HAHAHHA McCAIN Is an Idiot Options

[Tung]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_...r/mccain_houses


Obama raps McCain for ignorance of his own houses

WASHINGTON - John McCain may have created his own housing crisis. Hours after a report that the Republican nominee didn't know exactly how many homes he and his multimillionaire wife own, Democratic rival Barack Obama launched a national TV ad and a series of campaign stops aimed at portraying McCain as wealthy and out of touch.

wow ....

[Tung]

Damn, he is an idiot I wouldn't want a president who doesn't even know how many properties he own, leading a whole country.

[berrypop90]

Yeah, what a douche. Who needs 7 houses anyway? If he's just going to forget about them he might as well sell them(or give them away for charity! Make him seem like a decent human being, or well, human).

[hi-C]

He's also criticized Obama for having "ambition to be president." As if McCain doesn't. He's a douche.

[*paperplane*]

Tuuuuuuung, don't double post.

That's really unimpressive, though. Bad move on his part. How many houses you own is a pretty important number to know, particularly when you're trying to present your opponent as an elitist.

[mipadi]

That's really unimpressive, though. Bad move on his part. How many houses you own is a pretty important number to know, particularly when you're trying to present your opponent as an elitist.

Well put. Who's the real elitist: an eloquent, college-educated man, or a guy who owns so many houses he can't keep track of all of them?

[brooklyneast05]

hmmmmmmm. this is somewhat stupid, but yeah.

i saw the ad the democrats put out about this. i thought it was sorta a stretch to suggest we're supposed to care that when asked he wasn't positive. not as far a stretch as mccain suggesting we should make some connection between paris hilton and barack obama...but still. they own a lot, he's old, i won't hate on him too much that he didn't know right on the spot. either way i hope this fades out fast because it's insignificant in the grand scheme of the election.

[karmakiller]

On the news they were talking about this and I guess that Obama wanted McCain to not say anything about his wife, and people were trying to say that Obama is picking on McCain's wife because she owns the homes. They're married, so her stuff is his stuff, too.

If he forgets how many homes he has, I wonder how much he'll forget if he gets office.

[mipadi]

they own a lot, he's old, i won't hate on him too much that he didn't know right on the spot.

But...we're talking about houses, not, like...t-shirts or something. You can't honestly trust someone who "forgets" how many houses he owns. They're houses, for God's sake.

[brooklyneast05]

But...we're talking about houses, not, like...t-shirts or something. You can't honestly trust someone who "forgets" how many houses he owns. They're houses, for God's sake.

yeah i know what you're saying, but i guess regardless it's not a big issue to me. i don't trust him to begin with, but this isn't even significant enough to me to add to my list of reasons i'm not for him.

[karmakiller]

LOL, hmm... I think the lack of surprise is a sign..

[Reidar]

But...we're talking about houses, not, like...t-shirts or something. You can't honestly trust someone who "forgets" how many houses he owns. They're houses, for God's sake.

But you're saying we can trust someone who can't remember his own positions?

Both sides keep positing that we can't trust the other because of whatever the political gaffe of the week happens to be. Yes, McCain is a dork. So are the majority of politicians. Welcome to the world.

[mipadi]

But you're saying we can trust someone who can't remember his own positions?

Actually, I don't believe I did.

[brooklyneast05]

You can't honestly trust someone who "forgets" how many houses he owns.

Actually, I don't believe I said I could.

[Rogue_Ewok]

yeah i know what you're saying, but i guess regardless it's not a big issue to me. i don't trust him to begin with, but this isn't even significant enough to me to add to my list of reasons i'm not for him.

Its pretty significant because he's trying to frame Obama as an elitist, and there he is having 7 houses and not being able to count them. it also proves how out of touch he is with the people he wants to vote for him. Yeah, he can have his 7 houses whyile a lot of Americans are worried about keeping one.

P.S. I'm not bashing you at all, just giving my opinion on why I think this is significant.

[brooklyneast05]

Its pretty significant because he's trying to frame Obama as an elitist, and there he is having 7 houses and not being able to count them. it also proves how out of touch he is with the people he wants to vote for him. Yeah, he can have his 7 houses whyile a lot of Americans are worried about keeping one.

P.S. I'm not bashing you at all, just giving my opinion on why I think this is significant.

yeah yeah yeah, but is either candidate really "in touch" with what it's like to be a normal person right now? they're both rich.

[Rogue_Ewok]

i dont think a senator's salary leads to being rich, at least not super rich anyway. Obama is in touch with the working class, he was a community planner for years after all.

[brooklyneast05]

McCain is super rich due to his wife. Obama might have been in touch at some point, but right now I don't think he's all that in touch. no one on that level can really be, in my opinion. but yeah i would agree Obama is closer to being in touch, that's who i'm supporting at the present moment.

[Reidar]

Actually, I don't believe I did.

You did by contrasting the two candidates in the aforementioned regard, which implicates that one is not guilty of the factor you're taking to issue with.

[mipadi]

You did by contrasting the two candidates in the aforementioned regard, which implicates that one is not guilty of the factor you're taking to issue with.

I made no such contrast. I didn't mention any candidate but McCain when I made the comment about trust.

[Reidar]

I made no such contrast. I didn't mention any candidate but McCain.

So when you asked, "Who's the real elitist: an eloquent, college-educated man, or a guy who owns so many houses he can't keep track of all of them?", the former must not have been about the other candidate. In that case, you've committed a non sequitur.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

Obama's swag >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MCain's old ass

[mipadi]

So when you asked "who's the real elitist: an eloquent, college-educated man, or a guy who owns so many houses he can't keep track of all of them?", the former must not have been about Obama. In that case, you've committed a non sequitur.

Ah, but you didn't quote my comment about elitism; you quoted my comment about trust. In fact, you specifically mentioned trust, because you were trying to twist my words around. In doing so, you made a fallacious straw man argument in which you attempted to assert that I said that Obama was more trustworthy than McCain. I didn't; I said that Obama was no more of an elitist than McCain. Here's a repost of that exchange:

But...we're talking about houses, not, like...t-shirts or something. You can't honestly trust someone who "forgets" how many houses he owns. They're houses, for God's sake.

But you're saying we can trust someone who can't remember his own positions?

Both sides keep positing that we can't trust the other because of whatever the political gaffe of the week happens to be. Yes, McCain is a dork. So are the majority of politicians. Welcome to the world.

[クライオジェニクス]

McCain and Obama are suck

Mobile Soldier Gundam of president is vote

[technicolour]

Haha, wow. Someone is DUMB. Old and dumb.

[Reidar]

Ah, but you didn't quote my comment about elitism; you quoted my comment about trust.

Correct. As a logical human being, I would assume that you intend for your points to at least have some cohesion. Your rebuttal is that contrasting their exclusivity in social status doesn't affiliate with the degree that one can place their reliance on the integrity and surety of a person when those naturally go hand in hand. I can sum that up: "Aha! But I technically didn't say he's the opposite of the party that I contrasted him with on another wholly related component."

In fact, you specifically mentioned trust, because you were trying to twist my words around. In doing so, you made a fallacious straw man argument

This wording is redundant. A straw man is fallacious by definition.

in which you attempted to assert that I said that Obama was more trustworthy than McCain. I didn't; I said that Obama was no more of an elitist than McCain.

An assertion is a positive statement. I asked rhetorically, and then pressed on with the premise that you responded with. If your rhetoric is so easily overwhelmed that merely doing that is enough to assert over it, then the problem goes far beyond anything I can do.

I also notice that you've changed your statement from "I didn't mention any candidate but McCain" to "I didn't mention any candidate but McCain when I made the comment about trust", which really doesn't assure me of the difference that you're trying to put forth. If trust and elitism are so obviously incompatible in your objective here, why did you have to add it in after my post pointed out the comparison? Surely you didn't think that I would read, "I never contrasted them", look at the part where you did exactly that, and go, "Oh, but he specifically doesn't mean this instance of contrasting. I won't contradict him by citing this." It had to be unintentional, which says to me that you didn't have this in mind as the foundation for what you're trying to debate.

Moreover, reposting the exchange is basically filibustering when it's no more than several posts up.

[technicolour]

Someone wanna grab a bag of popcorn? This thread is going to start gettin' good soon.

[Reidar]

Popcorn is for weaklings.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

[hi-C]

I guess between all the beatings Michael received as a child no one bothered to tell him that's it's rude to chew with one's mouth open.

[mipadi]

<snip>

Sigh... This is a big reason I shy away from any sort of debate on the Internet. On the Internet, there seem to be two kinds of people: those who actually take a position and discuss the issue, and those who, having nothing useful to say, try to demonstrate their "superior intellect" by finding tiny holes in the logic of others -- sometimes even inventing holes so they can demonstrate their knowledge of logic.

Judging by most of your posts on CreateBlog, Reidar, you fall into the second group. Take this post, for example: the most interesting thing you've said about politics is "all politicians are the same," a statement that lacks no originality or depth whatsoever. Of course, instead of having to put yourself in a position in which you might actually have to defend an argument, you just waited for someone else to "screw up", then attacked their argument in the hopes that in the end, you'd look really, really smart.

But then you screwed up. I made a statement about the untrustworthiness of McCain. Thinking you could seize on a hole in my argument and appear much more brilliant, you made a straw man argument: you attributed the argument "Obama is trustworthy" to me, and rebutted that statement. But, oops, guess what: I never made that statement! So now you have to backpedal, and attribute even more statements to me that I never made, in an attempt to save face.

Too bad. You screwed up. You're wrong.

Moreover, I'm not really impressed by a person who can throw about logic jargon. What I am impressed by is a person who can make a solid argument and actually add do a discussion.

Back in my day, people on CreateBlog used to actually discuss and debate issues. The Debate forum used to be thriving. Then it got infested by a few people who "argue" the way you argue: by pouncing on the perceived "holes" in the arguments of others. It makes them look smart, and the best thing is, they don't have to actually defend their own position! It's easy and it's brilliant! Thing is, it's not much fun for anyone else.

So I'm done with this discussion.

And before you can throw out more logic jargon, don't worry: I know this argument has ad hominem coming out the ass. I know I might even seem whiny. And I honestly don't really care.

[*paperplane*]

I <3 Michael

[Be-Faithful]

I didn't know Mccain was a man

[NoSex]

Back in my day, people on CreateBlog used to actually discuss and debate issues. The Debate forum used to be thriving. Then it got infested by a few people who "argue" the way you argue: by pouncing on the perceived "holes" in the arguments of others. It makes them look smart, and the best thing is, they don't have to actually defend their own position! It's easy and it's brilliant! Thing is, it's not much fun for anyone else.

Oh, rapture! The fondness I have for such memories past!

[Tung]

Damn....someone move this to debate...

[Reidar]

Sigh... This is a big reason I shy away from any sort of debate on the Internet. On the Internet, there seem to be two kinds of people: those who actually take a position and discuss the issue, and those who, having nothing useful to say, try to demonstrate their "superior intellect" by finding tiny holes in the logic of others -- sometimes even inventing holes so they can demonstrate their knowledge of logic.

If these contrarieties are so trivial, then it should be a simple matter of clearing them up, not going off on a tangent about the days of yore. I'm guessing, for instance, that you think of it as no more than a semantic quibble when I point out how "fallacious straw man" is redundant. Sorry, but if criticism is going to be leveled at me, then the distributor had better ensure that their rhetoric is free of whatever it is they're trying to accuse - especially in the very phrase that's making the denunciation.

Judging by most of your posts on CreateBlog, Reidar, you fall into the second group. Take this post, for example: the most interesting thing you've said about politics is "all politicians are the same," a statement that lacks no originality or depth whatsoever.

If it lacked no originality or depth, that would mean it's original and deep. In formalities, double negatives combine to form an affirmative.

But I know what you meant to say, and it's a non sequitur. In order to prove how I pick at inconsequential areas, you cite an example that, to you, is obvious and lacking in depth. Those don't cohere.

By the way, I can easily apply this to you. Take this statement, for example: "But...we're talking about houses, not, like...t-shirts or something." It's both lacking in originality (you're comparing two variables to contrast the severity of one) and depth (it is obvious that a house isn't a t-shirt). See how silly it is to do that?

It also seems contradictory of you to object to a sentence's abbreviation in light of your spiel on pedantic wording.

Of course, instead of having to put yourself in a position in which you might actually have to defend an argument, you just waited for someone else to "screw up", then attacked their argument in the hopes that in the end, you'd look really, really smart.

I can only defend what you provide. But please, don't level the charge of attacking your argument at me! I don't want it to look like I'm actually attacking arguments in a debate!

But then you screwed up. I made a statement about the untrustworthiness of McCain. Thinking you could seize on a hole in my argument

So I "attacked" your argument, but I didn't "seize its hole"?

you made a straw man argument: you attributed the argument "Obama is trustworthy" to me, and rebutted that statement. But, oops, guess what: I never made that statement! So now you have to backpedal, and attribute even more statements to me that I never made, in an attempt to save face.

Too bad. You screwed up. You're wrong.

The backpedaling accusation is made moot by the fact that you changed your statement from "I didn't mention any candidate but McCain" to "I didn't mention any candidate but McCain when I made the comment about trust" once you saw that you had done just that. Pot, meet kettle.

Again, this rebuttal is essentially, "I technically didn't say he's the opposite of the party that I contrasted him with on another wholly related component."

And before you can throw out more logic jargon, don't worry: I know this argument has ad hominem coming out the ass. I know I might even seem whiny. And I honestly don't really care.

I have no interest in the emotional aspect of debates, so any personal imputation is ignored.

[Sandraaa]

LMFAO! This has turned from McCain and Obama to Michael and Reider. -grabs Malteesers, M&Ms, Fanta, Strawberry beer and her glasses- Entertaining. xD

[karmakiller]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/Nightm...ing_popcorn.gif

I read Kristina's reply and then scrolled down and just about fell outta my chair. Gosh, I'm a dork.

And now I am leaving this topic, because it makes me feel inferior.

[bmathers21]

LMFAO! This has turned from McCain and Obama to Michael and Reider. -grabs Malteesers, M&Ms, Fanta, Strawberry beer and her glasses- Entertaining. xD

hahah agreed
so funny

[Gryffindor-Girl]

I read Kristina's reply and then scrolled down and just about fell outta my chair. Gosh, I'm a dork.

Ha ha me too!