NationStates Jolt Archive

As I was watching the Television while trying to think up what my next post should consist of, I noticed a commercial that was (essentially) one big ad hominem on John McCain's character. Now first, don't get me wrong, I don't think McCain is anywhere near the best choice for president. But, at the end, Obama came out and said "I'm Barrack Obama, and I approve this message." Now, if he wants to be such a candidate of change, stop the ad hominems! And that goes for McCain too, it's just that the Obama commercial was hot in my mind as I type this.

And is it just me, or are the campaign ads more based around mudslinging then '04?

As I was watching the Television while trying to think up what my next post should consist of, I noticed a commercial that was (essentially) one big ad hominem on John McCain's character. Now first, don't get me wrong, I don't think McCain is anywhere near the best choice for president. But, at the end, Obama came out and said "I'm Barrack Obama, and I approve this message." Now, if he wants to be such a candidate of change, stop the ad hominems! And that goes for McCain too, it's just that the Obama commercial was hot in my mind as I type this.

And is it just me, or are the campaign ads more based around mudslinging then '04?

It's just you.

The ads are basically just as they were 4 years ago. The only difference is, they're very slightly more bipartisan about it, now. Kerry basically lost the last election, not because of his demeanour, not because of his fitness for the job... but because he didn't tell Bush to suck his balls.

And is it just me, or are the campaign ads more based around mudslinging then '04?

I haven't noticed it that much, then again I don't watch much tv.

Politicians will stop using attack ads when they stop convincing voters that their opponents are a bad choice.

CM, you don't imagine for a nanosecond that McCain hasn't approved the same kind of message slagging Obama, do you?

'Cause that would be just plain naive.

CM, you don't imagine for a nanosecond that McCain hasn't approved the same kind of message slagging Obama, do you?

'Cause that would be just plain naive.

Read my OP again.
And that goes for McCain too, it's just that the Obama commercial was hot in my mind as I type this.

The internet has left the notion of logical fallacies beaten and bloody laying in the gutter.

Ad Hominem means addressing the debater and not the argument. In a presidential campaign the candidates are the argument. So yeah, the ads addressed McCain because McCain is the fucking argument, that McCain would be a better president.

I have to give a "meh"

Mudslinging has been around since Adams vs Jefferson.

The internet has left the notion of logical fallacies beaten and bloody laying in the gutter.


Oh God yeah. And peed on. Appeal to authority is another good example of this.

TIVO is your friend.

if you are a tv watcher, it will save your sanity by allowing you to easily skip all these godawful politcal ads.

Too bad in politics, personal attacks can be valid arguements. If someone is a fucking liar and consitantly lies (McCain) and keeps getting caught (McCain) its not wrong to point out how uncredible he is.

Too bad in politics, personal attacks can be valid arguements. If someone is a fucking liar and consitantly lies (McCain) and keeps getting caught (McCain) its not wrong to point out how uncredible he is.

You could say that about any politcian. :wink:

You could say that about any politcian. :wink:

Its possible that truth is like arsenic to all of them, but none of them have been caught as much as McCain.

McCain isn't making an argument, he's trying to show why he is the better person to be president. As such his character is highly relevant.

I'm very disappointed. :(

*puts away mud sling*

Its possible that truth is like arsenic to all of them, but none of them have been caught as much as McCain.
Indeed. That means all the other policians are just better at hiding their past.:wink:

I noticed a commercial that was (essentially) one big ad hominem on John McCain's character.

two questions

1) was the form of the commercial something like the following?
mccain claims that x will help the economy
but mccain fucks 8 year old boys
therefore x will not help the economy

2) was the claim about mccain's character false?

Oh God yeah. And peed on. Appeal to authority is another good example of this.

Tell me about it. I can't believe how many times I've been told "you're appealing to authority" because I frickin' cite to, ya know, published studies.

1) was the form of the commercial something like the following?
mccain calims that x will help the economy
but mccain fucks 8 year old boys
therefore x will not help the economy


C'mon confess, you've been pitching that ad to the Obama people. Good stuff.

mccain calims that x will help the economy
but mccain fucks 8 year old boys
therefore x will not help the economy


I can just picture the response:

McCain: "Do they mean one boy that's 8 years old, or 8 'year-old' boys?"
Campaign Staff:... "Shut up, John. Fuck it. Quick, call off the debates."

C'mon confess, you've been pitching that ad to the Obama people. Good stuff.

i put out a few feelers, but no luck so far.

next stop...youtube!

The internet has left the notion of logical fallacies beaten and bloody laying in the gutter.

Ad Hominem means addressing the debater and not the argument. In a presidential campaign the candidates are the argument. So yeah, the ads addressed McCain because McCain is the fucking argument, that McCain would be a better president.

Thank God someone said it.

My favorite is when Balderdash tells my argument is a strawman because he didn't bring the point up first. Apparently, you can never raise a new point about why a conclusion is invalid. Otherwise, it's a strawman.

Too bad in politics, personal attacks can be valid arguements. If someone is a fucking liar and consitantly lies (McCain and Obama) and keeps getting caught (McCain and Obama) its not wrong to point out how uncredible he is.

Fixed that for you.

Sorry but I'm suprised it took Obama so long to get to the actual mud.

Mc Cain had been slinging for a while now.

Fixed that for you.

I'm afraid that Obama is still the apprentice to McCain's master.

As I was watching the Television while trying to think up what my next post should consist of, I noticed a commercial that was (essentially) one big ad hominem on John McCain's character. Now first, don't get me wrong, I don't think McCain is anywhere near the best choice for president. But, at the end, Obama came out and said "I'm Barrack Obama, and I approve this message." Now, if he wants to be such a candidate of change, stop the ad hominems! And that goes for McCain too, it's just that the Obama commercial was hot in my mind as I type this.

And is it just me, or are the campaign ads more based around mudslinging then '04?

it's just you.

the level of mud is still the same.

I'm afraid that Obama is still the apprentice to McCain's master.

and considering how many people belive Obama? I would say the Apprentice has surpassed the Master. :p

Fixed that for you.

Oh for fucks sake.:rolleyes:


Show me a lie Obama has told and has been caught in. No wait, fuck it, everyone lies. Show me 5 high profile ones. Now. Show me something as bad and obvious as "Sarah Palin was against the bridge to nowhere" or "Obama supported sex ed for Kindergarteners" when in reality he supported a bill to teach them how to watch for inappropriate advances for adults. Or admit your just trolling.


You can try and make it seem like one is as bad as the other, but youd be a liar or delusional.

And is it just me, or are the campaign ads more based around mudslinging then '04?
It's just you.

What are some examples of the attacks in the ad you watched CM?

NOOO fact check.org is down, preventing me from showing some of obamas/mccains latest false ads. (they are about even from what I can see on factcheck...)

:confused:

Wait... Are there adds that don't contain mudslinging? :eek2:

NOOO fact check.org is down, preventing me from showing some of obamas/mccains latest false ads. (they are about even from what I can see on factcheck...)

factcheck.org has been pretty bad lately. The last time I checked they weren't giving sources for many of the assertions they were making.

And other times it reads like it's written by a Bizarro. I mean, when you say that claims that Sarah Palin supports teaching creationism are false, you shouldn't back it up by quoting Sarah Palin saying that she supports the teaching of creationism.

Indeed. That means all the other policians are just better at hiding their past.

Which makes them a lot more qualified for the job. Remember, politics is all about appearance and making sure all those dirty little and not-so-little secrets stay secret.

factcheck.org has been pretty bad lately. The last time I checked they weren't giving sources for many of the assertions they were making.

And other times it reads like it's written by a Bizarro. I mean, when you say that claims that Sarah Palin supports teaching creationism are false, you shouldn't back it up by quoting Sarah Palin saying that she supports the teaching of creationism.

I agree completely. Not that I think factcheck.org has been biased (or not biased enough in a direction I favor :wink:), but because it has been very shallow and unsupported in its analysis.

The Palin creationism thing is a good example.

two questions

1) was the form of the commercial something like the following?
mccain claims that x will help the economy
but mccain fucks 8 year old boys
therefore x will not help the economy

2) was the claim about mccain's character false?

these were honest questions, btw. what sort of commercial was it?

I agree completely. Not that I think factcheck.org has been biased (or not biased enough in a direction I favor :wink:), but because it has been very shallow and unsupported in its analysis.

The Palin creationism thing is a good example.

I think the problem with the creationism one is that the person who wrote that article had never looked at EvC debates before. If you've seen them or been involved in them it's incredibly obvious what she's saying. If you haven't it requires a bit more thought to realize that basically saying "they don't have to teach creationism" implies the statement "they should teach creationism". Okay, it barely requires any more thought at all. So basically there is no good reason for them to have screwed that up.

Man I try to be fair and I end up calling them either stupid or incompetent.

And other times it reads like it's written by a Bizarro. I mean, when you say that claims that Sarah Palin supports teaching creationism are false, you shouldn't back it up by quoting Sarah Palin saying that she supports the teaching of creationism.

that shit was just embarrassing - like they had no idea of the terms of the debate.

so was their wolf one. "it's not aerial hunting, it's predator control. and there are like 7,000 wolves in alaska, what's wrong with hunting them down from planes?"

I think the problem with the creationism one is that the person who wrote that article had never looked at EvC debates before. If you've seen them or been involved in them it's incredibly obvious what she's saying. If you haven't it requires a bit more thought to realize that basically saying "they don't have to teach creationism" implies the statement "they should teach creationism". Okay, it barely requires any more thought at all. So basically there is no good reason for them to have screwed that up.

Man I try to be fair and I end up calling them either stupid or incompetent.

:D

And I should clarify that the existence of factcheck.org is a good thing. And it generally does alright. People just shouldn't overrely on it (as some in these forums have done on the creationism thing).

NOOO fact check.org is down, preventing me from showing some of obamas/mccains latest false ads. (they are about even from what I can see on factcheck...)
politifact.com

:D

And I should clarify that the existence of factcheck.org is a good thing. And it generally does alright. People just shouldn't overrely on it (as some in these forums have done on the creationism thing).

As with everything, one should should examine the source with a critical eye.