Letters to the Editor
-
See - no point
See?
There's no point.
You know the truth Hutman.
It's not worth my time to go through all your posts and show you.
I'm not quoting you word for word, you know all the things you've implied.
I came here because of my passion and interest in these issues.
I write about things that are of vital importance to me - I truly don't care enough about movie reviews or other cultural trivia to write letters to the editor about them.
Writing about culture itself is really quite fluffy to me when there are so many more important things going on.
Once again,
Goodnight ~
Thank you John for the poem
-
@DeeperTruth
DeeperTruth: "It's not worth my time to go through all your posts and show you."
I will take that as an admission that the thing you are accusing me of (criticizing Bill Clinton for making money off of speeches) is not anything I've ever actually written -- nor implied.
DeeperTruth: "I came here because of my passion and interest in these issues."
Evidently the passion is not enough for you to make honest arguments.
-
"I shall reply no more to you on this issue"
AKA is the new Chief Joseph.
Pretty soon Hillary will announce that she, too, will fight no more forever.
-
@Anonymous 10:21 p.m. 2/21/08
Did we watch the same debate?
Obama took her to school, and Hillary gave a concession speech at the end.
--Anonymous
Yes, and Hillary took Obama to school, despite a lapse in good judgment ("Xerox" comment). Obama just repeated what she said so he could look presidential.
Come now, you can't possibly think Sen. Obama outdid Sen. Clinton in that debate. I tuned in for the first time of all the Democratic debates, just to see what the difference was, so I have not been (very much) tainted by preconception. I was impressed by Clinton's showing and astonished at the praise being heaped upon Obama for his demeanor and debate skills.
Obama was tentative and at times reminded me of George W. Bush when presented with an opposing candidate's response that he couldn't match, choosing instead a line of rhetoric he was good at delivering and which elicited applause from fervent supporters in the audience.
One can admit Clinton is a more qualified candidate than Obama and still express the hope that Obama will turn out to be a formidable foe for McCain.
Obama will win the nomination. I will vote for him for president. But I hope to God he bones up on substance and learns his figures.
-
Dustball,
There is no denying that Obama's style of speaking can be "tentative." He is a thoughtful man and chooses the best words he can. I'd rather have a president who speaks precisely and with care than a president who just runs at the mouth yapping canned and forced lines like Hillary did at the debate, or worse, a president who gets unhinged and starts shrieking, like Hillary did today:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/23/hillary.speech.cnn
Here's Obama's reply:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/23/obama.speech.cnn
-
@Anonymous 10:23 p.m.
I just wonder if someone like Barack Obama were to become incensed by a similar development and gesticulate while raising his voice in front of a crowd of supporters... if it would look just as bad.
I am glad that he is a thoughtful man. I am just worried that he won't be able to think quickly enough in a debate against McCain to fend off assertions that he is too inexperienced for the job. When I look in my magic 8-ball, I see him pulling out the rhetoric; I don't see him countering effectively with ideas.
And I know Hillary Clinton is an extremely intelligent and capable woman, regardless of how canned she sounds by this point. She just doesn't connect with people the same way Barack Obama does, and she's been in people's faces for much longer.
All in all, I'm not as worried about the shrieking as much as I am about the outcome of a McCain-Obama matchup. Just have to have faith, I guess.
-
I meant @Anonymous 11:12 p.m. 2/23/08
Sorry... referring to my previous post.
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman: Ad-Hominem Attacks?
Really, hutman. Accusing me of ad hominem attacks shows your ignorance of argument and persuasion. Reviewing some of your letters I see a rather consistent pattern in your attacks on others. To wit:
Hillary Clinton is wheezing "for shame!" and "shame on you!" and I've seen her supporters use the "Shame, shame, shame!" charge repeatedly in this thread.
1. This is hasty generalization and a straw man.
I also fail to see how the use of the term "bitch" translates into killing somebody on the Titanic, etc.
2. This is false analogy and a red herring (talk about sexist).
Sure it makes sense, but what makes less sense is that you only came into existence, message-wise, during this campaign, and that for all of that time you only have written about Clinton/Obama, with no other comments about any of a myriad of subjects.
3. This is hasty generalization and red herring.
"The point about Obama's words is that they are just words. And anyone can say them. They don't show or prove that he can do anything, other than speak well."
(DeeperTruth)
That's a Hillary talking point. It's not even a substantive criticism
(Your reply to DeeperTruth)
4. This is a red herring and a straw man.
Wait -- didn't you say you were intelligent and well educated, and that you care about truth? Okay, then here is some material for you to look into:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
The article gives a detailed analysis of both Clinton's and Obama's legislative records.
(your reply to DeeperTruth)
5. This is a hasty generalization, equivocation, begging the question and appeal to false authority.
Anyway, I didn't make any statement about whether any of this was unethical. I only pointed out the facts of the matter.
(your reply to a DeeperTruth post)
6. This is a red herring and equivocation.
It details the problems Hillary Clinton encountered when her record-breaking $8 million book advance. It seems that there were strong concerns that Hillary had committed an ethics violation, because such a huge advance (from a Viacom company, Simon & Schuster) can easily be seen as a back-door political contribution
7. This is a red herring, equivocation and appeal to ignorance.
The main difference between Obama and Bush, though, is that Bush is a complete dumbass. Obama is quite intelligent.
8. This is ad hominem and a red herring.
Her candidacy would not have been possible without family connections. Her political history goes back to the governorship of a southern state. Prior to that, like Bush, her primary career experience was in corporate business. So if we're going to be talking about the Bush comparison, start with Hillary.
9. This is straw man, red herring, hasty generalization and appeal to ignorance.
Choosing who to vote for is like choosing a car to drive across the country. You want to travel safely, comfortably, smoothly, but with good gas mileage and a solid experience.
10. This is false analogy.
except for the fact that she's such a low-integrity twit
though she was all over the map tone-wise. One minute she's attacking, the next minute she's smoochy again. Barack Obama, by contrast, played it typically cool and smooth, not ever getting rattled
11. This is ad hominem and straw man (and again goes to the issue of sexism).
Before Tuesday's debate I hope Obama trains with some improv comedians. Or he can just keep playing it cool and hope Hillary's joke writers continue in their current direction: "Your immigration policy is not 'Yes We Mexi-Can' ... it's 'No We Mexi-Can't'!" Then Obama can just wait for the boos to pour in and he'll wrap up the nomination.
12. Race-baiting/red herring, straw man and hasty generalization.
Seriously, what do you care what I do? Why aren't you asking the 15 Hillary supporters who go around posting the same spam-like attack posts against Obama? Start with factcheck1 and factcheck2, move on Notorious W.E.S. and AKA Smith,
13. This is guilt by association, red herring, and ad hominem.
"How can you have universal healthcare that leaves 14MM people uninsured?"
Well HELLO Mr. Clinton Talking Point! There is no evidence that Obama's plan would leave all those people uninsured. I think the difference between Obama's policy and Clinton's is that Obama isn't promising something that he will have a hard time delivering. He's promising affordable healthcare, not an overnight transition to total 100% guaranteed 24-hour healthcare for every man, woman, child, cat, kitten, and pet rock who has the sniffles.
14. This is ad hominem, false dilemma, straw man.
Would you want to hire an engineer to build a bridge if that engineer had granted another engineer the permission to start an unending war in Iraq?
15. This is a false analogy, a red herring and a straw man.
Revere: "Hillary has been tried and tested."
Hardly. Hillary Clinton barely has more Congressional experience than Obama does. She wasn't exactly tried and tested in the 1990s -- her husband was. Prior to that she worked in corporate law. How did that prepare her for public office?
Hillary Clinton's prime experience outside of being First Lady was 16 years working to promote the interests of large corporations. I am sure that gave her experience, but I question whether it's the kind of experience we want in the White House. Hillary Clinton's Senate experience is not stellar and she made most of her moves with one eye on the White House,
I only ask that you hold Obama and Clinton to an equal set of standards. Can you do that much?
(Your reply)
16. This is red herring, hasty generalization, false dilemma, appeal to ignorance and slippery slope. In addition, it is part and parcel of the whole dismissing/denying/downplaying/ denigrating and outright lying about her experience (that I have called you on before).
About what I've come to find among a good number of Obama's followers. A long litany of tirades against Clinton supporters, usually filled to the brim with every type of argument fallacy...