# Obama Backs Out of Pledge



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Does anyone care Barry appears to have broken his pledge about accepting public funding for his campaign if the Republican candidate took it? Is anyone buying the excuses and/or statements he did not "really" say that? Of course, from a purely Machiavellian stand point, it is the right move for Barry. But was he not supposed to be better than lying? Hope and change and all that?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

This should hurt Barak, but it won't. It should hurt him for two reasons. First, he did break a promise. While that is hardly news for a politician, it should be news for a so-called new kind of politician whose defining characteristic is that he is not like other politicians. Second, his reasoning is so blatantly mendacious. But he'll get a pass from the MMM because (i) he's their favorite son and (ii) it just isn't an issue that especially interests them or the masses, unlike class warfare and trumped up Iraq stories.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I do agree it makes him look bad. But McCain is getting the public money because he couldn't possibly raise that much himself. He's taking the public money to benefit himself. Obama is raising his own money to benefit himself as well. From that perspective I think its fine. Maybe Obama should make a deal with McCain....Obama takes public money if McCain doesnt??? That could be interesting.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> I do agree it makes him look bad. But McCain is getting the public money because he couldn't possibly raise that much himself. He's taking the public money to benefit himself. Obama is raising his own money to benefit himself as well. From that perspective I think its fine. Maybe Obama should make a deal with McCain....Obama takes public money if McCain doesnt??? That could be interesting.


Well I respect the fact you are willing to admit you think he should just do whatever it takes to win regardless of any pledge. An honest scoundrel, if you will.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*let's talk legal before ethical*

If he put used matching funds as collateral for loans, that would be illegal.

I'm sure the champion of campaign finance reform could never be accused of something like that.


----------



## playdohh22 (Dec 4, 2007)

Where is the clueless option ?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> If he put used matching funds as collateral for loans, that would be illegal. QUOTE]
> 
> If you think McCain did something illegal, then be man enough to make the accusation directly. My research revealed nothing illegal. Suggesting that a man did something criminal without factual proof is pretty low. https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/16/112830/081


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think Obama made the right move. He's correctly judged that he can lie to the American people with impunity.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*no reason not to believe it*



Mike Petrik said:


> If you think McCain did something illegal, then be man enough to make the accusation directly...Suggesting that a man did something criminal without factual proof is pretty low.


I said what I said. Something is illegal, McCain <sarcasm>could never be accused of it</sarcasm>.
McCain has been sued for using federal funds as collateral.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> But McCain is getting the public money because he couldn't possibly raise that much himself. He's taking the public money to benefit himself.


I think Sen. McCain would have no problems raising more than $85 million for a campaign, he's pretty well connected. I don't think, however, he could raise as much as Sen. Obama, he's just damn good at it.

I heard Sen. Obama's reasoning today, and I think it's pretty disingenuous accusing the Republicans of using "527" groups to get around campaign finance laws, as the Democrats certainly do it as well. I can't wait to see the Moveon.org media barrage this summer, thank goodness my MythTV box automatically skips commercials.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

As I said before I think it makes Obama look bad. I just watched an interesting roundtable discussion about the issue and one reporter brought up the bottom line. The Obama people did a cost benefit analysis of the impact of not keeping to his pledge and raising as much dough as possible. They concluded that much more good could come from a possible $200,000,000 monetary advantage in the general election, than bad would come from 36 hours of bad press in June. Like it or not, its the smart thing to do, and any of us would do the same thing....except for maybe Wayfarer. :icon_smile:

Related to this question at hand, it was a big move today for Obama to run his "life story" ad in potential swing states. Even if a lot of the states won't swing, it may force McCain to spend cash in states he doesn't want to. Obama's strategy will be to bankrupt the republicans. Isn't that sort of ironic, him being a democrat and all??


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I said what I said. Something is illegal, McCain <sarcasm>could never be accused of it</sarcasm>.
> McCain has been sued for using federal funds as collateral.


From your article:



> Following Precedent
> 
> *McCain is following a precedent set by current Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean* when he ran for president in 2004, declining federal funds for the primaries after he was certified to receive them, Cairncross said.
> 
> ``Once again, the DNC has neither the law nor the facts on their side,'' Cairncross said in a statement. ``It is a matter of public record that the U.S. Treasury never made any payments to the McCain campaign at any time during the primary.''


But you know what? This thread is about neither McCain or Dean. It is about Obama saying he is *for publicly funded campaigns* but then *not publicly funding his campaign.* Try as you might to spin this onto McCain, it is all about Obama's character.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

THis will have no impact on the election


----------



## bjorn240 (Jan 8, 2008)

I have no problem with it. Obama said, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” 

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the containment of 527 groups was central to that agreement. As campaign lawyers met and did not reach an agreement, I think the idea that Obama broke a "pledge" is a stretch.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, he used a weasel-word qualifier; we should have all known he was lying. Shame on us.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bjorn240 said:


> I have no problem with it. Obama said, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
> 
> *It doesn't take a genius to understand that the containment of 527 groups was central to that agreement.* As campaign lawyers met and did not reach an agreement, I think the idea that Obama broke a "pledge" is a stretch.


While I certainly claim to be no genius, you do understand that 527s are independent of the candidate, hence out of their control? That this was the central precept of their creation? That under federal election laws, coordination between a candidate and a 527 is illegal? But if you read that on the Daily Kos, I guess it's right.


----------



## bjorn240 (Jan 8, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> While I certainly claim to be no genius, you do understand that 527s are independent of the candidate, hence out of their control? That this was the central precept of their creation? That under federal election laws, coordination between a candidate and a 527 is illegal?


The idea that candidates have no influence on the activities of 527s either by public statements or directives to their national organizations doesn't stand up to critical analysis. If John McCain and Barack Obama both unequivocally denounced 527 group advertisements and specifically asked 527 groups not to run advertisements this campaign season, the effects would have been substantial. Barring a joint agreement, I think each candidate should be free to make the choice on how to fund their campaign. I certainly would have preferred that Obama use public funding, as I think such funding provides a useful backstop against influence-peddling and special interest money. That said, I still don't see any duplicity in Obama's actions.



> But if you read that on the Daily Kos, I guess it's right.


Well, it's clear from your poll choices and this comment that you're more interested in making your own preferences known than having a civil discussion. That's fine, though I'm sure you'll be surprised my views align more closely with the editorial page of the WSJ than the Daily Kos.

Regards,
Christian


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

So you think a word from Obama and the moveon.org campaign activities would be "substantially" affected. Is there critical analysis on this? 

Can you please elaborate (and also quantify 'substantial')?

Also...

"bjorn240 - As campaign lawyers met and did not reach an agreement..."

Is this accurate? I haven't seen any report or claim that Obama or his campaign met or even discussed this issue with the McCain camp. I don't read everything, so I admit that I could have missed it. Who is reporting this?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

This type of behavior cuts to the core of why I can't trust him and feel he's in way over his head.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bjorn240 said:


> Well, it's clear from your poll choices and this comment that you're more interested in making your own preferences known than having a civil discussion. That's fine, though I'm sure you'll be surprised my views align more closely with the editorial page of the WSJ than the Daily Kos.
> 
> Regards,
> Christian


Please, where have I been uncivil? I have presented facts and opinions and rational summations. If this is being uncivil, I guess I am. I hardly think one comment about the Daily Kos, which I referred to by name, not what some others call it, such as the Daily Kook, is uncivil.



> On May 5, 2004, the Republican National Committee accused MoveOn.org, The Media Fund, America Coming Together and America Votes of coordinating their efforts with the John Kerry campaign.
> On August 20, 2004, John Kerry's campaign accused Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of coordinating their efforts with the George W. Bush campaign.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group

Notice the dates and the organizations. Dems did it first and were accused first and had multiple organizations doing it. Kerry made one accusation and that was more than likely fueled by the fact the RNC was making mulitple accusations against him and that the Swift Boaters were so effective. For Obama to imply the Repubs are "masters at gaming the system" is again, egregiously specious due to the fact history shows the Dems are the actual masters, at least in terms of doing it first and by how many organizations.

However, I can see by your comments you are in no desire of a conversation that presents any facts that do not agree with your opinion. You are more interested in having your opinion known, in total void of factual presentation, than in a conversation that attempts to present data in hopes of ascertaining veracity of people's positions. That is fine and I will leave you to it.


----------



## bjorn240 (Jan 8, 2008)

Relayer said:


> So you think a word from Obama and the moveon.org campaign activities would be "substantially" affected. Is there critical analysis on this?


It seems plausible that the TV and radio activities of 527s could be curtailed with pointed messages from the candidates -- Progressive Media USA has curtailed their plans for radio and TV activities (and are maybe even shutting down) based on requests from the Obama campaign. I think the key would be for the candidates to be consistent and clear in these messages. This year, given the large disparity in campaign funds and the contravening disparity in RNC vs. DNC funds, I think that it would have hamstrung the Republican party to agree to that, but given his 2000/SC experience, I'd have thought John McCain the candidate most likely to do it.



> Is this accurate? I haven't seen any report or claim that Obama or his campaign met or even discussed this issue with the McCain camp. I don't read everything, so I admit that I could have missed it. Who is reporting this?


Both US News and the NY Times reported that Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer met with McCain campaign lawyer Tervor Potter about the issue.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Thanks for the names. 

A bit of checking shows that there was indeed a 45 meeting between the two. I think it could be fairly argued that this doesn't meet Obama's commitment to "aggressively pursue an agreement" to use public funding. Indeed, Potter (McCain's camp) has said that the brief meeting was not part of any negotiation about campaign financing. Other interesting comments the linked article.



Convincing Progressive Media USA to scrap their plans is nice, but it gives no indication that the very nasty moveon.org bunch could be so restrained.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

He wants the money so he doesn't get swift boated.....


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Obama is gonna swift boat McCain!


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

If Obama had accepted public funds, I would seriously question whether he is intelligent enough to be president.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> If Obama had accepted public funds, I would seriously question whether he is intelligent enough to be president.


But now we get to question whether he is honest enough to be.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> But now we get to question whether he is honest enough to be.


He was wishy washy when he said "I would aggresively pursue an agreement," but I would rather have a president that is willing to change his mind when facts change. There is no honor in losing the election and allowing the country to be led by someone that you believe will be an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> *He was wishy washy* when he said "I would aggresively pursue an agreement," but I would rather have a president that is willing to change his mind when facts change. There is no honor in losing the election and allowing the country to be led by someone that you believe will be an unmitigated disaster.


What a resounding recommendation!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> He was wishy washy when he said "I would aggresively pursue an agreement," but I would rather have a president that is willing to change his mind when facts change. There is no honor in losing the election and allowing the country to be led by someone that you believe will be an unmitigated disaster.


That should be run as a TV commercial.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> What a resounding recommendation!


By your standards it seems like the only person worthy of the presidency was crucified about 2,000 years ago.

Is St.McCain truly that great? Has never switched his position on an issue?

The Bush tax cuts were at one time an affront to his conscience, but now should be made permanent.

Falwell and Robertson were at one time "agents of intolerance," but then the good Saint crawled on his knees to speak at Liberty U.

McCain once touted his immigration bill, but then decided he wouldn't have voted for it.

McCain once decided Roe v. Wade was the land of the law and that it shouldn't be overturned.

The list goes on and on and on........


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> By your standards it seems like the only person worthy of the presidency was crucified about 2,000 years ago.
> 
> Is St.McCain truly that great? Has never switched his position on an issue?
> 
> ...


This gets my vote for non sequitur of the week! Usually these are reserved for Bush.

Here's my submission


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> By your standards it seems like the only person worthy of the presidency was crucified about 2,000 years ago.


I am not religious, so Strike One.



a4audi08 said:


> Is St.McCain truly that great? Has never switched his position on an issue?


McCain has drastically flip flopped. Wow, now where do you go? But you know what? This is a thread about Obama, not McCain. What you are doing is a logical fallacy. Strike Two.



a4audi08 said:


> The Bush tax cuts were at one time an affront to his conscience, but now should be made permanent.


I agree, he flip flopped on the issue. But again, this is an Obama thread about him on one particular topic. Still a logical fallacy.



a4audi08 said:


> Falwell and Robertson were at one time "agents of intolerance," but then the good Saint crawled on his knees to speak at Liberty U.


Guess what I shall say to this too?



a4audi08 said:


> McCain once touted his immigration bill, but then decided he wouldn't have voted for it.
> 
> McCain once decided Roe v. Wade was the land of the law and that it shouldn't be overturned.
> 
> The list goes on and on and on........


And just to finish up, Strike Three.

Here is a hint: start a thread about why you think McCain is not as worthy as Obama. Otherwise, *every single thing you say* about McCain here is just a tu quoque fallacy.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

So if you are going to compare Obama's weaknesses in relation to and against McCains weaknesses, you need to start a new thread?? That makes sense. I'd actually say it is a logical fallacy. But if thats the rules then I guess we need to follow them. Can we change the thread name to Fox News at AAAC??


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> So if you are going to compare Obama's weaknesses in relation to and against McCains weaknesses, you need to start a new thread??





nolan50410 said:


> I'd actually say it is a logical fallacy.


You're right; that is a logical fallacy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> So if you are going to compare Obama's weaknesses in relation to and against McCains weaknesses, you need to start a new thread?? That makes sense. I'd actually say it is a logical fallacy. But if thats the rules then I guess we need to follow them. Can we change the thread name to Fox News at AAAC??


And you speak of asshattery? I am about ready to die of irony.

To answer your asshat of a question: the topic was a specific question concerning a decision of Obama's. If the argument is, "Well McCain flip flops too!" it is a logical fallacy. Do not believe me, please go learn a little informal logic.

Oh, and thank you for more proof: you mainly post to me to disagree with me.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You're right; that is a logical fallacy.


Isn't that how we decide who to vote for?? By comparing them to competition. Or is this thread just meant to bash Obama?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Isn't that how we decide who to vote for?? By comparing them to competition. Or is this thread just meant to bash Obama?


So, Yes or Yes? :devil: Fantastic!

Yes; are you still trying to decide who to vote for?

Yes; that appears to be what "Obama and his pledge" would indicate.

I think you want this one: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=84145


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> But now we get to question whether he is honest enough to be (president).


I just love how it is a thread to discuss a decision of Obama's, but we who support Obama can't use similar mistakes made by McCain to the defense of Obama. You can question if Obama is honest enough to be president, but anyone who sides with Obama can't provide factual evidence showing McCain's dishonesty?? Wasn't the purpose of the thread to discuss how important Obama's decision was to his credibility? I can argue that because McCain has had many moments of dishonesty and it hasn't hurt him that bad, then I can't see how this mistake by Obama well be that important either. That seems perfectly logical to me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> I just love how it is a thread to discuss a decision of Obama's, but we who support Obama can't use similar mistakes made by McCain to the defense of Obama. You can question if Obama is honest enough to be president, but anyone who sides with Obama can't provide factual evidence showing McCain's dishonesty?? Wasn't the purpose of the thread to discuss how important Obama's decision was to his credibility? I can argue that because McCain has had many moments of dishonesty and it hasn't hurt him that bad, then I can't see how this mistake by Obama well be that important either. That seems perfectly logical to me.


That doesn't make any sense at all. How does providing evidence of McCain's dishonesty defend Obama?

If I accused you of murder and your defense was "the Son of Sam killed people too!" That would seem "perfectly logical" to you?


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That doesn't make any sense at all. How does providing evidence of McCain's dishonesty defend Obama?
> 
> If I accused you of murder and your defense was "the Son of Sam killed people too!" That would seem "perfectly logical" to you?


In relation to the orignal purpose of this thread, it makes perfect sense. The point is to discuss how bad Obama will be hurt by his decision. My logic is that because McCain has made similar mistakes and gone unhurt, the same will happen to Obama.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> In relation to the orignal purpose of this thread, it makes perfect sense. The point is to discuss how bad Obama will be hurt by his decision. My logic is that because McCain has made similar mistakes and gone unhurt, the same will happen to Obama.


Below is your post. Would you please highlight the part that makes that point for me because I can't find it. You completely glossed over the fact that the issue is the broken pledge. If Obama had planned to do what he is doing all along and said so - then you would be absolutely correct.



nolan50410 said:


> I do agree it makes him look bad. But McCain is getting the public money because he couldn't possibly raise that much himself. He's taking the public money to benefit himself. Obama is raising his own money to benefit himself as well. From that perspective I think its fine. Maybe Obama should make a deal with McCain....Obama takes public money if McCain doesnt??? That could be interesting.


Just as a test perhaps you could try to defend Obama's broken pledge without mentioning McCain. Just give it a go and see how far you get ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> In relation to the orignal purpose of this thread, it makes perfect sense. The point is to discuss how bad Obama will be hurt by his decision. My logic is that because McCain has made similar mistakes and gone unhurt, the same will happen to Obama.


Well, from this post, it is clear you will not make the effort to find out why this is a fallacy. I am guilty, I admit it; what I am about to do is just enabling you. However, maybe it will spur you on to further reading? Who knows.

https://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html



> Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy* in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. *This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.


I hope this makes you (and others) understand. I mean, read the definition above and apply it to this:



nolan50410 said:


> I just love how it is a thread to discuss a decision of Obama's, *but we who support Obama can't use similar mistakes made by McCain to the defense of Obama.*


Text book definition.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm glad we have Wayfarer here to establish the rules of the thread. I hope everyone who reads this thread now understands that when you go to the polls in November, you should only view a candidates strengths and weaknesses by themselves. You should never, under any circumstance, view a candidate in relation to and in comparison to his or her opponent. You may, GASP, commit a logical fallacy. I for one am grateful to Wayfarer and his VP ksinc. It is merely their way or the highway. Very, very similar to the Bush administration. 

The fact is Obama made a mistake when he said he would take public money and then decided against it. In comparison to the many mistakes McCain has made it won't be a big deal. I could give 2 doo-doos if that is or isn't a fallacy. It is, however, the truth in relation to how important this issue will be come November.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Does anyone care Barry appears to have broken his pledge about accepting public funding for his campaign if the Republican candidate took it? Is anyone buying the excuses and/or statements he did not "really" say that? Of course, from a purely Machiavellian stand point, it is the right move for Barry. But was he not supposed to be better than lying? Hope and change and all that?


I think Stalin is a better analogy than Machiavelli.

"Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game;

"I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a CHANGE
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain.."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> I think Stalin is a better analogy than Machiavelli.
> 
> "Pleased to meet you
> Hope you guess my name
> ...


Lenin, even.

Lenin ordered Czar Nicholas II's execution in 1918.
Stalin came to power in 1924 after Lenin's death.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> I'm glad we have Wayfarer here to establish the rules of the thread. I hope everyone who reads this thread now understands that when you go to the polls in November, you should only view a candidates strengths and weaknesses by themselves. You should never, under any circumstance, view a candidate in relation to and in comparison to his or her opponent. You may, GASP, commit a logical fallacy. I for one am grateful to Wayfarer and his VP ksinc. It is merely their way or the highway. Very, very similar to the Bush administration.
> 
> The fact is Obama made a mistake when he said he would take public money and then decided against it. In comparison to the many mistakes McCain has made it won't be a big deal. I could give 2 doo-doos if that is or isn't a fallacy. It is, however, the truth in relation to how important this issue will be come November.


I'll take that as a plea of "Guilty."


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Lenin, even.
> 
> Lenin ordered Czar Nicholas II's execution in 1918.
> Stalin came to power in 1924 after Lenin's death.


Lol! Ok.

LS


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> I'm glad we have Wayfarer here to establish the rules of the thread. I hope everyone who reads this thread now understands that when you go to the polls in November, you should only view a candidates strengths and weaknesses by themselves. You should never, under any circumstance, view a candidate in relation to and in comparison to his or her opponent. You may, GASP, commit a logical fallacy. I for one am grateful to Wayfarer and his VP ksinc. It is merely their way or the highway. Very, very similar to the Bush administration.
> 
> The fact is Obama made a mistake when he said he would take public money and then decided against it. In comparison to the many mistakes McCain has made it won't be a big deal. I could give 2 doo-doos if that is or isn't a fallacy. It is, however, the truth in relation to how important this issue will be come November.


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a Nolan think.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a Nolan think.


And here I thought his ethernet was broken. :teacha:


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a Nolan think.


Better a horse then a donkey. Isn't there some other word for donkey??


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> Better a horse then a donkey. Isn't there some other word for donkey??


Hey, if you want to call me an ass, have at it. At least my comment held some wit and you have been proven witless and what is worse, seem to revel in it. Prime example why the country is the way it is and why the level of political debate is so low.

I have tried to show you, with external validation/sources, where your thought process is lacking. Instead of thanking me and learning, you want to call me an ass. Rock the Vote dood!


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Hey, if you want to call me an ass, have at it. At least my comment held some wit and you have been proven witless and what is worse, seem to revel in it. Prime example why the country is the way it is and why the level of political debate is so low.
> 
> I have tried to show you, with external validation/sources, where your thought process is lacking. Instead of thanking me and learning, you want to call me an ass. Rock the Vote dood!


Further proof that Wayfarer can't have a conversation on a thread unless you absolutely agree with him and his reasonings. If you don't agree with him he tries to alter your process of reasoning until your opinion matches his. I do thank you Wayfarer, for a good laugh. I have learned from you Wayfarer, how I don't want to act when I become a crotchety senior.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> *Further proof that Wayfarer can't have a conversation on a thread unless you absolutely agree with him and his reasonings. * If you don't agree with him he tries to alter your process of reasoning until your opinion matches his. I do thank you Wayfarer, for a good laugh. I have learned from you Wayfarer, how I don't want to act when I become a crotchety senior.


LOL, you are making yourself look like the asshat, as you call it, yet again. The only thing we are disagreeing on is whether or not you are attempting to justify yourself with a logical fallacy or not. It is a pretty objective thing. Sorry if you cannot see that. It is not "my reasoning", it is accepted critical thinking. Sorry that a "crotchety senior" such as myself can think and you keep demonstrating your pride in the fact you cannot.

As for my opinion, I have no idea what you are talking about. I mean, I agreed. McCain flip flops. See above though, and you will see it does not justify Obama's. A simple concept and a shame you refuse or cannot grasp it.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> As for my opinion, I have no idea what you are talking about. I mean, I agreed. McCain flip flops. See above though, and you will see it does not justify Obama's. A simple concept and a shame you refuse or cannot grasp it.


What you refuse to understand is that it doesn't matter that you can't justify Obama's dishonesty because of McCain's in your little world of logic and fallacies. This isn't a court of law. This is an election where very normal people get to vote for whoever they want. What I am getting at, and what is important to this election, is how unimportant this ulitmately is to Obama becoming president. Once again, IT DOESN'T MATTER that it is or isn't a fallacy. It matters if it hurts Obama in the general election. MY OPINION is that it WILL NOT HURT HIM much at all, due mostly to the past dishonesty of McCain and the little harm that came from it. My reasoning is a logical fallacy. NOBODY CARES ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES because they don't decide elections. Public opinion decides elections. Public opinion of Obama will not decline due to his not taking public money just as McCain's public opinion didn't decline when he was dishonest on multiple occasions. Whether or not that reasoning is a logical fallacy DOES NOT MATTER. It is simply how normal people think. However normal people think will determine who becomes president, not logical fallacies. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> What you refuse to understand is that it doesn't matter that you can't justify Obama's dishonesty because of McCain's in your little world of logic and fallacies. This isn't a court of law. This is an election where very normal people get to vote for whoever they want.


While of course people get to vote for who they want. Where did I say otherwise? *sigh*



nolan50410 said:


> *My reasoning is a logical fallacy. * NOBODY CARES ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES because they don't decide elections. Public opinion decides elections.


Glad to see you finally grasp it. What high praise though, of the thinking ability of the US public. Sadly, I agree with you.



nolan50410 said:


> GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.


Thanks for the laugh. Not only do you lack basic thinking ability, it seems you get a little histrionic quite easily too. Wait! What is that sound? Could it be the sound of you Googling "histrionic" to find out what it means? :teacha:


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Wait! What is that sound? Could it be the sound of you Googling "histrionic" to find out what it means? :teacha:


Wrong again Wayfarer. I used YAHOO.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> Wrong again Wayfarer. I used YAHOO.


 Good one! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Anyone tire of these silly pointless threads? No one cares Way, it won't have any bearing on the election. Find something people actualy care about.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> No one cares Way, it won't have any bearing on the election.


That is the whole point of this thread, his dishonest and Machiavellian ways will not have any effect on the majority of Obama sycophants. I know, a little subtle for people to fathom, but there it is.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> That is the whole point of this thread, his dishonest and Machiavellian ways will not have any effect on the majority of Obama sycophants. I know, a little subtle for people to fathom, but there it is.


It won't have an effect on anyone even the anti-Obama's just another boring thread. How many boards are you going to continue on with this silliness? This is not the stuff people bring into the booth with them. I wasn't going to vote Obama but you people reaction to him made me think him over. 
Anyway, I was genuinely curious about why you post so many of these type of threads. Carry on , but I prefer when you talk about the Highland bag pipe.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

i dont have to try and justify obama's changing his mind on this issue because IMO it justifies itself. my only point was to suggest that by your standards there are no politicians in the US that are honest enough to be president.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I don't think it will have any bearing on the election either. I mean, is it really surprising that a politician changed his position? It happens in the business world too. Like when a company CEO promises a city he will not move the company HQ after a takeover, and then does so anyway. Not that it is right, but people lie all the time.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

A business can do whatever the heck it wants with its locations. That's what businesses do-- they are supposed to serve their own self-interest to make money. If that self-interest changes, a business' only principle should be to keep the money coming in. If it acted any differently, it wouldn't be a business.

The president, though, is supposed to be a public servant whose word the people can rely on. And, again, Obama certainly could have changed a policy position. But he's not even pretending to do so-- he instead justified his deliberate breaking of his word and betrayal of his principles with a cheap lie blaming the other side.

That's downright dirty, and it ought to disabuse anyone of this fantasy of Obama being new or different. Of course if you haven't figured that out by now, well, maybe you never will.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

But ... Obama wants to expand the Faith Based Initiative?! 

Didn't all the Libs call 'W' Hitler or the Anti-Christ when he came out with this thing? 

Now they are all for it because Obama needs to bribe Christian/Catholic Democrats after he insulted them?

I'll bet the answer has something to do with McCain and Hagee.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> A business can do whatever the heck it wants with its locations. That's what businesses do-- they are supposed to serve their own self-interest to make money. If that self-interest changes, a business' only principle should be to keep the money coming in. If it acted any differently, it wouldn't be a business.
> 
> The president, though, is supposed to be a public servant whose word the people can rely on. And, again, Obama certainly could have changed a policy position. But he's not even pretending to do so-- he instead justified his deliberate breaking of his word and betrayal of his principles with a cheap lie blaming the other side.
> 
> That's downright dirty, and it ought to disabuse anyone of this fantasy of Obama being new or different. Of course if you haven't figured that out by now, well, maybe you never will.


Of course they do. Businesses want to make money. Politicians want to get elected. "A public servant whose word the people can rely on" that may be the ideal, but we all know it is not reality. From the President on down to local officials...all of them flip flop on certain issues.

I'm not saying that any of this is right, just that it should not be surprising.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Obama has told so many fibs that I'm not at all surprised by this latest reversal. What surprises me is how easily his supporters shrug it off. 

And this was not a "flip flop." It would have been a flip flop if he had said, "gosh, maybe public financing isn't such a good idea." This was a lie.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I think the thread is a little pointless myself. I do see the problem with Obama changing his position. What are Obama supporters supposed to do? Should we switch to McCain or stay home in November because our guy can raise $200,000,000 more then the other guy and chose to do that, whether he broke a promise or not? Who wouldn't make that decision? You think McCain wouldn't make that decision? You think if McCain was in the same position that you Obama-haters would vote for Obama or stay home because of your high morals? Are you F-ing kidding me??? This really has turned into a joke. Nobody will remember this episode come November. However, Obama will have reached a lot more people in Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio (and probably be elected) etc. come November then he would have had he kept his oh so important promise. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Who the hell wouldn't make that decision?? If you can argue that you wouldn't then keep blabbering, if not then lets all find something better to post about.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Right, hey, and if Obama could ship McCain back to his friends in Vietnam and skip the election entirely, maybe he should do that instead.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> *But ... Obama wants to expand the Faith Based Initiative?! *
> 
> Didn't all the Libs call 'W' Hitler or the Anti-Christ when he came out with this thing?
> 
> Now they are all for it because Obama needs to bribe Christian/Catholic Democrats after he insulted them?


Whoa! Obama is going to do one of the very things so many Dems foamed at the mouth over when Dubya did it? This should be good.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> I think the thread is a little pointless myself. I do see the problem with Obama changing his position. What are Obama supporters supposed to do? Should we switch to McCain or stay home in November because our guy can raise $200,000,000 more then the other guy and chose to do that, whether he broke a promise or not? Who wouldn't make that decision? You think McCain wouldn't make that decision? You think if McCain was in the same position that you Obama-haters would vote for Obama or stay home because of your high morals? Are you F-ing kidding me??? This really has turned into a joke. Nobody will remember this episode come November. However, Obama will have reached a lot more people in Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio (and probably be elected) etc. come November then he would have had he kept his oh so important promise. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Who the hell wouldn't make that decision?? If you can argue that you wouldn't then keep blabbering, if not then lets all find something better to post about.


I wouldn't make that decision. :throws a rock at your glass house:

If I was Obama I would have never been sucked into the public money pledge particularly because McCain is vulnerable on campaign finance reform. It's a huge opportunity to make McCain look stupid on the issue(s). Instead Obama got on a high horse about how he has always supported public funding for campaigns, blah blah blah, and tried to out do McCain on a bad issue.

Not only would I have kept my pledge if I had made one, but I wouldn't be that stupid in the first place. It speaks poorly of Obama on both counts.

Yes, that his pledge doesn't matter, but more importantly, to me, that strategically he's asleep at the wheel. McCain has a several of these indefensible positions on campaign financing. Obama should have been exploiting them all along. Not only did he manage to surrender this issue he created a bludgeon for McCain to use against him. So much for "judgment."


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I wouldn't make that decision. :throws a rock at your glass house:


You're full of sh*t. Or hopelessly clueless and optimistic.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> You're full of sh*t. Or hopelessly clueless and optimistic.


No. I'm smart (much smarter than either of them); I have better, more relevant, credentials IMHO (magna law vs. summa MBA) and 15 years of executive experience; I can see further than 2 yards in front of my nose (which Obama apparently can't); and I have principles and integrity. All the stuff I would like to see in a candidate, but thanks for playing.

Unfortunately, neither of these guys is all that impressive IMHO. McCain is "tougher" than I am and Obama is "more likable." Other than that, I don't see how they feed their families honestly.

Romney was the only candidate I could look at and say, "yeah that's a guy I should be listening to" and "I wonder what he knows that I don't."

On the issues of economics, taxes, even basic history and foreign policy neither of these two should be in public office. If you look at character neither of them are honest people. McCain has been lying his a$$ off for 30 years and Obama for what, 1 1/2? Please. He couldn't get hired managing my new Publix.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Oh yea I forgot to play your stupid game. Here goes my best shot.

: Your rock bounces off of my glass house and hits you in the face because my glass house is made of plexi-glass. You should have looked closer then 2 yards in front of your nose and you would have seen that it was plexiglass and not real glass. Instead, your nose is now broken and gushing blood :


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Oh yea I forgot to play your stupid game. Here goes my best shot.
> 
> : Your rock bounces off of my glass house and hits you in the face because my glass house is made of plexi-glass. You should have looked closer then 2 yards in front of your nose and you would have seen that it was plexiglass and not real glass. Instead, your nose is now broken and gushing blood :


What are you, 15 years old?


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

ksinc said:


> What are you, 15 years old?


Just showing how stupid it looks when you try to paint a picture by using colons on message boards. It's what 15 year old girls do on their cell phones. Lets act a little more our age shall we? As extreme as my example was it shows how retarded that looks when you do it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Just showing how stupid it looks when you try to paint a picture by using colons on message boards. It's what 15 year old girls do on their cell phones. Lets act a little more our age shall we? As extreme as my example was it shows how retarded that looks when you do it.


Look: you are the one that said no one would make that decision, then you said I was clueless and optimistic when I said I would. Don't get your panties in a wad because you're clueless and there are people of significantly greater capabilities than you or your chosen candidate in the world.

You were demonstrably wrong, as you have been in almost every post you have made.

Oh, and while you are getting a job, look for a sense of humor as well.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> Lets act a little more our age shall we?





nolan50410 said:


> You're full of sh*t. Or hopelessly clueless and optimistic.


The irony is almost too much to handle.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Look: you are the one that said no one would make that decision, then you said I was clueless and optimistic when I said I would. Don't get your panties in a wad because you're clueless and there are people of significantly greater capabilities than you or your chosen candidate in the world.
> 
> You were demonstrably wrong, as you have been in almost every post you have made.
> 
> Oh, and while you are getting a job, look for a sense of humor as well.


Don't get your panties in a wad because someone points out how gay it looks when you and Wayfarer use colons to paint some sort of picture.

: screams for joy. just below ad for janitorial position is ad for sense of humor. what the hell are the odds! :


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Don't get your panties in a wad because someone points out how gay it looks when you and Wayfarer use colons to paint some sort of picture.
> 
> : screams for joy. just below ad for janitorial position is ad for sense of humor. what the hell are the odds! :


Since you have nothing left to say about the topic at hand or even anything original, I think janitor might be a stretch for you.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Since you have nothing left to say about the topic at hand or even anything original, I think janitor might be a stretch for you.


: next page has ad for ksinc's personal assistant. that is surely below janitor :


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> Don't get your panties in a wad because someone points out how gay it looks when you and Wayfarer use colons to paint some sort of picture.
> 
> : screams for joy. just below ad for janitorial position is ad for sense of humor. what the hell are the odds! :


Can you please point me to where I did this in this thread? Probably even ever? Why do you keep trying to fabricate things?

And FYI, the colons? It is the markup language for an emote.  Now hit quote and look at what it says. Why, "rolleyes" between the colons!


----------

