yeah you can tell the Rovians are running the slime machine now.
just come out and call him an uppity nagger guys. you know you want to. you keep talking about how he doesn't know his place and that he's too presumptuous and confident. too slick.

when the truth of the matter is he threatens the corpocracy. the status quo. he scares them by threatening to limit their influence in Washington.

It takes conjones to act offended at somebody when they point out what you did (and submitted to YouTube) the month before.

And yet oddly the buffoons gain traction by doing it again and again...

Interesting...

FTFA: As you can see, the video's still image is of Obama on currency. Note that the image doesn't occur until about three-quarters of the way through the video. The way YouTube works, the default image occurs at the midpoint. In other words, McCain's campaign affirmatively choose this image.

Seriously, one of these days McCain has to figure out that we have devices that can record things and store them for easy future reference. Is he really campaigning in 1968?

vicejay: Interesting...

FTFA: As you can see, the video's still image is of Obama on currency. Note that the image doesn't occur until about three-quarters of the way through the video. The way YouTube works, the default image occurs at the midpoint. In other words, McCain's campaign affirmatively choose this image.

Wait, if the YouTube image is the halfway image, then why would it be the $100 image which occurs at 3/4 of the way through?

/techmologies

wow. that's one of the weakest political ads i've ever seen. okay, so it's second to the obama celebrity ad. that one was pretty weak.

liberalish: vicejay: Interesting...

FTFA: As you can see, the video's still image is of Obama on currency. Note that the image doesn't occur until about three-quarters of the way through the video. The way YouTube works, the default image occurs at the midpoint. In other words, McCain's campaign affirmatively choose this image.

Wait, if the YouTube image is the halfway image, then why would it be the $100 image which occurs at 3/4 of the way through?

/techmologies

Let's play "bold the key word," shall we?

"As you can see, the video's still image is of Obama on currency. Note that the image doesn't occur until about three-quarters of the way through the video. The way YouTube works, the default image occurs at the midpoint. In other words, McCain's campaign affirmatively choose this image."

Raiden333: Let's play "bold the key word," shall we?

"As you can see, the video's still image is of Obama on currency. Note that the image doesn't occur until about three-quarters of the way through the video. The way YouTube works, the default image occurs at the midpoint. In other words, McCain's campaign affirmatively choose this image."

Shut it. Like you're sober enough right now to understand all the words.

I've read a bunch of the recent political threads...

Most notable thing I've seen:

It frigging amazes me that their are a lot people on fark who are gullible enough to believe that Obama can take the high road... and that mudslinging will not work against him... and that Obama beat Hillary because the "high road works"..

If Obama keeps running a "clean" campaign, you guys are going to be mighty dissapointed in the next few months.

After 2000 and 2004, I would have never expected someone as well versed in politics as Weaver95 to forget the one universal and underlying rule of politics.

Mudslinging is designed to make people "fed-up" with politics and stay home or vote 3rd party. McCain's base is a lot more reliable than Obama's... they are a lot more motivated, ignorant and biggoted and will damn sure show up...

Mudslinging has worked and will continue to work.. and it works really well when one base is filled with more retards.

Neurochemist: It frigging amazes me that their are a lot people on fark who are gullible enough to believe that Obama can take the high road... and that mudslinging will not work against him... and that Obama beat Hillary because the "high road works"..

I don't know, there is a lot of evidence from Obama that refraining from mudslinging works. And if McCain only mudslings, doesn't that mean that people that would vote for him stay home out of disgust?

their.. fail is making grammar errors you are a where of.

there is a lot of evidence from Obama that refraining from mudslinging works

It will work for him just like it worked for Kerry and Gore. In the hundreds of years of documented political races, this will be the first one we will ever be able to point to and say... this is when humans evolved and mudslinging stopped working. You guys have a lot more faith in the general population than I do.. I see a general population that has been subjected to arguably the worst Presidency of all times and his older brother (who has the same beliefs) is polling within a few points... If Bush could run, I'm not even sure the Democrats would beat him...

And if McCain only mudslings, doesn't that mean that people that would vote for him stay home out of disgust?

Just like those same people stayed home when Bush ran the dirties campaign of all-time vs. Kerry. It only works that way if both sides are on equal mental footing.

So, does the McCain staff actually even bother doing research, or are they just winging it at this point. Just straight riffing a fire and forget sort of campaign?

At this point, it looks desperate and it's making him appear even more out of touch and doddering at this point. At this point, I think that McCain might be better served if his campaign just shut the heck up, and stayed on message.

Neurochemist: Just like those same people stayed home when Bush ran the dirties campaign of all-time vs. Kerry. It only works that way if both sides are on equal mental footing.

Obama is not Kerry. He's not Gore. He's engaged and engaging. He's got a great set of ideas, a good record in government and in education and in the community. He fights back, without taking the low road. He has raised record-breaking amounts of money from record-breaking numbers of small donors. This isn't 2000. This isn't 2004. This is 2008, and this time it will be different.

At this point, it looks desperate and it's making him appear even more out of touch and doddering at this point.

I'd think the same thing.. except when I visited my grandparents house a few days ago.. My grandfather (who has never been on the internet) and gets his news from basic cable looks me dead in the eys and says, "these energy prices wouldn't be this high if these damn Democrats would let us drill"... followed by, "I can't believe Obama didn't visit those troops over in Germany because they couldn't bring cameras"... followed by, "he thinks he is some kind of celebrity, or the next Jesus" ....

These things he is doing appear absurd to the "people in the know" but they are reaching his retarded target audience and doing exactly what is intended.

This isn't 2000. This isn't 2004. This is 2008, and this time it will be different.

There are thousands of posts from 2004 that say exactly what you have said.....

I sincerely hope you are right... but I made a pact after 2004...never to fall into that trap again... People have not evolved this quickly..

Neurochemist: People have not evolved this quickly..

People have not. But the culture has changed. The candidate has changed as well.

People have not. But the culture has changed. The candidate has changed as well.

It is easy to say that now.. while the polls are favorable... but I remember the polls being favorable at this point before.. and I remember how the Republicans work... they sand bag at first, while the election is several months away.. and as time passes, their attacks will grow exponentially and become more low by day...

Pay close attention to the army of blonde, attractive, debate students McCain has unleashed.. They are phase 1... And they are not going to brow beat Obama's surrogates or have a friendly debate...They are winning the debates through passive-aggressive attacks and sounding "certain" on every topic... Which is exactly why Obama damn well better not engage McCain without a good moderator.. He will lose in a non-moderated debate where McCain (INTP) personality will dominate and personal attacks will reign supreme.

Neurochemist: People have not. But the culture has changed. The candidate has changed as well.

It is easy to say that now.. while the polls are favorable... but I remember the polls being favorable at this point before.. and I remember how the Republicans work... they sand bag at first, while the election is several months away.. and as time passes, their attacks will grow exponentially and become more low by day...

Pay close attention to the army of blonde, attractive, debate students McCain has unleashed.. They are phase 1... And they are not going to brow beat Obama's surrogates or have a friendly debate...They are winning the debates through passive-aggressive attacks and sounding "certain" on every topic... Which is exactly why Obama damn well better not engage McCain without a good moderator.. He will lose in a non-moderated debate where McCain (INTP) personality will dominate and personal attacks will reign supreme.

Unless McCain makes the mistake of bringing up his record.

That's McCain's real weakness--his own record. His own chameleon-like nature, and the sad fact, that his campaign can't fact check--that or he refuses to heed their advice.

Obama doesn't need to attack McCain--he's doing a fine job of hacking himself to pieces and distance himself from the public with every turn.

Obama doesn't need to attack McCain--he's doing a fine job of hacking himself to pieces and distance himself from the public with every turn.

Ahh -- perception through the eyes of people "in the know". We make up 2-3% of the electorate -- congrats..

Neurochemist: Obama doesn't need to attack McCain--he's doing a fine job of hacking himself to pieces and distance himself from the public with every turn.

Ahh -- perception through the eyes of people "in the know". We make up 2-3% of the electorate -- congrats..

Hardly as much that.

I am a Conservative, who supported McCain in his 2000 bid. Sorely disappointed too in how things turned out. I'm dating another Republican, who has turned to the Obama campaign, because of his twister-like shift away from the ideals he claims to hold dear.

We aren't special. We aren't alone. There are a good number of folks our age, who vote, and who are just plain disgusted with the turn of events, and in part, we want our party back. And who recognize that we can't afford more of the same that we've gotten for the last eight years. We simply cannot afford it.

McCain distances himself from his base--and while there are still partisan robots out there who conveniently forget all the arguments that were used against McCain the last go 'round, when he faced ANOTHER younger, "less qualified" opponent who had appeal, not everyone forgets that he's now sucking up to the same folks who cuts his balls off none too long ago.

If he wasn't the man for the job then--when he at least tried to stand for something, he's less so now that he mouths platitudes that his own record shows that he found distasteful and shameful only a few years earlier.

At this point, McCain's own record speaks against him in volumes. And it's not that I'm "in the know" it's just that I have a memory. And so do others. Not special in the least, and this is why, unless the man can get some damn backbone, and perhaps divest himself of the Rove machine which was used ON him not too long ago, he's going to wind up alienating a lot of voters who used to respect the man.

hubiestubert -- I sincerely hope you are right... but the more I divorce my perception and look at things how I'd hate them to be... the more accurate I've become in predicting politics.

/Heres to hoping I'm wrong.

You know what... I support Obama, but that's a pretty funny attack ad. The last line is the clincher.

+1 to ad team who came up with that.

/other negative ads are obnoxious but every once in a while there's some good ones. Like the superbowl... but lamer.

Neurochemist: It frigging amazes me that their are a lot people on fark who are gullible enough to believe that Obama can take the high road... and that mudslinging will not work against him... and that Obama beat Hillary because the "high road works"..

If Obama keeps running a "clean" campaign, you guys are going to be mighty dissapointed in the next few months.

But you forget...many people are voting for him BECAUSE he takes "the high road".

Neurochemist: predicting politics.

name a causal law of human cultural behavior (no biological functions)

Hobodeluxe: the truth of the matter is he threatens the corpocracy. the status quo. he scares them by threatening to limit their influence in Washington.

A million times this. But what goes overlooked in the whole Obama v. the Corporate Machine is a very important cog of said machine - the press.

None of what McCain is doing could work without an enabling press. You can say at best they want a horse race for profit, or at worst the 5 or 6 corporations who own virtually all mainstream news actively want Obama to lose. This race shouldn't be close. But the media constantly covers for McCain, and discusses and validates asinine Republican talking points that should be laughed at.

Other than the Left finding out what the Right always knew about the Clintons, the utterly disgraceful failure of the press is THE story of this election season

=================
break
====
Neurochemist: .
continuation of ¹²³⁴
If you're a neurochemist, you'll understand the role of causal laws in prediction, and you'll know the 'problem of induction,' which is something people had to realize they were left with, after positivist models were attempted even without foundational components like causal cultural laws.

Context, induction, etc. There's a reason why even the best funded political events can only rely on a flurry of contemporaneous and as representative (as possible) polling. Even then, that doesnt work so well. There's still plenty of arguments^[5] over the last election's polls and final result.

Opiate of the Lasses: failure of the press is THE story of this election season

Id want to kick that to, at least:

Media moguls forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative. Hey, look... there's an elephant in here (100)

Washington reporters now in full meltdown, damage control mode after Bill Moyer's biatchslap of the Washington press corps collective loss of critical thinking in 2001-2003 on Iraq (151)

The media's hysteria-driven coverage of Pelosi's Syria trip demonstrates that it takes its cues from fringe ideologues whom it mistakes for the mainstream (45)

"...how efficiently certain views that deviate from the elite consensus are banished from sight -- simply prohibited -- even when those views are held by the vast majority of citizens." (76)

More in this thread

Party Boy -- very good information. I wish that I had clicked on your profile in the earlier thread.

Party Boy: break

damn you for posting that image!!!

I think this election is actually pretty drastically different from the 2004 one. Kerry basically ran on the "I'm not Bush" platform while being a zombierrific blackhole of charisma vs. Bush, who was better-known and had more charm. This year, I actually think McCain is running on the "I'm not Obama" platform. Notice how all the McCain supporters say "Obama sucks, vote McCain!" rather than "Hey, here's why McCain is awesome"?

I can't say who'll win this election, but I don't think Obama's doomed simply because he chooses to run a clean campaign.

Neurochemist: Party Boy -- very good information. I wish that I had clicked on your profile in the earlier thread.

There's plenty to read on the failures of the various positivist movements in social sciences (approximately 1950's - 1980's) if you are interested.

Unfortunately, unlike you guys in "harder" sciences, we don't get laws like gravity (which 9.8 m/s2 can be adjusted for its distance from the earth's center). It even gets soupy and messy for physicists, but they have a foundation. Humans, as you would know, do have biological laws working on them. Its the cultural stuff thats problematic.

Neurochemist: .

What some end up working with are "trends." Say, they have specialized knowledge that they feel gives them particular insight on the present/past and they extend that "trend" to the future. Unfortunately, this doesn't account for change. It just hopes that things will go on the same.

Example

log_jammin: damn you for posting that image!!!

He's right, Neurochemist, I've been posting it a bit lately. Assuming the McCain camp doesnt change, I'll post it a few more times as this trend continues. However, I have no farking idea if it will change.

That McCain "change you can photoshop" ad was weapons-grade fail. Does stuff like that actually work over there? If that ad ran on Australian TV the candidate responsible would be laughed all the way out of the campain - even though we have some DUMB voters!

Humans, as you would know, do have biological laws working on them. Its the cultural stuff thats problematic.

I believe I see a pattern developing.

Humans will either evolve to the point where they:

a) come to recognize, understand and account for the gaps between human nature/culture and logic. mitigate as much as possible to slightly delay b.

b) self-destruct, rinse, repeat.

Neurochemist: .

back later, email in profile if you want it.

?

opiate of the lasses

"[media] discusses Republican talking points that should be laughed at"

i'm sorry, as bad as our 2 party system is, your one party system will be worse. if "from each according to his ability, to each according to their needs" ended up as the soviet union (how many dead, homeless and impoverished as a result?), then i'm sure that the single party system of only D's would probably be as bad, if not worse.

As for the AD: it didn't seem to imply anything about race to me. still, it was a pretty pathetic ad.

Poor McCain, always shooting himself in the foot while he puts it in his mouth.

Neurochemist: .

really quick

one my favorite things about the espousal of peoples cultural paradigms/metatheories that involve the user's own fabrication of a cultural "causal law(s)" is that they do more to reflect the person's own biases than anything.

/out

proteus_b: opiate of the lasses

"[media] discusses Republican talking points that should be laughed at"

i'm sorry, as bad as our 2 party system is, your one party system will be worse. if "from each according to his ability, to each according to their needs" ended up as the soviet union (how many dead, homeless and impoverished as a result?), then i'm sure that the single party system of only D's would probably be as bad, if not worse.

As for the AD: it didn't seem to imply anything about race to me. still, it was a pretty pathetic ad.

There's a big difference between publicly exposing and laughing at truly asinine talking points regardless of the source and a single-party totalitarian state. But keep pushing that dichotomy...

I consider my posts on here as mitigation. I'd rather have the discussion on the table, in-case history starts repeating... By the grace of the FSM, talking about the possibility of it will be what stops it from happening.

Party Boy: What some end up working with are "trends." Say, they have specialized knowledge that they feel gives them particular insight on the present/past and they extend that "trend" to the future. Unfortunately, this doesn't account for change. It just hopes that things will go on the same.



"If this trend continues... aaaay!"

/first thing I thought of
//couldn't be bothered to look for the actual screengrab, so just imagine that I posted it

ok...you two have managed to make me feel utterly stupid and clueless.

I'll go look for some porn or something.

Wow, way to ignore context and see through the prism of partisanship.

Context of McCains Ad: Obama is presumptious
Specific Image in Question: 100$ Bill
Obvious Meaning: Obama is so presumptious he'll put himself on the currency.
Weak Attack Ad - Check
Signs of Racism - Fail (None detected)

Context of Obama Speech: They're going to try and scare you by pointing out I don't look like the other presidents on the money.
Specific Point in Question: How, other than by saying he's black, would pointing out his differant looks scare people?
Obvious Meaning: They are going to point out that I'm black and play on your racism to get you to vote for McCain.
Weak Rhetoric - Check
Signs of Racism - Check

Sorry but Obama injected race first and he's not exactly running a clean campaign either.

McCains old, knows nothing about computers and will try to *scare* you into voting for him - Not exactly clean.
McCain supporters are racist - Not exactly clean.

The economy will fail and the country is going down the tubes if McCain is elected. (Scare tactic)
Cuts taxes for the Rich (Class Warfare mudslinging)

I could go on, but seriously, be honest about this stuff otherwise you do give the whole Obamesiah Meme traction. He's not taking the "high road" he's just a better BSer.

/Course we love electing BSers, so who's to say it's not a bad thing.

Party Boy: one my favorite things about the espousal of peoples cultural paradigms/metatheories that involve the user's own fabrication of a cultural "causal law(s)" is that they do more to reflect the person's own biases than anything.

I'll definitely email you... I've been toying around with defining perception and the gap between (my perception (or on a greater scale, any humans perceptions))) and actuality. I most def. can use some peer review.

CanisNoir: McCains old, knows nothing about computers and will try to *scare* you into voting for him - Not exactly clean.

yet true.

CanisNoir: McCain supporters are racist - Not exactly clean.

hes never said anything of the sort

CanisNoir: The economy will fail and the country is going down the tubes if McCain is elected. (Scare tactic)

used by McCain. and its not a scare tactic if you believe it to be true.

CanisNoir: Cuts taxes for the Rich (Class Warfare mudslinging)

yet true.

CanisNoir: I could go on, but seriously, be honest about this stuff otherwise you do give the whole Obamesiah Meme traction. He's not taking the "high road" he's just a better BSer.

Bringing up things about a candidates positions and campaign tactics are not "mud slinging" or "playing dirty".

CanisNoir: He's not taking the "high road" he's just a better BSer.

You're right; he is a better BSer, which is presumably why he chose his words carefully so as to leave himself with some plausible deniability (by not mentioning "race", for example). It's not nearly as unweildy or unequivocal an attack as "he'd rather lose a war to win an election".

Biological Ali: CanisNoir: He's not taking the "high road" he's just a better BSer.

You're right; he is a better BSer, which is presumably why he chose his words carefully so as to leave himself with some plausible deniability (by not mentioning "race", for example). It's not nearly as unweildy or unequivocal an attack as "he'd rather lose a war to win an election".

The problem being, it's as plausable as the phrase "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." It was obvious when in context what he was saying.

As for the McCain attack; that statement was true, but you're right it was unweildy even though the observation was accurate.

CanisNoir: even though the observation was accurate.

(Scare tactic)