<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 12 2008, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 11:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure I see what the merit could be. His comment fails to be slanderous only because it's so vague and ill-elucidated. Nor does it help his campaign in any way. It's a poorly expressed weak ad hominem argument against a group of people.</div> You've admitted that voters are bitter. That comment has more merit to me than the typical white person one though. I think you're just being sensitive really. We already know it won't help, and? People are babies. </div> It has nothing to do with sensitivity. Let me try to explain my objection differently. Calling people bitter isn't the problem. Moving from that statement to the proposition that people get bitter and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment..." constitutes not only a logical fallacy, but is an ad hominem argument. He's identifying bitterness with a number of political propositions that he claims to stand against. Think about it. The way he put it, bitterness goes hand in hand with gun ownership and xenophobia. That goes beyond painting with an overly broad brush - it's the sort of argument one would expect from a neophyte debater who's losing a round. [And I speak from direct experience on that count, having faced several such foolish individuals in my time as an undergraduate debate champion] He screwed up - badly. There's just no way around that. Now wait for my nasty commentary on Hillary's inevitable (and no doubt equally objectionable) attempt to capitalize on this snafu. [I'm not sure how McCain will try to use it]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 12 2008, 12:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 12 2008, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 11:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure I see what the merit could be. His comment fails to be slanderous only because it's so vague and ill-elucidated. Nor does it help his campaign in any way. It's a poorly expressed weak ad hominem argument against a group of people.</div> You've admitted that voters are bitter. That comment has more merit to me than the typical white person one though. I think you're just being sensitive really. We already know it won't help, and? People are babies. </div> It has nothing to do with sensitivity. Let me try to explain my objection differently. Calling people bitter isn't the problem. Moving from that statement to the proposition that people get bitter and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment..." constitutes not only a logical fallacy, but is an ad hominem argument. He's identifying bitterness with a number of political propositions that he claims to stand against. Think about it. The way he put it, bitterness goes hand in hand with gun ownership and xenophobia. That goes beyond painting with an overly broad brush - it's the sort of argument one would expect from a neophyte debater who's losing a round. [And I speak from direct experience on that count, having faced several such foolish individuals in my time as an undergraduate debate champion] He screwed up - badly. There's just no way around that. Now wait for my nasty commentary on Hillary's inevitable (and no doubt equally objectionable) attempt to capitalize on this snafu. [I'm not sure how McCain will try to use it] </div> Indeed it was sneaky of him to correlate bitterness with things he opposes, but how wrong was he? Xenophobes are bitter, aren't they? What they think is already creepy enough.
Calling xenophobes bitter is one thing. Implying that bitter people (i.e. those who have different views than himself, the 'change' candidate) are xenophobic is very different - and highly objectionable.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 12 2008, 12:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Calling xenophobes bitter is one thing. Implying that bitter people (i.e. those who have different views than himself, the 'change' candidate) are xenophobic is very different - and highly objectionable.</div> Lou Dobbs doesn't sound xenophobic? Anti-Immigration people sound generally bitter to me. What term do you want him to use instead of "bitter"? What's so terrible about the term anyway? You make it sound like he called them National Socialists or something completely uncalled for.
Again, it's a question of which is to be allied with which. Calling xenophobic bitter = not a problem. Implying that 'bitter' people are xenophobic and love guns = borderline slanderous, ad hominem, and a mistake that could cost a candidate an election.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 12 2008, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Implying that 'bitter' people are xenophobic and love guns = borderline slanderous, ad hominem, and a mistake that could cost a candidate an election.</div> Let's clarify something. These bitter people in PA are xenophobic (and somewhat love guns) though. Correct?
I wouldn't know - and categorically refuse to make a generalization even about the townspeople, much less a sweeping statement including other political platforms that differ from my own. [Note: it is virtually certain that my sentiment will not be expressed by either other Presidential candidate, for what it's worth]
Well he was talking about small towns wasn't he? They're generally bitter about the issues he brought up. The outrage over these comments is mostly because it wasn't intelligent, I don't know that people are as upset by the validity. It just doesn't seem polite.
Semantics, got to love them, however, perception is the real bitch. I just want Obama to stop giving Hillary so much help by sticking his foot in his mouth. No matter how much you can logically deflect and defend what Obama said, the big picture is that it helps Hillary. Can't the people financing his campaign provide him with better PR training.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 12 2008, 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Can't the people financing his campaign provide him with better PR training.</div> Hah, I actually laughed out loud at this, cause it's so true. He must be under a lot of stress with this Hillary thing though.
