Dirty politics? Business as usual..
Can you really trust McSame? "I endorse and support this crap"

What is quite sad about this is that John McCain, who I once respected,is acting like a 72 year-old Karl Rove.

I'm completely shocked at this turn of events.

Shocked.

And awed.

I can't imagine political strategists planning a variety of attacks for multiple contingencies.

Nabb1: I can't imagine political strategists planning a variety of attacks for multiple contingencies.

Oh by all means. That is their job.

You aren't, however, somehow struck by the fact that these two attacks are exactly contradictory?

I'm no Fark independent, but that thing sort of seems to be lacking in integrity or something.

I mean, the only thing consistent in John McCain's campaign is that if Obama does it, it is bad*.

_{*unless John McCain then does it in which case it is only bad when Obama does it.}

Skleenar: Nabb1: I can't imagine political strategists planning a variety of attacks for multiple contingencies.

Oh by all means. That is their job.

You aren't, however, somehow struck by the fact that these two attacks are exactly contradictory?

I'm no Fark independent, but that thing sort of seems to be lacking in integrity or something.

I mean, the only thing consistent in John McCain's campaign is that if Obama does it, it is bad*.

*unless John McCain then does it in which case it is only bad when Obama does it.

My statement wasn't intended as a value judgment. If that's what you want to read into it, that's your business. If you have to pick a fight in every political thread, do it with someone else. I'm not debating anything with someone who uses the phrase "Fark independent" and assumes I'm arguing something I'm not.

Nabb1: My statement wasn't intended as a value judgment. If that's what you want to read into it, that's your business. If you have to pick a fight in every political thread, do it with someone else. I'm not debating anything with someone who uses the phrase "Fark independent" and assumes I'm arguing something I'm not.

What do you think of McCain's campaign preparing two contradictory attack ads?

Obdicut: What do you think of McCain's campaign preparing two contradictory attack ads?

Obvious.

Nabb1: Obvious.

What do you think of the ethics of it, to be more clear? Does it say anything about McCain or the way he's conducting his campaign to you?

Nabb1: I'm not debating anything with someone who uses the phrase "Fark independent" and assumes I'm arguing something I'm not.

Fine. You don't have to debate me.

But I think you're full of it. The story is that McCain was going to attack Obama as having questionable motives no matter what he did. Your comment portrayed this as foresight on the part of the McCain camp for preparing for any eventuality.

But you missed (or intentionally glossed over) the important point: That the attacks were mutually exclusive.

It isn't like they were going to attack him if he did one thing and ignore the issue if he did the other--which if you plan in advance is also 'preparing for multiple contingencies'.

What this reveals about McCain's campaign is a characteristic lack of principle. THAT is why it is a story, no matter how you try to minimize what this reveals.

Nabb1: I can't imagine political strategists planning a variety of attacks for multiple contingencies.

I remembering something about McCain wanting this to be a presidential campaign about the issues instead of a series of attack ads. Seems that idea got tossed out the window when somebody checked the state-by-state polling.

Obdicut: Nabb1: Obvious.

What do you think of the ethics of it, to be more clear? Does it say anything about McCain or the way he's conducting his campaign to you?

Dude, it's pretty obvious that as a McCain supp...excuse me Fark Independent^TM he's not going to denounce this kind of thing.

Skleenar: Nabb1: I'm not debating anything with someone who uses the phrase "Fark independent" and assumes I'm arguing something I'm not.

Fine. You don't have to debate me.

But I think you're full of it. The story is that McCain was going to attack Obama as having questionable motives no matter what he did. Your comment portrayed this as foresight on the part of the McCain camp for preparing for any eventuality.

But you missed (or intentionally glossed over) the important point: That the attacks were mutually exclusive.

It isn't like they were going to attack him if he did one thing and ignore the issue if he did the other--which if you plan in advance is also 'preparing for multiple contingencies'.

What this reveals about McCain's campaign is a characteristic lack of principle. THAT is why it is a story, no matter how you try to minimize what this reveals.

I'm sure it is as you say, but while you think I am full of it, you're a hypocrite for discounting what I say because of what you perceive as some pro-McCain bias on my part because you are so far in the tank for Obama that I have no way of believing you aren't blowing a bit of Machiavellian distasteful election shenanigans so far out of proportion as to become physically aroused by your own false sanctimony. And maybe you're right to be. Or maybe I'm right to be cynically unfazed by a revelation that is so patently obvious. If you want to be outraged by it, be outraged by it. I really don't care. I'm certainly not saying I condone this kind of behavior, but if you're upset that I don't share your outrage, well, so what? If I changed my opinion about Obama or McCain's policies based on this, I'd be pretty foolish.

cameroncrazy1984: Dude, it's pretty obvious that as a McCain supp...excuse me Fark IndependentTM he's not going to denounce this kind of thing.

Ooooh! You're making him SOOOO angry!

Skleenar: cameroncrazy1984: Dude, it's pretty obvious that as a McCain supp...excuse me Fark IndependentTM he's not going to denounce this kind of thing.

Ooooh! You're making him SOOOO angry!

You kids are cute when you have to resort to making every issue personal. Where did you learn such intellectual dishonesty?

Nabb1: Or maybe I'm right to be cynically unfazed by a revelation that is so patently obvious. If you want to be outraged by it, be outraged by it. I really don't care.

I fail to see the outrage in my comment. I do see a lot of anger in your response back to me. Which begs the question: If this is so uninteresting to you in the first place, to the extent that you are calling me out for responding to a post you put in a public forum dedicated to discussing the matter, then why did you bother to post the opinion in the first place?

Would it be out of place for someone in my position to assume that your response was intended to affect the way others perceive this news?

Nabb1: You kids are cute when you have to resort to making every issue personal. Where did you learn such intellectual dishonesty?

Oh, HAI whoever it is posting for Nabb1.

You must be new to Fark. How 'bout we get someone to show you around.

Anyone want to show the new guy the ropes?

Skleenar: I fail to see the outrage in my comment. I do see a lot of anger in your response back to me. Which begs the question: If this is so uninteresting to you in the first place, to the extent that you are calling me out for responding to a post you put in a public forum dedicated to discussing the matter, then why did you bother to post the opinion in the first place?

Would it be out of place for someone in my position to assume that your response was intended to affect the way others perceive this news?

I'm not angry. Your response to my post was clearly a couple of thinly veiled swipes at me. You and some of the others who patrol these threads seem to have a chip on your shoulder and label me and others as "Fark independents." I'm happy to discuss the merits of an issue, but you and some of the others in this thread get confrontational on a personal level, and it's immature, and tiresome, and therefore when you throw labels out like that, how can you expect to be responded to in a reasonable fashion?

Nabb1

You must have missed my post:

What do you think of the ethics of it, to be more clear? Does it say anything about McCain or the way he's conducting his campaign to you?

Nabb1: but while you think I am full of it, you're a hypocrite for discounting what I say because of what you perceive as some pro-McCain bias on my part because you are so far in the tank for Obama

Oh, and "that word, &tc"

Nabb1: I'm not angry. Your response to my post was clearly a couple of thinly veiled swipes at me. You and some of the others who patrol these threads seem to have a chip on your shoulder and label me and others as "Fark independents." I'm happy to discuss the merits of an issue, but you and some of the others in this thread get confrontational on a personal level, and it's immature, and tiresome, and therefore when you throw labels out like that, how can you expect to be responded to in a reasonable fashion?

I think it is telling that you saw an accusation by me where none was put forth.

[picture of Freud]

Obdicut: Nabb1

You must have missed my post:

What do you think of the ethics of it, to be more clear? Does it say anything about McCain or the way he's conducting his campaign to you?

I don't care for this kind of behavior in campaigns, but I'm not surprised by it. Does it influence my vote? No. I think you overestimate my opinion of the McCain campaign. It doesn't change my opinions about McCain's policy positions or Obama's policy positions. I'm not voting for someone to go out with and have a beer.

Skleenar: I think it is telling that you saw an accusation by me where none was put forth.

[picture of Freud]

Freud was a pervert. If none was intended, then I owe you an apology and a drink. But, I've got my eye on you.

Nabb1: I don't care for this kind of behavior in campaigns, but I'm not surprised by it. Does it influence my vote? No. I think you overestimate my opinion of the McCain campaign. It doesn't change my opinions about McCain's policy positions or Obama's policy positions. I'm not voting for someone to go out with and have a beer.

You didn't answer my question. You answered something, but it's not my question.

What do you think of the ethics of preparing attack ads regardless of what your opponent decides to do? Does being willing to attack your opponent for diametrically opposite things say anything about a candidate to you?

You appear to be saying it doesn't say anything about the candidate. Is that true?

Who is running that campaign, Karl Rove's long-lost retarded twin brother?

I'm John McCain, and I pooped 'em.

Obama has a spy within the McCain camp. Possibly a few.

HotWingConspiracy: I'm John McCain, and I pooped 'em.

Yay, I poopied. Waaah I'm dirty now.

And, again, why is this a big deal?

The same RNC attack group that made lies and allegations about his own family McCain now has embraced.

It really makes you sick.

Preemption, is there anything it can't do?

Hilariously Karl Rove was on Fox the other night, making a curious assertion to the effect of: Obama thinks it would have been inappropriate to visit the troops on a political visit. That's preposterous. Could you imagine McCain attacking him for visiting wounded soldiers?

I have no problem with people voting for the GOP based on some sort of issues. They should however understand that what they are getting are people with absolutely no soul.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

CaboGuy26: And, again, why is this a big deal?

Because it's an underhanded, dishonest tactic that McCain claimed previously should be ousted from the political discourse in America?

Skleenar: Anyone want to show the new guy the ropes?



/I keed!
//hotlinked, natch

MasterThief: Who is running that campaign, Karl Rove's long-lost retarded twin brother?

Amateur night at the 2008 Presidential race.

Obdicut: What do you think of the ethics of preparing attack ads regardless of what your opponent decides to do? Does being willing to attack your opponent for diametrically opposite things say anything about a candidate to you?

i'd be curious about this too- look, you can't attack someone for doing mutually exclusive things without it saying something about your character. For me at least, character matters in someone i'm voting for.

CaboGuy26: And, again, why is this a big deal?

It's not really a big deal. It's kinda humorous, then kinda disappointing.

Andric: CaboGuy26: And, again, why is this a big deal?

Because it's an underhanded, dishonest tactic that McCain claimed previously should be ousted from the political discourse in America?





oh

Code_Archeologist: Seems that idea got tossed out the window when somebody checked the state-by-state polling.

I believe the buzz-phrase of this campaign season is 'under the bus', not 'out the window'.

You stay classy, McCain.

So what happened to all that talk about honoring and respecting the troops? That Dems are just using the troops as a political prop? Seems like McCain is besmirching his position as a war hero.

CaboGuy26: And, again, why is this a big deal?

Because he pledged to run a civil campaign and now is not. So he lied.

Thrag: CaboGuy26: And, again, why is this a big deal?

It's not really a big deal. It's kinda humorous, then kinda disappointing.

I thought McCain would be above all of this, but his internals must be worse than he predicted.

CaboGuy26: And, again, why is this a big deal?

Its a big deal because McCain said he was not going to go negative in the campaign. He repeated it over and over and over again that he wanted to run a campaign on the issues. Even his wife said on the Today Show:

Cindy McCain: I believe, we're going to see a great debate, which the American public deserves, more importantly. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all, because... My husband is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning at all.

...

Anne Curry: Even if it doesn't help you win the presidency?

Cindy McCain: I believe I can speak for my husband on the same thing, we'd rather not win than to have to do that. That's not worth winning for.

He would rather not win than run a negative campaign. Well it looks like he will have the chance to have both of those.

McCain: Obama, why don't you go visit Iraq and support the troops?

Obama: OK

McCain: OBAMA USES THE TROOPS AS A POLITICAL TOOL.

Obama: But I avoided a situation where it could appear to be a political stump...

McCain: OBAMA DOESN'T SUPPORT WOUNDED TROOPS.

Well, I don't know how you can mock McCain turning his campaign into Bush/Cheney 2004: The Reckoning, as it's clearly WORKING going by the daily trackers. Obama's still kicking the dogshiat out of McCain in the electoral map, but the media's got the horserace it wanted because people are absolutely 100% full of crap when they bemoan how awful negative attack ads are and how THEY certainly would never go for that stuff.

I will say that if he was going to get Rove'd over it one way or the other, he probably should have gone.

That said, big-ass meh.

Something_else: You stay classy, McCain.

So what happened to all that talk about honoring and respecting the troops? That Dems are just using the troops as a political prop? Seems like McCain is besmirching his position as a war hero.

THIS. The problem isn't simply that it's hypocrisy, it's that it's such spectacular hypocrisy that I can't believe they're even attempting it. By attacking Obama as using/neglecting American soldiers regardless of his actions, they're using and neglecting American soldiers, and performing the same horrible act of turning them into political tools that they denigrate Democrats for (again, regardless of their actions).

Nabb1
My statement wasn't intended as a value judgment.

What is your value judgment on McCain's campaign making such hypocritical, contradictory attacks?

child_god: McCain: Obama, why don't you go visit Iraq and support the troops?

Obama: OK

McCain: OBAMA USES THE TROOPS AS A POLITICAL TOOL.

Obama: But I avoided a situation where it could appear to be a political stump...

McCain: OBAMA DOESN'T SUPPORT WOUNDED TROOPS.

Obama: That is a little dishonest don't you think?

McCain: Shut up Britney.