Give a Legitimate Argument For McCain, Against Obama

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Snowlock
I never said I could! You quoted me yourself and you missed it the second time through as well. I'm not going to teach you history or how to read but I'll give you a third shot.

I quoted you again and bolded the part where you made the radical accusation that Obama's only running to see if he can become a black president and "ride the wave."

Why do you think this? What reasoning did you use to come to this conclusion? What has Obama done to indicate this is his motivation?

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by anitram


And all of last year, where he trailed Hillary by double digits nationally and essentially in every state, he was running on this powerful momentum that was going to propel him to what? An obvious defeat?

When he was trailing in the electicion campaign I new he'd be kicking off back in 2004 through my specious reasoning you mean?

I never said he'd win or even intimated on how well he'd do. Objection, your honor, counsel is drawing conclusions.

[anitram]

I honestly don't understand half of what you're saying.

You claim he is running because of momentum. I don't think there was anything like momentum until Iowa. What happened in 2004-2007 was a media fascination with the guy, but it was certainly nothing as large scale as to call momentum. Perhaps you decided back then that he'd run - how that shows that he is running BECAUSE of momentum, I'm not sure. Unless you want to impute intention on him.

And FYI, "counsel" is an American invention.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


I quoted you again and bolded the part where you made the radical accusation that Obama's only running to see if he can become a black president and "ride the wave."

Why do you think this? What reasoning did you use to come to this conclusion? What has Obama done to indicate this is his motivation?

Dude seriously. Fourth time. The wave is the reasoning. The mere fact that he's running indicates the motivation. If I don't look at it from that perspective, the only other is this "hope" business, even though we don't know what he is hopeful for.

And no, you've got it backwards, I think he's running to become president to ride the wave first and foremost, not because he's black. Many politicians would go the same route he did if they had such a splashy win in '04. Has nothing to do with the color of his skin. The color of his skin only gives it historical significance.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by anitram
I honestly don't understand half of what you're saying.

You claim he is running because of momentum. I don't think there was anything like momentum until Iowa. What happened in 2004-2007 was a media fascination with the guy, but it was certainly nothing as large scale as to call momentum. Perhaps you decided back then that he'd run - how that shows that he is running BECAUSE of momentum, I'm not sure. Unless you want to impute intention on him.

And FYI, "counsel" is an American invention.

The mere fact that there was media fascination with the guy between 2004-2007 lead to his candidacy. He would not be here today were it not for media attention following his senate victory. And yes, it was as large of scale to call it momentum. The guy went from absolutely unknown to among the top of American consciousness overnight and somehow in the intervening years managed to stay there.

As to counsel as an American invention, okay but what does that have to do with anything? You were bringing legal propriety into the discussion yet started to draw your own conclusions which anyone in the legal realm knows is a cardinal sin.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


http://forum.interference.com/showth...54#post4829554
http://forum.interference.com/showth...84#post4829584
http://forum.interference.com/showth...02#post4829802
http://forum.interference.com/showth...02#post4829802
http://forum.interference.com/showth...09#post4829909

Funnily enough, this was entirely your first punch, and not "counter-punching" as you've always preached.

That was a punch? I guess I could see how when I was speaking in general terms, a person took it specifically, and I'll own that one. Yet it's interesting that you quote BVS yet I hadn't spoken to him previously.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Snowlock
Dude seriously. Fourth time. The wave is the reasoning. The mere fact that he's running indicates the motivation. If I don't look at it from that perspective, the only other is this "hope" business, even though we don't know what he is hopeful for.

And no, you've got it backwards, I think he's running to become president to ride the wave first and foremost, not because he's black. Many politicians would go the same route he did if they had such a splashy win in '04. Has nothing to do with the color of his skin. The color of his skin only gives it historical significance.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm asking why you think he's using the wave to run. You can't say he's using the wave to run because he's using the wave to run! That doesn't make sense! Why do you think he's using the wave to run? Why do you think his motivation isn't changing America for the better?

That's literally the exact equivalent of me saying Rush Limbaugh is a racist because he's a racist.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


What the hell are you talking about? I'm asking why you think he's using the wave to run. You can't say he's using the wave to run because he's using the wave to run! That doesn't make sense! Why do you think he's using the wave to run? Why do you think his motivation isn't changing America for the better?

That's literally the exact equivalent of me saying Rush Limbaugh is a racist because he's a racist.

God almighty. Stick with baseball.

[phillyfan26]

Answer my question, please.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by anitram


And all of last year, where he trailed Hillary by double digits nationally and essentially in every state, he was running on this powerful momentum that was going to propel him to what? An obvious defeat?

see, this is what people are missing.

he's winning for a reason. she started out with way more money, way more name recognition, and she's literally in bed with a very popular, very successful ex-president. she's one of the faces of the now dearly missed 1990s peace and prosperity. she is a certifiable superstar in the democratic party and surely one of the most famous women in the world. they had every reason to run her, in the beginning, on a sense of inevitability. the moment she won the Senate in 2000 everyone knew she was going to make a run for the presidency. and her entire Senatorial career has been micromanaged with extreme prudence given to the larger picture -- her eventual presidential run.

and he's totally beaten her in every aspect of this campaign. someone with only one "real" campaign under his belt. and he's done it fair and square.

[yolland]

philly and Snowlock, I think you two should consider just dropping it and backing off--you're not getting anywhere with each other, and the back-and-forth is starting to make entering this discussion feel like stepping onto a firing range.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Snowlock



The mere fact that there was media fascination with the guy between 2004-2007 lead to his candidacy. He would not be here today were it not for media attention following his senate victory. And yes, it was as large of scale to call it momentum. The guy went from absolutely unknown to among the top of American consciousness overnight and somehow in the intervening years managed to stay there.

but this simply isn't true.

no one really knew who he was until late 2007, and not really until after Iowa -- where he was a known commodity -- and that's when Hillary's huge national lead, due to her household name status, began to evaporate.

some people knew he gave a spectacular speech in 2004. maybe that he was a Senator. and then maybe that he was a black man running for president.

on a national level, he was not much more than a passing curiosity, a potential star, in the Democratic party. most people probably couldn't have named him or what state he was from. contrast this with our "known commodity" Mrs. Clinton.

i think you're really misunderstanding what is meant by "momentum." you can't have it when you're an unknown. you can only have it when you're a contender, something Obama wasn't, nationally, until *after* Iowa.

what's most true about Obama is the opposite of Mrs. Clinton -- the more people see of him, the more they listen to him, the more they like him.

[BoMac]

Originally posted by Irvine511
and she's literally in bed with a very popular, very successful ex-president

All valid points, Irvine, but I wouldn't go QUITE this far.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by yolland
philly and Snowlock, I think you two should consider just dropping it and backing off--you're not getting anywhere with each other, and the back-and-forth is starting to make entering this discussion feel like stepping onto a firing range.

Fair enough. I'll stop addressing his posts. I still intend to stay in this thread, though, since I started it and am interested in the responses.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by 2861U2


Elaborate.

-Our government spends $2.7 billion a WEEK in Iraq. I don't care who you are, spending that kind of money weekly does not fit into a small government's agenda.

-Small government doesn't intrude on the private lives of its citizens. This current administration wants to be able to wiretap without warrant, deny homosexuals equal rights, and has used fear as an excuse for eroding civil liberties. And has questioned the patriotism of those who oppose them.

-This administration came into power with a surplus and we are now riding and increasing upon a massive debt.

[yolland]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
Fair enough. I'll stop addressing his posts. I still intend to stay in this thread, though, since I started it and am interested in the responses.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Diemen
-This administration came into power with a surplus and we are now riding and increasing upon a massive debt.

It's easy to get people not to notice the economic woes when you're hiding it under the championing of tax cuts.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by yolland
philly and Snowlock, I think you two should consider just dropping it and backing off--you're not getting anywhere with each other, and the back-and-forth is starting to make entering this discussion feel like stepping onto a firing range.

yeah, I already did.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by Irvine511




but this simply isn't true.

no one really knew who he was until late 2007, and not really until after Iowa -- where he was a known commodity -- and that's when Hillary's huge national lead, due to her household name status, began to evaporate.

some people knew he gave a spectacular speech in 2004. maybe that he was a Senator. and then maybe that he was a black man running for president.

on a national level, he was not much more than a passing curiosity, a potential star, in the Democratic party. most people probably couldn't have named him or what state he was from. contrast this with our "known commodity" Mrs. Clinton.

i think you're really misunderstanding what is meant by "momentum." you can't have it when you're an unknown. you can only have it when you're a contender, something Obama wasn't, nationally, until *after* Iowa.

what's most true about Obama is the opposite of Mrs. Clinton -- the more people see of him, the more they listen to him, the more they like him.

Sorry, but that's just not true. You may've not known who he was, and sure, he's even more well known now than he ever was - he's a legit prez candidate now compared to the speculative one he was from 2004-2007. But he was no curiosity, I'm not sure why you would say that. Even the most ardent anti-Obama politico will agree that since '04 he's been a major player and at least as loud a voice as Clinton, if not louder.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by Snowlock
Even the most ardent anti-Obama politico will agree that since '04 he's been a major player and at least as loud a voice as Clinton, if not louder.

I don't think that's true (hey, I wanted to join in... )

But seriously, though, I don't think Obama was anywhere near as visible in the national media as Hillary until late 2006, and even then Hillary was still clearly the heavyweight. His speech at the 04 Convention was no doubt a hit, but at least in my experience in following the news, he dropped off the radar shortly after, and the media didn't really put him back on until everyone began announcing their candidacies.

From my perspective, it wasn't until the primaries got started that I feel he really started to play in the same league as Clinton.