- attending secret Muslim school as a child
- refusing to say the pledge of allegiance
- his stance on NAFTA
- his school record
- being accepted because of affirmative actions
- his father being his father
All stuff that was never talked about because nobody vetted him.
I guess it happened after he won the election, but I always thought the best scandal was this one:
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/11/06 19:47:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
Many many Clinton supporters would disagree with you vehemently on that. I believe there was even an SNL skit about it.
Are you sure you're not thinking about a specific McCain skit? (You might not be, and I might not know about the one you are referring to).
"My friends, I must say, that reminds me of an attack George Bush made on me in 2000."
"He won that election, right?"
"I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/11/06 19:54:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
Many many Clinton supporters would disagree with you vehemently on that. I believe there was even an SNL skit about it.
Are you sure you're not thinking about a specific McCain skit? (You might not be, and I might not know about the one you are referring to).
"My friends, I must say, that reminds me of an attack George Bush made on me in 2000."
"He won that election, right?"
"I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."
No it was the skit with a debate between Clinton and Obama. The moderators where giving Hillary the Benghazi treatment and then turning to Obama and asking things like "this must be tiring. Do you need a pillow?" and getting him one. It was great.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/11/06 19:56:35
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Wow, the Whembly-verse seems like an interesting place to live. Are hats worn on the feet and hamburgers eat people? Do the people that live there believe every poorly edited video of Obama? Because here's the actual transcript from his speech:
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America
This is why it's impossible to argue with you... Garbage in, garbage out.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/06 19:58:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: I can hardly even notice the edits, and that moment where he said "I will stop the oceans from rising" was amazing.
Well... he said:
... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...
So you claimed that Obama said that "he will stop the rising sea levels and heal the earth".
Then you post a video titled "Obama Claiming He Can Halt the Rise of the Oceans".
A video that required four separate clips edited together for a 24 second speech during which Obama actually still never said "I will stop the rising sea levels".
Of course something that did happen since 2008:
And my guess is that Obama is actually smart enough to realize that if you have an electorate that is willing to accept the facts of climate change and is willing to demand changes you will, in fact, end up with the changes needed to "slow the rising of the sea levels" (which is what he actually said).
Now I know that "the science isn't settled(tm)" will follow, and that none of this actually matters.
So I'm sorry to interrupt this regularly scheduled crazy rant time, now back to our regular programming:
2015/11/06 19:59:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What exactly is the problem with the "rising oceans" comment? All he's really saying is that he's going to support policies that reduce environmental damage and global warming. So unless you're part of the tinfoil hat crowd that believes that global warming isn't real I don't really see anything to complain about.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/11/06 20:02:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Peregrine wrote: What exactly is the problem with the "rising oceans" comment? All he's really saying is that he's going to support policies that reduce environmental damage and global warming. So unless you're part of the tinfoil hat crowd that believes that global warming isn't real I don't really see anything to complain about.
Clearly when he said:
America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past...
(APPLAUSE) ... our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge -- I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless...
(APPLAUSE)
... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...
He never actually said that the american people working together are able to make the changes needed to combat climate change and did in fact say that he alone will summon his Obama power and tell the ocean to stop messing around and stay put.
Edit: highlighted the portions that were actually in the video just to make it obvious how bad of an edit it was.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 20:05:12
2015/11/06 20:05:18
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Wow, the Whembly-verse seems like an interesting place to live. Are hats worn on the feet and hamburgers eat people? Do the people that live there believe every poorly edited video of Obama? Because here's the actual transcript from his speech:
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America
This is why it's impossible to argue with you... Garbage in, garbage out.
Well, what he actually said was worse.
He said he has "limitless faith" in the capacity of the American people. You know who else had faith? Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of Americans. Does Obama support killing thousands of Americans? People who kill thousands of Americans should be in jail, but Obama is still running around, free. You know who else runs around free? Roman Polanski. Did Obama rape a girl, and then hide from justice in France? You know who else was in France? Hitler.
Checkmate, libs.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/11/06 20:06:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ahtman wrote: I wonder what the reaction would be if it were Obama that had made statements about West Point instead of Carson.
Also, Ghazkuul would have made another stolen valor thread about it.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/06 20:12:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What you see here is an example of some vetting in attempt to damage a candidate.
The headline was misleading. So... in politico's own article:
"Dr. Carson was the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit,” campaign manager Barry Bennett wrote in an email to POLITICO. “In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer. He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors,” Bennett added. “They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.”
What we have here is that the Politico piece is deeply misleading because it misstates the lie that Carson supposedly told and mischaracterizes the campaign's response.
Regardless, this'll feed into the witchhunt thang. *sigh*
Is this exhausting? Would you like a pillow? *hands you a pillow*
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/06 20:28:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: What we have here is that the Politico piece is deeply misleading because it misstates the lie that Carson supposedly told and mischaracterizes the campaign's response.
So he didn't write, twice, in two different books, that he was offered a full scholarship to West Point?
Let's gloss over the date anomaly in the article - I certainly can't imagine I'd remember the exact date of when I met someone nearly 50 years ago and I wouldn't really expect someone else to. The other part, above, seems significant though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/06 20:30:25
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/11/06 20:33:54
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
But an informal "you could probably get a scholarship" conversation and a formal scholarship offer just waiting for your signature are exactly the same thing!
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/11/06 20:34:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, Keystone just got shut down (until 2017, anyway). I don't know what to think about it myself (never did the research to make my own decision), but many of the responses are the typical pot-calling-the-kettle-black by accusing Obama of supporting special interests. I would argue that if you are currently campaigning for election, and taking money from people to support that campaign, you've got no business throwing around any accusations of "special interests".
I would have been more impressed if he actually had the balls to make the decision years ago.
Instead he makes the decision after the prize of oil drops to a point where it is a crappy idea and nobody really wants to build it because it for economic reasons and the only people who are really supporting it are doing so for political reasons, and he also makes it after an election in Canada that resulted in the election of somebody that won't push for it either.
Making a decision now is just pretending that he made a decision.
2015/11/06 20:37:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Gabriel Malor @gabrielmalor
Note: Politico just altered the headline and lede to remove the bombshell claims about Carson. Doesn't note that it made the changes.
3:04 PM - 6 Nov 2015
84 84 Retweets 41 41 likes
