Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on September 28, 2008, 07:58:29 AM
-
I noticed during the debate, Obama numerous times interrupted or tried to interrupt McCain, rudely trying to talk over him and shut him up. McCain, to the best of my recollection, never once did that to Obama.
It has been pointed out plenty in the press that McCain always referred to Obama as "Senator Obama", and yet Yomama constantly referred to Senator McCain as "John".
So, one of the candidates in the debate was rude and even a bit condescending, the other showed manners and respect.
If anyone watches some of the television programs when they have a democrat and a republican on together, you might notice that democrats are constantly interrupting and trying like wild to prevent the republican from speaking. It seems common among many democrats to fear the truth, and not their spin getting heard by the public.
Just my opinion.
-
Ever listen to a Barney Frank interview. That man redefines the word rude.
-
I found it understandable because McCain was throwing out straw-man after straw-man, which is worthy of interruption in my book.
-
I expected much worse. Similar tactics were used by Al Gore. As they have more debates I expect it to get much worse. Wonder how it would have played if McCain referred to Obama as Huessein!
-
Wonder how it would have played if McCain referred to Obama as Huessein!
Funny you say that, I was actually thinking about that during the debate.
-
I would have said 'Senator no offense intended but do not interrupt me again noob!' :aok
-
I found it understandable because McCain was throwing out straw-man after straw-man, which is worthy of interruption in my book.
McCain did no such thing. He pointed out things Obama had said. McCain was the better of the two. Both in the debate and in regards to respect towards the other.
The other thing I thought was disrespectful was that Obama continually referred to McCain as John, where as McCain respectfully referred to Obama as: Senator Obama.
-
So then why did Obama constantly have to say, e.g. "that's not my position?" In rebutting straw-man attacks the benefit of the doubt has to go to the intended target. I thought Obama made it very clear that his diplomatic philosophy is very different than engagement to gratify tyrants, but that's exactly how McCain repeatedly portrayed it.
-
obama also said "john is right on that" many times.
-
all of obamamans interruption started with him loudly stuttering his beginning
it was the polite old wise man against the rude, uninformed stststststststuttering youngster
anyone who thinks obamaman won the debate must be on their second pitcher of socialist kool-aid
-
I noticed several times in the first hour (I only watched the first hour) McCain tried to interrupt, but Obama kept on talking. McCain would shut up and kind of grin sheepishly, and try again later.
Obama was a bit more insistant, so McCain would normally shut up when he interupted.
-
So then why did Obama constantly have to say, e.g. "that's not my position?" In rebutting straw-man attacks the benefit of the doubt has to go to the intended target. I thought Obama made it very clear that his diplomatic philosophy is very different than engagement to gratify tyrants, but that's exactly how McCain repeatedly portrayed it.
Obama was being called on facts. Read the freaking transcript. It's easy to see that Obama was wriggling for being stupid when he opened his mouth.
-
Spell it out for me. It's easier to say it than to demonstrate it. :aok
-
Spell it out for me. It's easier to say it than to demonstrate it. :aok
Supporting laziness is exactly why you support who you do.
Me not supporting laziness is why I support who I do.
Can you understand that?
-
Ya know, the bias in this community is laughable.
-
Ya know, the bias in this community is laughable.
Supporting laziness is still wrong.
-
Ya know, the bias in this community is laughable.
Its comforting to know that the vocal part of this community in no way reflects America in general. If it was so McCane would win by 10 to 1 :)
-
So then why did Obama constantly have to say, e.g. "that's not my position?"
Because he forgot what his position actually was.
-
Supporting laziness is exactly why you support who you do.
Me not supporting laziness is why I support who I do.
Can you understand that?
Oh please, break that one down for me...
-
Nils :aok
This place reminds me of The McLaughlin Report. A lot of bright minds from both sides. But they think whoever shouts the loudest wins.
-
I found it understandable because McCain was throwing out straw-man after straw-man, which is worthy of interruption in my book.
Personal attacks, In the way we deal with them on this BBS, are by nature handled differently in a live debate. We deal with them on a paragraph at a time basis, With time to think about our responses, and being able to say (or type) something without interruption. A live debate is what you have in your head, right then and there. You don't have the time for carefully measured responses, Unless you are simply reading scripted lines' off a peice of paper. You have to reply to questions hitherto unknown, Attacks or otherwise. Obama's interupting of McCain is a good example. It proves to me that Obama isn't tied to a telepromter; And by the lack of some of McCain's sudden jump-up-and-say-it lines, He might be in a situation that would go from calm, level-headed reasoning to blaring profanity in seconds...Which I'm sure that McCain's staff wanted him to avoid. If he went into that debate acting the way he sometimes' does on the Senate floor, he would have been in real trouble. It looked to me like that was the one thing he was trying to avoid at all costs.
-
I noticed during the debate, Obama numerous times interrupted or tried to interrupt McCain, rudely trying to talk over him and shut him up. McCain, to the best of my recollection, never once did that to Obama.
It has been pointed out plenty in the press that McCain always referred to Obama as "Senator Obama", and yet Yomama constantly referred to Senator McCain as "John".
So, one of the candidates in the debate was rude and even a bit condescending, the other showed manners and respect.
If anyone watches some of the television programs when they have a democrat and a republican on together, you might notice that democrats are constantly interrupting and trying like wild to prevent the republican from speaking. It seems common among many democrats to fear the truth, and not their spin getting heard by the public.
Just my opinion.
Hmmm.. Dago, hadn't thought about it.. and re-watching it after your post.. I agree.
Something else became apparent I didn't catch the first time through.. Obama was trying for some 'familiarity'.. attempting to present himself as an 'Equal'. McCain was not having any of it. He kept referring to Obama as 'Senator' and I'll be damned if he wasn't throwing the slight edge of disdain a military man uses when he says 'Sir' to an officer he considers to be a buffoon or an ass. I got the impression that McCain was the guy that was 'Presidential' in demeanor, dealing with an upstart puppy while Obama was desperate to be acknowledged as at least McCains equal... and Obama failed miserably at it... even calling McCain 'Tom' a few times. The 'subtext' byplay when your looking for it, is profound.
As you say.. Just my opinion. Good posts in this thread... <S!>
-
that was one of the things i pointed out in the debate thread just moments after the debate ended. you cannot call osamabama down on his faults... just isn't 'politically correct'. you had a PBS moderator... what do you expect? I can't stand McPain or osamabama but the world wants to give osamabama a pass on everything he said in the past, if he denies it - or says the way i meant that was.... he is a marxist dog - but the other marxists in the media sure do love him!
-
Personal attacks, In the way we deal with them on this BBS, are by nature handled differently in a live debate. We deal with them on a paragraph at a time basis, With time to think about our responses, and being able to say (or type) something without interruption. A live debate is what you have in your head, right then and there. You don't have the time for carefully measured responses, Unless you are simply reading scripted lines' off a peice of paper. You have to reply to questions hitherto unknown, Attacks or otherwise. Obama's interupting of McCain is a good example. It proves to me that Obama isn't tied to a telepromter; And by the lack of some of McCain's sudden jump-up-and-say-it lines, He might be in a situation that would go from calm, level-headed reasoning to blaring profanity in seconds...Which I'm sure that McCain's staff wanted him to avoid. If he went into that debate acting the way he sometimes' does on the Senate floor, he would have been in real trouble. It looked to me like that was the one thing he was trying to avoid at all costs.
Sorry, but your post sounds like excuses and veiled accusations. Please stay on topic with what did happen, the behavior that was presented, and not "what might have happened".
-
This guy has some class (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU) :salute
-
Sorry, but your post sounds like excuses and veiled accusations. Please stay on topic with what did happen, the behavior that was presented, and not "what might have happened".
I was thinking that from what I said earlier, it was one of the key strategies' that kept McCain cool during the argument. I do believe that it was completely with the topic, as a possible explanation of his behaviour. All that any of us truly have about the candidate's behaviour during the debate is supposition, unless someone in here is on one of their staff's, with access to information on the debate strategy followed.... :rofl
-
This guy has some class (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU) :salute
He does call it like he sees it. One of the things I really like about the old cracker. And considering the topic.. meeting with Spain's PM, he got it right and Obama was spreading horsepoo.
I may disagree vehemently with McGoo on some issues.. but there's never any doubt when the old duffer thinks what he's hearing qualifies as BS. And that, my friends, is why an honest politician is a prized rarity.
-
All that any of us truly have about the candidate's behaviour during the debate is supposition,
Ahh, I disagree, since I actually watched the debate, I have more than supposition as to behavior, I was able to observe their behavior toward each other. I don't have to guess at it.
-
Ahh, I disagree, since I actually watched the debate, I have more than supposition as to behavior, I was able to observe their behavior toward each other. I don't have to guess at it.
So, are you a trained observer, or a Psychologist? Because if you're not, your observations' only hold as much water as anyone else's. And can't be considered in any way more learned/superior. Just simply opinion.
-
Supporting laziness is exactly why you support who you do.
Me not supporting laziness is why I support who I do.
Can you understand that?
Another straw-man. :aok
-
Its comforting to know that the vocal part of this community in no way reflects America in general. If it was so McCane would win by 10 to 1 :)
yo never know ...
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20080925/NEWS01/80925009/1002/NEWS (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20080925/NEWS01/80925009/1002/NEWS)
-
LOL Eagler.. Right on the money; ... the annoyed pissed off working man will decide this in a landslide on election day.. polls be damned. I put this up back in February.. looking it over, nothing has changed.
There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative religious right wing Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a middle of the road maverick veteran, John McCain.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry Working Man. The Angry Working Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. He’s the working backbone of the economy; a tradesman, a businessman, an independent owner/operator, a systems specialist, a builder, a baker, a candlestick maker. He pays more than his share of taxes and he works hard to make a life and a place for himself and his family.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, braces for the kids, college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their pampered elitist lives.
The Angry Working Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him in the slightest.
The Angry Working Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion doesn’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might be Black or White, could have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a Working American first.. White or Black or Whatever isn’t relevant to where he’s coming from… “Working” and “American” are.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunts white-tailed deer, calls turkeys, builds cars, runs boats, and plays radio. He might spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, he’s like as not out in the driveway on Saturday Mornings, changing his own oil or washing the car… and he probably likes to build things. He’s likely to be coaching baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny for it. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, dig a basement, rock a wall, weld a new bumper for his truck, change a diaper and cook a meal. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a new-fangled populist. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry Working Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry Working Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, her willingness to waste his tax dollars on people who refuse to do anything for themselves. He’s also not charmed about handing the keys to the nations security to an inexperienced starry-eyed smooth talking opportunist from the Chicago Shady Politics Mill… no matter what his skin color or his name is.. or isn’t.
There are many millions of Angry Working Men. Four million Angry Working Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against the Democratic Players… just like they have the last 8 times out the gate.
The Angry Working Americans are resigned to the fact that regardless of who the Democratic nominees for president and vice president will be in 2008, he is resolved that they get beaten like the Rented Mules they really are. He will vote in November… and he hopes that every other Angry Working Man in America votes and that at last, and finally; the message is received; the borders closed, the ports secured, our primacy in our own nation restored. This nation does NOT belong to the Pandering Politicians in pursuit of profits for Corporate Giants.. it belongs to US. It’s past time we took it back.
We do live in interesting times, don't we? :D
-
Got links for that copypasta?
-
So, are you a trained observer, or a Psychologist? Because if you're not, your observations' only hold as much water as anyone else's. And can't be considered in any way more learned/superior. Just simply opinion.
Now your just acting squealing stupid.
I don't need training to know when someone is interrupting someone else or calling someone Senator or by their first name. Maybe you don't have the powers of basic observation given human beings at birth, but I am not missing that minor ability. :rolleyes:
-
I found it understandable because McCain was throwing out straw-man after straw-man, which is worthy of interruption in my book.
Another straw-man. :aok
You've worn the term out, it's time to come up with a new one. But now I realize why you use it. You have no factual rebuttal, so you play the part of the wounded puppy. Your posts add little input to this thread, but you claim others as using "straw man".
You're like my best friend who is a die hard Democrat. I'm for neither party, but the crazy crap he comes up with is laughable. I corner him with one fact and he hides like a chameleon.
Bodhi's post is spot on, but you haven't a sufficient rebuttal, because you KNOW he's correct. We have all become accustomed to laziness. ATM's, Debit cards, the Internet shopping, Autotrader, the list goes on and on. Previous things we used to do that involved "interaction with other humans" have slipped a bit.
A good example? Your local hardware store. I rarely go to Home Depot anymore. Why? I've lost count on how many times I have witnessed other customers ask "Where is <insert whatever you wish> this located?" Only to be sent on a wild goose chase by some bumbling idiot making $14 an hour, who doing nothing more than "sliding by in life".
-
Got links for that copypasta?
It crossed thru my email in-box Feb 9th. As an 'opinion' piece that's been email forward fodder for months 'source' is dubious and inconsequential. Substance-wise, I'm pretty much in agreement with it. It would seem that Zogby Polling data supports the premise... the Angry Working Man will be heard from on election day.
-
'source' is dubious and inconsequential. Substance-wise, I'm pretty much in agreement with it.
That makes you Dan Rather. :rofl :aok :D
-
Another straw-man. :aok
Another Troll...
-
That makes you Dan Rather. :rofl :aok :D
LOL.. gawd; that's harsh!
Oh, well.
Guess my hopes for the Anchor Desk are dashed. ;)
-
I found this to be interesting, I posted this in my squad forum, I am glad to share this with you here.
Pay attention to the date of this article and what has happened up until now with the housing market.
Everyone was quick to blame the Bush administration for this when in fact it started with the DEM's and the Clinton faction.
OBAMA:As Far as his great idea's on the economy and a way out of the current crisis please read this Ny Times article of Sept 30, 1999 to see the roots of the problem and Obama advisors were involved it's inception.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
For your added pleasure, feel free to read this educated idots view of "what will black people do if Obama isnt elected", rather lengthy but you will enjoy some of the reponses to this post, I never respond to such posts but I had too, enough was enough, you will find my response under Rich33, enjoy.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-kennedy_28edi.ART.State.Edition1.26d93f3.html?ocp=1#slcgm_comments_anchor
-
I found this to be interesting, I posted this in my squad forum, I am glad to share this with you here.
Pay attention to the date of this article and what has happened up until now with the housing market.
Everyone was quick to blame the Bush administration for this when in fact it started with the DEM's and the Clinton faction.
OBAMA:As Far as his great idea's on the economy and a way out of the current crisis please read this Ny Times article of Sept 30, 1999 to see the roots of the problem and Obama advisors were involved it's inception.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
For you added pleasure, feel free to read this educated idots view of "what will black people do if Obama isnt elected", rather lengthy but you will enjoy some of the reponses to this post, I never respond to such posts but I had too, enough was enough, you will find my response under Rich33, enjoy.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-kennedy_28edi.ART.State.Edition1.26d93f3.html?ocp=1#slcgm_comments_anchor
Damn nice article... proves the point I made in another thread and was suspected of race baiting... hahaha the internet can be a good thing now and then.
-
Well I'd just like to point out that McCain really did not look at Obama at all during the debate.
Now your just acting squealing stupid.
I don't need training to know when someone is interrupting someone else or calling someone Senator or by their first name. Maybe you don't have the powers of basic observation given human beings at birth, but I am not missing that minor ability. :rolleyes:
Obviously you do need training, as if you listen to this video, you will notice:
Obama does address McCain as "Senator McCain" and then McCain says "horseshit" twice in a row, which is not overly impressive. To be precise, look at 0:05.
-
Well I'd just like to point out that McCain really did not look at Obama at all during the debate.
Obviously you do need training, as if you listen to this video, you will notice:
Obama does address McCain as "Senator McCain" and then McCain says "horsepoop" twice in a row, which is not overly impressive. To be precise, look at 0:05.
Was he referring to the candidates or the news anchors?
-
Its comforting to know that the vocal part of this community in no way reflects America in general. If it was so McCane would win by 10 to 1 :)
I think you would be very surprised how musch it does. Its called the silent majority. Its just that they don't get polled as much as the liberal side does and evener sadder that they don't go out and vote.
-
I think you would be very surprised how musch it does. Its called the silent majority. Its just that they don't get polled as much as the liberal side does and evener sadder that they don't go out and vote.
If this community did in fact represent the entire population, you would notice two major differences in America/Aces High:
- the Democrats would get far fewer electoral votes in the elections than they actually do
- Aces High would have a MUCH larger list of subscriptions, as most people would therefore be very interested in World War II aviation, and in flying WWII combat flight simulators.
<S>
Yossarian
-
I found this to be interesting, I posted this in my squad forum, I am glad to share this with you here.
Pay attention to the date of this article and what has happened up until now with the housing market.
Everyone was quick to blame the Bush administration for this when in fact it started with the DEM's and the Clinton faction.
OBAMA:As Far as his great idea's on the economy and a way out of the current crisis please read this Ny Times article of Sept 30, 1999 to see the roots of the problem and Obama advisors were involved it's inception.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
For your added pleasure, feel free to read this educated idots view of "what will black people do if Obama isnt elected", rather lengthy but you will enjoy some of the reponses to this post, I never respond to such posts but I had too, enough was enough, you will find my response under Rich33, enjoy.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-kennedy_28edi.ART.State.Edition1.26d93f3.html?ocp=1#slcgm_comments_anchor
Wow.. so the majority of black Americans support Obama because he looks more Black than White?
.... ergo; most blacks are racist?
I had no idea!
Hunh. I wonder how the majority of white democrats.. white folks that voted for him, would vote for him, AND put him on the top of their ticket would react to threats of a race riot reaction to his defeat in November?
LOL..
Sure an interesting development.. 'No Black Presidency, No Black Peace!!'. I'd think that even white democrats would be a bit annoyed that blacks would bite the hands that feed them . Or, is it vice versa?
ROFL!!.. this could be interesting indeed!
-
.... ergo; most blacks are racist?
I had no idea!
If you really had no idea, you are out of touch. Most blacks are quite racist, though most would deny it, just as most whites really are racist, and again most would deny it. The reality is, every race of people is made up primarily of racists. Just human nature.
It's those who look past the natural tendancy to be racist and accept people as who they are that makes those persons special in mind and soul.
-
I found it understandable because McCain was throwing out straw-man after straw-man, which is worthy of interruption in my book.
that must have been why Oboma kept agreeing with him, over and over!
-
If this community did in fact represent the entire population, you would notice two major differences in America/Aces High:
- the Democrats would get far fewer electoral votes in the elections than they actually do
- Aces High would have a MUCH larger list of subscriptions, as most people would therefore be very interested in World War II aviation, and in flying WWII combat flight simulators.
<S>
Yossarian
How do you know how big their subscription list is?
-
Now your just acting squealing stupid.
I don't need training to know when someone is interrupting someone else or calling someone Senator or by their first name. Maybe you don't have the powers of basic observation given human beings at birth, but I am not missing that minor ability. :rolleyes:
You...did miss something. Here, I'll explain. BOTH the men in the Debate are Senators of the United States of America. Therefore, even though they belong to different parties, they are both still colleagues in the same field; And in most career fields' today, it is very often accepted practice for Colleagues' to use their first names. As a matter of fact, in many cases, resorting to honorifics is an attempt to distance yourself from someone by keeping all business entirely official...such as during a reprimand, or a fight for a(n) promotion at work. Also, Honorifics can be used to speak about someone in the Third person, even if they are in fact present for the conversation. When used in this way, It can (and often is) insulting. IMO, Obama using McCains' first name to refer to him was simply an act of politeness. McCain was the one being intentionally rude by adhering to honorifics...And also IMO, it shows' that McCain has a hard time dealing with people that he considers belligerent, by attempting to keep them distant as possible. It also helped keep his temper from flaring, and making him say something he would deeply wish he hadn't said later.
Don't worry, Dago...I won't charge you for the free training. :aok
-
Gotta love Washington..
The only place where 'My esteemed colleague' means 'that dirtbag corksucker'.
-
Gotta love Washington..
The only place where 'My esteemed colleague' means 'that dirtbag corksucker'.
:rofl :rofl
-
Gotta love Washington..
The only place where 'My esteemed colleague' means 'that dirtbag corksucker'.
When you put it that way...We need Everday American citizens to go into the House and Senate before each session and address all present with those same words. Because everyone in both Houses...Sucks. :lol
-
You...did miss something. Here, I'll explain. BOTH the men in the Debate are Senators of the United States of America. Therefore, even though they belong to different parties, they are both still colleagues in the same field; And in most career fields' today, it is very often accepted practice for Colleagues' to use their first names. As a matter of fact, in many cases, resorting to honorifics is an attempt to distance yourself from someone by keeping all business entirely official...such as during a reprimand, or a fight for a(n) promotion at work. Also, Honorifics can be used to speak about someone in the Third person, even if they are in fact present for the conversation. When used in this way, It can (and often is) insulting. IMO, Obama using McCains' first name to refer to him was simply an act of politeness. McCain was the one being intentionally rude by adhering to honorifics...And also IMO, it shows' that McCain has a hard time dealing with people that he considers belligerent, by attempting to keep them distant as possible. It also helped keep his temper from flaring, and making him say something he would deeply wish he hadn't said later.
Don't worry, Dago...I won't charge you for the free training. :aok
Perception and understanding really isn't your strong suit is it?
This thread was about the reality of what was done, not an analysis of the possible reasons. It's that simple.
Trying to read too much into it, or trying to take the thread beyond the simple obvious facts is just you trying to obscure the blatant reality I started this thread discussing.
-
Perception and understanding really isn't your strong suit is it?
This thread was about the reality of what was done, not an analysis of the possible reasons. It's that simple.
Trying to read too much into it, or trying to take the thread beyond the simple obvious facts is just you trying to obscure the blatant reality I started this thread discussing.
The reality is that any and all results of that Debate are in the eye of the beholder; at best, it is left to the whim of opinion. The only 'Blatant Reality' is that you are simply trying to enforce an opinion (yours) as fact. This thread is nothing less, and nothing more.
-
Im afraid Frode is wrong on more then just the points you (Dago) made not that most of the younger set in America would ever notice. McCain (even though I despise the man) grew up in a time when people did at least respect one another enough to be polite. You can see this in his use of the word 'sir' even though you can see he is squinting a little tighter when he says it. Obama makes no false pretenses that he respects anyone or anything and I am hoping (mind you I think there is little hope anymore) that the majority of people that show up on election day feel as I do that Obama will not respect the office of the POTUS anymore then Clinton did and show up in large masses to ensure Obama is kept out.
I will pray for a bright sunny day in all the red states and rain in the blue states come election day. Prayer is about all this country has anymore since Common sense left the electorate long ago.
Pass the ammo we are going to need it.
-
I hear he intends to paint 1600 Pennsylvania Ave black.
Seriously.
-
Im afraid Frode is wrong on more then just the points you (Dago) made not that most of the younger set in America would ever notice. McCain (even though I despise the man) grew up in a time when people did at least respect one another enough to be polite. You can see this in his use of the word 'sir' even though you can see he is squinting a little tighter when he says it. Obama makes no false pretenses that he respects anyone or anything and I am hoping (mind you I think there is little hope anymore) that the majority of people that show up on election day feel as I do that Obama will not respect the office of the POTUS anymore then Clinton did and show up in large masses to insure Obama is kept out.
I will pray for a bright sunny day in all the red states and rain in the blue states come election day. Prayer is about all this country has anymore since Common sense left the electorate long ago.
Pass the ammo we are going to need it.
To expect the candidates' to really respect each other, in the political Poo-fling manner of politics that is practiced in this country any more, would actually be expecting too much. McCain wasn't speaking to Obama as an equal or a fellow Senator; He was doing his best to distance himself, IMO. That in itself would be a sort of second line insult, as if you were being spoke down upon, as if by a superior.
I will admit that as a debate tactic, if it was knowingly being implemented as one, was effective. It was causing Obama to act more out of character then usual, to stutter, and to more openly attack McCain.
-
The reality is that any and all results of that Debate are in the eye of the beholder; at best, it is left to the whim of opinion. The only 'Blatant Reality' is that you are simply trying to enforce an opinion (yours) as fact. This thread is nothing less, and nothing more.
Did you recently hear a "whishing" sound fly over your head?
The results of the debate are NOT what I was discussing. Sheesh, go to WalMart and buy a clue.
-
Sheesh, go to WalMart and buy a clue.
Hey, not jumping on to either side of your fight here BUT as a public service I'd like to point out that any clues purchased at wal-mart are most likely made in communist china and are inherently sub par - possibly even dangerous. Please buy American or at least western clues... they'll stand up longer!
-
Did you recently hear a "whishing" sound fly over your head?
The results of the debate are NOT what I was discussing. Sheesh, go to WalMart and buy a clue.
How the candidates acted toward each other is factored into the result of the debate, and can/are counted as such. They are an integral part of what makes' up the person, and thus, their electibility.
I do know you started the thread with the solely on the candidates behaviour, but as I said, It's only one part of the whole.
-
I noticed several times in the first hour (I only watched the first hour) McCain tried to interrupt, but Obama kept on talking. McCain would shut up and kind of grin sheepishly, and try again later.
Obama was a bit more insistant, so McCain would normally shut up when he interupted.
Thats not how I recall it. In fact, I remember laughing with joy when Obama tried VERY hard to interupt McCain, but McCain just kept on talking over Obama as if he didnt even notice. I liked that especially because thats something I do often myself when some idiot tries to interupt me.
-
Ya know, my constant assertions about the bias in this community are laughable, given the implacable nature of my own bias.
QFT :)
-
I just hope the next moderator has a bigger set of stones.
There were a few times where he should have put his foot in someone's bellybutton (on both sides)
-
How do you know how big their subscription list is?
I don't know anywhere near precisely, but I do know that this game's community is not a fair representation of the USA, by the sole fact that HTC does not have millions of subscribers.
-
As far as how they addressed each other....I thought I heard the Moderator chiding them to 'look at each other' and 'respond directly to each other'. Maybe using 'John' was a way of talking directly to him? Personalizing his responses? And McCain just couldn't bring himself out of stuffyness and old-school habits of formality. Heck I'm not even sure McCain ever glanced at Obama.
Maybe I watched a different debate.
-
what happened to the 'ignore' feature on this BBS?
-
yes, i saw it, and i really hope obama dont get president, he will ruin the US
-BIgBOBCH
-
Well I'd just like to point out that McCain really did not look at Obama at all during the debate.
You do realize that McCain has major injuries from being tortured? If you watch other footage of him, he has to turn his whole body to look around and it looks painful for him to do so. He can't even comb his own hair because Commies like Obama ripped his arms out of socket.