or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Michelle Obama: name Hussein is 'the fear bomb'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Michelle Obama: name Hussein is 'the fear bomb' - Page 2

post #41 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Do the people who won't vote for McCain because he is an short, old, white guy lack ethics as well or are they fully justified in their votes by your reasoning?

Must resist the urge to launch a brutal ad hom based on this poster's really stupid selective logic.

You have rejected my request to talk this through step-by-step, in a sort of 'thought experiment', if you will. Instead you've just written some non-sequiteur in which you make you up something someone else might possibly have thought or said in order to evade the opportunity to actually discuss the point you started in this frankly stupid thread.

So what's the point, Nick?

Your post has nothing to do with my post. So what's the point?
post #42 of 115
OK. Tell you what.

Complete this sentence and we'll take it from there.

"When Ann Coulter repeatedly uses Barack Obama's middle name on national TV, she does it because..."

Cool?
post #43 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Ahh... let me see if I understand you. You're saying that when Ann Coulter, who hates the prospect of an Obama presidency, repeats Barack Obama's middle name implying he's one step away from a terrorist, she does it out of a sheer disinterested desire to, er, imply he's one step away from a terrorist.

Have I got that right?

Let's take this step by step.

No, I'm saying she would have done his if his middle name were Alfred.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #44 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

OK. Tell you what.

Complete this sentence and we'll take it from there.

"When Ann Coulter repeatedly uses Barack Obama's middle name on national TV, she does it because..."

Cool?

because it reflects thinking that was already there with the names Barack and Obama and is simply icing for the cake as it were. She wasn't going to vote for him. The people who would come see her speak were not going to vote for him. There are not votes lost by anyone using his middle name.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 115
Poisoning the well is about more than just influencing fans of the one person saying the inappropriate/libelous/slanderous thing.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #46 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Must resist the urge to launch a brutal ad hom based on this poster's really stupid selective logic.

It isn't stupid selective logic. I have no doubt that if someone were to discuss Obama's race as a means of disqualifying him from office, it would be called racism. Yet there are already plenty of Democrats declaring they won't consider McCain because he is a "white guy." It is still racism.

This is about who has a policy you want implemented in government. However on the Democratic side they all basically mirror each other with policy. So it has become about how women are abandoning Clinton to vote for Obama because they'd rather fantasize about having sex with him than listen to Clinton "bitch" about getting the first question, or drone on about health care minutia.

These same wonderful "deep" considerations are the folks who get concerned about a middle name and will gladly call McCain someone who can't be president because he is an "old white guy."

Quote:
You have rejected my request to talk this through step-by-step, in a sort of 'thought experiment', if you will. Instead you've just written some non-sequiteur in which you make you up something someone else might possibly have thought or said in order to evade the opportunity to actually discuss the point you started in this frankly stupid thread.

I don't recal this request. Perhaps it was in the middle of your last "brutal ad-hom" and thus I ignored reading it and likely the whole response.

Quote:
So what's the point, Nick?

The point is uninformed voters, the ones who are going to vote for Obama because he represents "Change" or because he makes their panties wet, or those who are going to vote against him because he is black or might have a non-western historical background based off his name aren't going to change anything based off his middle name. There is no additional checkbox of criteria informed or ill-informed that his middle name meets that all other information about him doesn't meet.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 115
Hey guys, I had this gasoline -- didn't know what else to do with it -- and thought it might go well with this fire.

Quote:
"Cherchez la femme," advised Alexander Dumas in: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America.


We know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him. But there is a real Barack Obama. No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html


Thoughts?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #48 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Thoughts?

His mother was a socialist, and his wife is pissed off at him for not picking up his underwear. Big whoop - everyones wife is pissed about that kind of stuff, and everyone I know has socialist parents (it is part of being gen-X, as there were tons of socialist baby boomers). The only wives that are not seething with anger about their slob husbands end up finding out they are married to gay men.

It does prove that he is hetrosexual, though (not that there is anything wrong with being gay )
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #49 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

His mother was a socialist, and his wife is pissed off at him for not picking up his underwear. Big whoop - everyones wife is pissed about that kind of stuff, and everyone I know has socialist parents (it is part of being gen-X, as there were tons of socialist baby boomers). The only wives that are not seething with anger about their slob husbands end up finding out they are married to gay men.

It does prove that he is hetrosexual, though (not that there is anything wrong with being gay )

I may be enough to hope the guy values ability over loyalty -- see GWB and HRC for inverse examples -- and can cut a deal when he needs to.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #50 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Hey guys, I had this gasoline -- didn't know what else to do with it -- and thought it might go well with this fire.



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html


Thoughts?

Spengler (columnist)

Quote:
Spengler is the pen name of an anonymous Internet columnist published in Asia Times Online (ATol) since January 2000. He writes from a conservative Judeo-Christian religious perspective using aspects of Western history and culture to comment on current geopolitical events.

Thoughts from an anonymous online op-ed columnist, leave me rather thoughtless, other than noticing the obvious character assassination that seems to be the central running theme of this thread.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #51 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Spengler (columnist)



Thoughts from an anonymous online op-ed columnist, leave me rather thoughtless, other than the character assassination that seems to be the central running theme of this thread.

That wasn't much of an answer -- just a "you're only saying that because..." bump.


Quote:
The modern method [of argumentation] is to assume without discussion that [your opponent] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it Bulverism. Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third — ‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.’ That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth [and Twenty-First] Century.
–C. S. Lewis

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #52 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

because it reflects thinking that was already there with the names Barack and Obama and is simply icing for the cake as it were. She wasn't going to vote for him. The people who would come see her speak were not going to vote for him. There are not votes lost by anyone using his middle name.

So you honestly believe that the only people who listen to Ann Coulter when she speaks on national television are people who already agree with her?

So you honestly believe, further, that negative advertising in an election campaign is a waste of money?
post #53 of 115
Ann Coulter is going to vote for Hillary Clinton...
post #54 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

That wasn't much of an answer -- just a "you're only saying that because..." bump.

And why should I care?

I gave you the short and sweet answer, after reading, what shall I call it, an op-ed piece. And you should realize by now, I don't discuss/debate op-ed pieces, because that's all they are, op-ed pieces. You see I like all the facts, and I like fact checking, and I like references. And op-ed pieces fail at all three of those criteria.

And following two other pieces of ilk from this someone who hides behind a screen name, it was obvious what this anonymous person's biased with intent position was, and wikipedia just confirmed it, thus the link.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #55 of 115
Actually, Nick, now I think about it, what's the point of political discussion on television at all?

I mean, whether Ann Coulter's on Hannity and Colmes or not, when Hannity talks liberal people can't listen. When Colmes speaks, conservatives aren't allowed to listen. Undecided people can't listen to either and Libertarians can only listen to Ron Paul.

Actually, what's the point in elections? No-one ever votes for the person they weren't always going to vote for anyway.

It takes real imagination to defend the indefensible, doesn't it?
post #56 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

So you honestly believe that the only people who listen to Ann Coulter when she speaks on national television are people who already agree with her?

No but the people that disagree with her on political matters and watch her aren't going to suddenly agree with her on who to vote for based on the recitation of Barack Obama's middle name.

Quote:
So you honestly believe, further, that negative advertising in an election campaign is a waste of money?

I believe attempting to negatively advertise someone's middle name is a complete waste of money. If you ran 30 million dollars of ads noting that Barack's middle name was Hussein, I don't think it would change a single vote from what it would have been prior to that ad.

Quote:
Actually, Nick, now I think about it, what's the point of political discussion on television at all?

I mean, whether Ann Coulter's on Hannity and Colmes or not, when Hannity talks liberal people can't listen. When Colmes speaks, conservatives aren't allowed to listen. Undecided people can't listen to either and Libertarians can only listen to Ron Paul.

Actually, what's the point in elections? No-one ever votes for the person they weren't always going to vote for anyway.

It takes real imagination to defend the indefensible, doesn't it?

A lot of political discussion on television isn't political discussion at all and that is why I and you shouldn't watch it. It is people talking past each other instead of to each other. As John Stewart said of Crossfire, "Stop hurting America." People can listen to whoever they desire but it doesn't mean the arguments will be persuasive. I have listened to the argument of mentioning a middle name and it inspiring fear. Does any particular middle name inspire any fear in you Hassan? It isn't a persuasive argument and it doesn't matter if it is made by the right or left.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 115
Clinton and Obama do not "mirror each other on policy".

Favoring Obama is not a sign of worship and adulation.


dmz:

My thought on that article is that it's a pile of hateful crap with little/no connection to reality. It does nothing but mischaracterize his entire family (Michelle is "rancorous"?) and extrapolate fantasy into some foreboding picture of a Manchurian candidate.


trumptman:

Quote:
If you ran 30 million dollars of ads noting that Barack's middle name was Hussein, I don't think it would change a single vote from what it would have been prior to that ad.

You are quite wrong. Your view of this is alarmingly binary and it assumes that voters are even as informed enough to process the information that his middle name is Hussein. Simply associating Obama with terrorists/former dictators is enough to poison the well and create ill will, even if it is logically unfounded.

You could run ads with no words at all that attacked Obama with nothing but a picture, poor lighting, and scary music.

Are you really so ignorant of human psychology?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #58 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Clinton and Obama do not "mirror each other on policy".

Favoring Obama is not a sign of worship and adulation.

You are quite wrong. Your view of this is alarmingly binary. Wow that is fun. I'll have to do it more often.

Quote:
You are quite wrong. Your view of this is alarmingly binary and it assumes that voters are even as informed enough to process the information that his middle name is Hussein. Simply associating Obama with terrorists/former dictators is enough to poison the well and create ill will, even if it is logically unfounded.

You could run ads with no words at all that attacked Obama with nothing but a picture, poor lighting, and scary music.

Are you really so ignorant of human psychology?

I've not said that negative ads cannot have an affect. I've simply said that I do not think mentioning his middle name is some trigger that will yield any additional gain.

For completely ignorant and uninformed people as you mention, Barack Obama already sounds like a terrorist name. He clearly looks non-anglo and his name isn't a John, Bill, Al, etc. I acknowledged from the onset that such people exist and based their thinking on such ignorant criteria. I simply asked, how many MORE of them do you think were Obama supports who now decided not to support him due to his middle name?

Hell you could run ads with Obama in a pimp suit slapping white women and eating Popeye's chicken. It would indeed have an affect among totally uninformed racist people. However my contention is that there would not be anymore of these people left over who were supporting him and now, when his middle name is repeated, suddenly would say... oh no... that crosses the line. All these other items didn't poison the well, but this one did.

Let me slap the quote up there again so the goal posts can stay where they ought to be.

Quote:
"They threw in the obvious, ultimate fear bomb," Obama said today of her husband's 2004 Senate race. "We're even hearing [that] now. 'When all else fails, be afraid of his name, and what that could stand for, because it's different.'"

This clearly mean that she believes there is some group of people out there that, just as I suggested weren't afraid of "different" as represented by 6'2" black man name Barack Obama, but are somehow scared of the middle name "Hussein."

So PLEASE stop trying to generalize this. Her statement doesn't reflect that. My contentions do not reflect that. I am not arguing that there is no such logical fallacy as poisoning the well. I'm arguing that the middle name poisons it to no further degree. It gains nothing. Everyone who was going to buy into that fallacy already did so before knowing his middle name and the name itself won't change any ADDITIONAL minds.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #59 of 115
trumptman:

Quote:
I've simply said that I do not think mentioning his middle name is some trigger that will yield any additional gain.

You said, "If you ran 30 million dollars of ads noting that Barack's middle name was Hussein, I don't think it would change a single vote from what it would have been prior to that ad."

This is obviously nonsense.

Quote:
For completely ignorant and uninformed people as you mention, Barack Obama already sounds like a terrorist name.

Not every "ignorant and uninformed" person would associate the name "Barack Obama" with terrorism. not every "ignorant and uninformed" person is a radical right-wingers.

Quote:
I simply asked, how many MORE of them do you think were Obama supports who now decided not to support him due to his middle name?

That's not the point. You are shifting goalposts here. The idea is not to convert Obama supporters, but to simply poison the well, to create enough negativity (logically coherent or not) to bring a candidate down.

Quote:
This clearly mean that she believes there is some group of people out there that, just as I suggested weren't afraid of "different" as represented by 6'2" black man name Barack Obama, but are somehow scared of the middle name "Hussein."

Sure, and it is absolutely absurd of you to deny that any such thing is possible when you have no basis for claiming it other than your own desire to argue it on the Internet.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #60 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:

You said, "If you ran 30 million dollars of ads noting that Barack's middle name was Hussein, I don't think it would change a single vote from what it would have been prior to that ad."

Yeah that is what I meant by no additional gains.

Quote:
This is obviously nonsense.

Well thank goodness we have as proof your authoritative tone and nothing more.

Quote:
Not every "ignorant and uninformed" person would associate the name "Barack Obama" with terrorism. not every "ignorant and uninformed" person is a radical right-wingers.

So how many "ignorant and uninformed" radical left-wingers are informed enough it not associate "Barack Obama" with terrorism but are ignorant enough to associate his middle name Hussein with terrorism.

If they associate Hussein with terrorism aren't they also going to believe that we should be in Iraq for example and already have disqualified him for standing against that vote?

What is obviously nonsense is believing there is this strange sort of selective prejudice and ignorance whereby a person is converted by one prejudiced factor when several other factors already all in the same area would not have activated his prejudice. Sure people can bring it up but that doesn't mean it has an affect.

Quote:
That's not the point. You are shifting goalposts here. The idea is not to convert Obama supporters, but to simply poison the well, to create enough negativity (logically coherent or not) to bring a candidate down.

That just doesn't make sense. If it doesn't cause any change in voter sentiment either for or against him, how does it bring a candidate down?

Quote:
Sure, and it is absolutely absurd of you to deny that any such thing is possible when you have no basis for claiming it other than your own desire to argue it on the Internet.

I appreciate how you associate me linking to an article that has a direct quote from the wife of the candidate making the claim as having "no basis" but sadly reality is against you on this one. I'm not just making it up. Michelle Obama has called it the fear bomb, a tactic that works when all other fail. It will poison the well when no other variable has, but that is just nonsense. There is not going to be any additional bit of support lost or gained due to his middle name.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 115
trumptman:

Quote:
Well thank goodness we have as proof your authoritative tone and nothing more.

Common sense would help us reach the conclusion. You are making a fairly profound statement; that $30 million in ads about his name being "Hussein" would have absolutely no impact on voting. That's a tremendous claim. My claim is quite humble by comparison, merely stating that $30 million in ads about his name being "Hussein" would have some kind of impact on voting. You are essentially arguing that a massive public effort would change nothing, I am saying it would change something.

Given the extreme grandeur of your claim and the simple humility of mine, it is obvious that the burden lies upon you.

Quote:
So how many "ignorant and uninformed" radical left-wingers are informed enough it not associate "Barack Obama" with terrorism but are ignorant enough to associate his middle name Hussein with terrorism.

Neither "Barack" nor "Obama" have any kind of connection in the public conscience with terror. Those two names are brand new to the American scene. They could very well sound African if there were no public obsession with Islam and Arabs right now. "Hussein", however, has decades of exposure in the American consciousness as attached to Arab/Muslim bogeymen. Do you deny any of what I have said in this paragraph?

Quote:
If they associate Hussein with terrorism aren't they also going to believe that we should be in Iraq for example and already have disqualified him for standing against that vote?

As I have said repeatedly, it's not about overt logical connections. It's not about acquiring that one piece of information and then plugging it into an equation and ending up with "don't vote for Obama". It's simply a way of building negativity.

Quote:
That just doesn't make sense. If it doesn't cause any change in voter sentiment either for or against him, how does it bring a candidate down?

Voter sentiment is largely emotional and circumstantial. If there is enough negative emotion attached to a choice that choice is less likely to be made, even if that negativity is not logically founded. Again, is your ignorance of basic human psychology truly so profound?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #62 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It isn't stupid selective logic. I have no doubt that if someone were to discuss Obama's race as a means of disqualifying him from office, it would be called racism. Yet there are already plenty of Democrats declaring they won't consider McCain because he is a "white guy." It is still racism.

Awesome. The possibility of "someone" discussing Obama's race as a negative is theoretical, but you know "plenty" of Democrats that won't vote for McCain because he's white-- as opposed to the fact that he appears to be a slightly crazy guy who really likes war, a lot.

So who are these racist Democrats you know? Is it something you just intuit? Because on that basis, I know " plenty" of Republicans that long to see Obama in chains! Brought low like the animal he is!

Quote:
This is about who has a policy you want implemented in government. However on the Democratic side they all basically mirror each other with policy. So it has become about how women are abandoning Clinton to vote for Obama because they'd rather fantasize about having sex with him than listen to Clinton "bitch" about getting the first question, or drone on about health care minutia.

Hmmmm, so Obama's appeal is largely sexual, and the "women" who fantasize about him. That's what it's "become about". Steady there, dude.


Quote:
These same wonderful "deep" considerations are the folks who get concerned about a middle name and will gladly call McCain someone who can't be president because he is an "old white guy."

Those "folks" being the women who are hot for Obama? Who, presumably, reject McCain because they don't want to have sex with him? Holy shit, liberals vote with their pussies!

But, again, who are these Democrats that are claiming McCain can't be president because he's "an old white guy"?

Quote:
I don't recal this request. Perhaps it was in the middle of your last "brutal ad-hom" and thus I ignored reading it and likely the whole response.

Sure. That must be it.

Quote:
The point is uninformed voters, the ones who are going to vote for Obama because he represents "Change™" or because he makes their panties wet, or those who are going to vote against him because he is black or might have a non-western historical background based off his name aren't going to change anything based off his middle name There is no additional checkbox of criteria informed or ill-informed that his middle name meets that all other information about him doesn't meet.

"Panties wet"? Dude. We're getting into a whole weird area here. Oh, and wipe off your screen, I guess.

But all fun asides, and as others have noted, elections aren't won or lost because some group like these aroused women you, uh, know about, vote for the candidate they've already chosen.

They're won and lost by relatively small numbers of undecided and swing voters, who may or may not be paying very close attention to the particulars. For these voters, it makes perfect sense to marinate them in a constant flow of largely inchoate but highly inflammatory words and images-- not (gee, haven't we already been over this?) because any one of those words or images makes particular sense or is going to cause a given voter to abruptly make up their mind, but because the cumulative effect of such a marinate seeps into the consciousness of a voter who is probably not going to be swayed by policy discussions.

Obama is black, black, blackity black, kinda Muslim terror Muslim terror Muslim, foreign, scary seductive (oh, right, your already on board with that one), inspires (scary) cult like devotion amongst mindless Negroes, fatuous one-worlders, and, I guess, Our Women! (ah, beat me to that one as well), hangs out with even scarier, blacker types, and, of course, Has That Name!!!!

None of that makes any sense at all. Any one thing can be dismissed as irrelevant to the general drift of things. I absolutely guarantee you that every bit of that is going to become a thriving subtext to the general election, and, taken as a whole, will have the power to influence the broadest perceptions of who Obama is.

That's (not very pretty) politics for you, but it's absolutely disingenuous bordering on (willfully?) ignorant to deny that such politics even exist because they draw on generations of race based fear of "the other", and seek to exploit a certain unease with what "those people" might really be up to.

And it's agressively silly to claim that all this is somehow just the flip side of (someone) calling McCain an "old white guy", although I realize that the Trumptman Unified Theory of Liberal Hypocrisy requires you endlessly defend that idea.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #63 of 115
Political campaigning is useless.

The only people that go and hear Obama speak are going to vote for him anyway.

Political advertising is useless. Only John McCain voters can read adverts promoting his message.

Political blogs are a waste of time. They do not alter the direction of the national debate or consensus.

This thread is a total, utter waste of time.

a) Only people who agree with Trumptman can read it
b) It is fucking retarded.
post #64 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:

Common sense would help us reach the conclusion. You are making a fairly profound statement; that $30 million in ads about his name being "Hussein" would have absolutely no impact on voting. That's a tremendous claim. My claim is quite humble by comparison, merely stating that $30 million in ads about his name being "Hussein" would have some kind of impact on voting. You are essentially arguing that a massive public effort would change nothing, I am saying it would change something.

Given the extreme grandeur of your claim and the simple humility of mine, it is obvious that the burden lies upon you.

Well I find your claim of common sense to be not so common in this instance. We witness countless campaigns every cycle that are loaded with money, but fail to convince with that money. What it shows us is that money can help a true premise reach more people and be more persuasive, but that a flawed premise can have loads of money tossed at it and still fail to persuade in any fashion. I'd probably call Mitt Romney the best example of that for this cycle. An analogous example would be how millions in marketing campaigns cannot sway folks to give their money to certain movies that are true stinkers and thus they become box office bombs.

Quote:
Neither "Barack" nor "Obama" have any kind of connection in the public conscience with terror. Those two names are brand new to the American scene. They could very well sound African if there were no public obsession with Islam and Arabs right now. "Hussein", however, has decades of exposure in the American consciousness as attached to Arab/Muslim bogeymen. Do you deny any of what I have said in this paragraph?

You and I know that but then again you and I are informed and know that having a certain middle name doesn't mean anything either. We are talking about uninformed people who resort to stereotypes. We are talking about people who yell at sikhs calling them terrorists. We are talking about about someone who says, "I don't know what a Baa-rock is, but it certainly ain't American."

So I do deny it because people who are racist, who stereotype, who fill in the blanks with ignorance aren't going to let a little thing like knowing whether Barack or Obama have any true connection stop them. They know they are unconventional, and in their minds, that is enough. It isn't a John, Al or Bill. Claiming they will fill in the names Hussein with fact based information and ignore Barack and Obama because of fact based information is nonsense when you are dealing with ignorant fools who do not deal with facts but instead deal in prejudice and ignorance.

Quote:
As I have said repeatedly, it's not about overt logical connections. It's not about acquiring that one piece of information and then plugging it into an equation and ending up with "don't vote for Obama". It's simply a way of building negativity.

I know you have said that. I have said that there is no negativity checkbox that would be activated by the middle name that wasn't already activated by several prior pieces of information. It may be a fun dig to rattle someone but what it isn't is a piece of information that changes any previous decision making.

Quote:
Voter sentiment is largely emotional and circumstantial. If there is enough negative emotion attached to a choice that choice is less likely to be made, even if that negativity is not logically founded. Again, is your ignorance of basic human psychology truly so profound?

How many people have gotten emotional over a middle name? How many people have managed to generate massive negative emotion based off a middle name?

You cite these statements, but in no fashion attach them to what we are discussing. I'll tell you what. You find me an instance, any instance where someone was able to apply all the basic human psychology you cite above, to a middle name.

I understand, as I am sure you do that you can create a caricature of someone that is easier to defeat than the actual candidate. I understand that on the left this means calling every candidate out of touch and stupid and on the right it means calling every candidate weak and often elitist. I get that. The media loves discussing how a John Kerry went wind surfing or how George Sr. looked at his watch and didn't appear to understand a supermarket scanner. We all know it is fun to make Bill a womanizer and George W. a chimp. I just don't see how a middle name fits into this.

All those examples take innuendo and then attaches actions to it to poison the well. McCain had to make a bomb Iran joke so now we have to listen to the well being poisoned about a volatile temper. Obama doesn't wear a flag pin and sometimes seems to not cover his heart when saying the pledge. We all know that will become caricatured as "unpatriotic." Those however are actions, not a name.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #65 of 115
Ohio Voter On 60 Minutes: I Hear Obama Is Muslim, Doesn't Know National Anthem

I do find it amusing that although he's "heard" all of these things about Obama, he is still leaning towards him. If he's wiling to vote for an unpatriotic Muslim with only some reservations today, maybe someday soon wearing your patriotism on your sleeve will fall out of vogue and the president's religion will be irrelevant.
post #66 of 115
Trumptman... here's what you don't understand (or you're in impetuous denial of).

You want the black vote? You campaign for causes that black voters tend to support.
You want the Latino vote? You campaign for causes that Latino voters tend to support.
.
.
.
You want the stupid vote? You repeat the name "Hussein".

Yes. There is a stupid vote. (I'll refrain from taking a cheap jab here, and expect you to do the same).
Repeating the name is a cheap trick to get the stupid vote. And it will work on many stupid people.
post #67 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Trumptman... here's what you don't understand (or you're in impetuous denial of).

You want the black vote? You campaign for causes that black voters tend to support.
You want the Latino vote? You campaign for causes that Latino voters tend to support.
.
.
.
You want the stupid vote? You repeat the name "Hussein".

Yes. There is a stupid vote. (I'll refrain from taking a cheap jab here, and expect you to do the same).
Repeating the name is a cheap trick to get the stupid vote. And it will work on many stupid people.

Hello?!? I've said that already. I simply said that the people who are stupid would have already latched on the plenty of other reasons before this one. I've illustrated them so I will not repeat them. The middle name method would not even be effective with stupid people in that they would have already been converted to non-Obama votes. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The middle name method would not even be effective with stupid people in that they would have already been converted to non-Obama votes.

First of all, I disagree with your point... again. There are infinite levels of stupidity. They're just preying on one level with this particular tactic. Second... your words, not mine.

There are a lot of stupid people converted to non-Obama votes. Not so many smart ones.
post #69 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

First of all, I disagree with your point... again. There are infinite levels of stupidity. They're just preying on one level with this particular tactic. Second... your words, not mine.

There are a lot of stupid people converted to non-Obama votes. Not so many smart ones.

Well there are plenty of equally stupid people converted to Obama votes. They know he will bring "Change" and that women faint at his rallies. They all know the Democrats will give them "free" health care that doesn't cost anyone anything.

As you said, different degrees of stupidity.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 115
trumpt:

Quote:
An analogous example would be how millions in marketing campaigns cannot sway folks to give their money to certain movies that are true stinkers and thus they become box office bombs.

There is nothing analogous about this at all.

You labor under the (apparently) sincere delusion that people in general already know these two candidates and have already formed opinions. I can safely say that is a delusion, because as someone who is out in the world talking to people, I know firsthand that many have still not even heard of Barack Obama.

It is not odd to see you suffering under this delusion, as conservatives often live inside an echo chamber that convinces them that their existence is analogous to all other existence.

If a voter has never heard of a candidate, and their first/only exposure to him is a fear-ad about how he shares the name of a tyrannical dictator, what do you think the result will be?

You might try to argue that this theoretical person would not vote anyway, and you would be quite wrong, as many walk into the voting booth undecided (or completely ignorant) and only choose on the spot. (One older woman in the Memorial area said, "I don't know. It's all too complicated. I'll just decide when I get there.")

Even further, voting logic is not necessarily logically founded.

Quote:
You and I know that but then again you and I are informed and know that having a certain middle name doesn't mean anything either. We are talking about uninformed people who resort to stereotypes. We are talking about people who yell at sikhs calling them terrorists. We are talking about about someone who says, "I don't know what a Baa-rock is, but it certainly ain't American."

You associate ignorance of a name ("Barack Obama") with anti-Black/Arab bigotry. That is simply absurd.
You quite literally say that being uninformed is the same as resorting to stereotypes. There are fair-minded people who are simply uninformed. I know because I'm out there talking to them. (You will notice I don't post much lately.)

The only stereotypes I'm recognizing are your infantile ones.

Quote:
How many people have gotten emotional over a middle name? How many people have managed to generate massive negative emotion based off a middle name?

John F. Kerry. How soon we forget, eh?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #71 of 115
post #72 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


Malice in the Middle (Slate article dated December 27th) 2006

Media Matters keyword search BARACK+HUSSEIN+OBAMA

Most of the 125 hits are from the usual wingnuts, but also listed are MSNBC and CNN.

I'm trying to find a time when calling people names DID NOT influence other people's opinions of the ones being called the bad names.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #73 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Malice in the Middle (Slate article dated December 27th) 2006

Media Matters keyword search BARACK+HUSSEIN+OBAMA

Most of the 125 hits are from the usual wingnuts, but also listed are MSNBC and CNN.

I'm trying to find a time when calling people names DID NOT influence other people's opinions of the ones being called the bad names.

No, no no. Can't mention Slate (especially when it's "old news").

And where have you been? Media Matters is run by hippy/communist/liberals!
post #74 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

No, no no. Can't mention Slate (especially when it's "old news").

And where have you been? Media Matters is run by hippy/communist/liberals!

Hardball has spent at least 10 to 20 minutes of air time on the "Is Barack a Muslim" question!

Now Tucker is dwelling on it also!

WTF!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #75 of 115
After weeks of being completely useless, Hillary's team is earning its large paycheck. It doesn't matter if the rumors are garbage and it doesn't even matter if she looks bad for bringing it up/feeding it ("as far as I know"), because the negativity associated with all this talk is more beneficial to the Hillary campaign.

This is classic dirty pool. If you can get the media talking about what you want them to talk about (negativity re: Obama) then you've won. You don't even need it to be positive for you, so long as it is negative for them.

There are floors and ceilings when it comes to political support. Obama will only attract so many Democrats and independents. Further, there are still many undecided voters who simply are unaware of their status (especially the insignificant (but large) population of Democrats in Texas).

This is just good politicking (and bad morality) by the Clinton campaign.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #76 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

After weeks of being completely useless, Hillary's team is earning its large paycheck. It doesn't matter if the rumors are garbage and it doesn't even matter if she looks bad for bringing it up/feeding it ("as far as I know"), because the negativity associated with all this talk is more beneficial to the Hillary campaign.

This is classic dirty pool. If you can get the media talking about what you want them to talk about (negativity re: Obama) then you've won. You don't even need it to be positive for you, so long as it is negative for them.

There are floors and ceilings when it comes to political support. Obama will only attract so many Democrats and independents. Further, there are still many undecided voters who simply are unaware of their status (especially the insignificant (but large) population of Democrats in Texas).

This is just good politicking (and bad morality) by the Clinton campaign.

... IMHO she gave a rather "lawyerly" answer on 60 Minutes similar to "as far as I can remember" type of answer one might give in a deposition (i. e. I've been there, done that).

In her answer this morning to Andrea Mitchell, I thought she answered the same type of question much more effectively.

I can't imagine how winger talk radio and Faux Noise will run with this, but I do fell this just adds fuel to their fires, however false they are.

Barack did answer as forcefully as he could though, but doubt has been cast, and false allegations have been aired, and the ongoing character assassination cannot be undone completely.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #77 of 115
She knows exactly what she says. There is no reason to throw a caveat on there other than the same type of dirty shit she's been pulling this entire time.

Whether or not it was pre-meditated... I don't know. I think she's so used to taking cheap shots they just come naturally.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #78 of 115
I wouldn't worry about HRC, the party knows she can't beat McCain, and that BHO can.

What impresses the hell out of me -- consider the sheer amount of political muscle that BHO went up against in HRC. All those years, two national elections with all that organization that WJC could tap, eight years of building political capital.

Mighty impressive.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #79 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

She knows exactly what she says. There is no reason to throw a caveat on there other than the same type of dirty shit she's been pulling this entire time.

Whether or not it was pre-meditated... I don't know. I think she's so used to taking cheap shots they just come naturally.

My opinion of her is more reserved, and AFAIK the 60 Minutes questioning has been taken out of context, I'd need to see the entire segment, such as Media Matter's reports;

Drudge headline distorted Clinton comments to suggest she said "Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... "

Quote:
From the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes:

KROFT: One of the things that we found in Southern Ohio -- not widespread -- but something that popped up on our radar screen all the time, people talking about it, this idea that you're a Muslim.

OBAMA: Right. Did you correct them, Steve?

KROFT: I did correct them.

OBAMA: There you go.

KROFT: Where's it coming from?

OBAMA: You know, this has been a systematic email smear campaign that's been going on since, actually, very early in this campaign. Clearly, it's a deliberate effort by some group or somebody to generate this rumor. I have never been a Muslim, am not a Muslim. These emails are obviously not just offensive to me, somebody who's a devout Christian who's been going to the same church for the last 20 years, but it's also offensive to Muslims because it plays into, obviously, a certain fear-mongering there.

KROFT: It happened again last week when this photo of Obama, in ceremonial African tribal dress during a visit to Kenya, was featured prominently on the Internet and attributed to people in the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton disavowed any knowledge of it.

KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --

KROFT: -- or implying, right?

CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

See also FIX News for further distortions;

Fox's Shively falsely suggested Obama has been a Christian for only "two decades now"

The usual "wingnut" suspects!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #80 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I wouldn't worry about HRC, the party knows she can't beat McCain, and that BHO can.

What impresses the hell out of me -- consider the sheer amount of political muscle that BHO went up against in HRC. All those years, two national elections with all that organization that WJC could tap, eight years of building political capital.

Mighty impressive.

Actually, I believe either would beat McCain handily. It's rather obvious that the Democratic Party is highly energized this time.

And if the economy does take a true turn for the worst, like it did for 41, then watch out, it will be the death knell for the Republicans, and a certain landslide victory for the Democrats.

It's the economy, stupid

Quote:
1. Change vs. more of the same
2. The economy, stupid
3. Don't forget health care.

Sound familiar?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Michelle Obama: name Hussein is 'the fear bomb'