2008 Presidential Election

[TheFang]

Got my sample ballot in the mail today! Remember polls with be open for 14(!) hours around here from 6am -8pm. Also, you allowed by law to take two hours off from work to go vote. Plus, you need no excuse to vote absentee in NJ, you just have to do it by 3pm on Nov. 3rd.

You have no excuse.

Is this a NJ law? Watch me get fired for trying to pull this shit in NY.

I'm pretty sure that it is federal. If not then NY has it's own version. I've seen the signs for it in many an office break room in NY.

[RB]

Hottest.
Thread.
EVER.


For reals.


Just please vote.  VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE.   VOTE.

Thank you.

Got my sample ballot in the mail today! Remember polls with be open for 14(!) hours around here from 6am -8pm. Also, you allowed by law to take two hours off from work to go vote. Plus, you need no excuse to vote absentee in NJ, you just have to do it by 3pm on Nov. 3rd.

You have no excuse.

Is this a NJ law? Watch me get fired for trying to pull this shit in NY.

[NON]

For those just tuning in, I offer the summary version of NON v. justiceiro.

---------------------------------------------------------

Obama's a politician.

Snark and innuendo.

Politicians are oily.

Don't get all albish and intellectually dishonest on me.  More innuendo.

Look up innuendo in the dictionary.

Intellectual honesty, false choice, and stunning Hannity disappointment.

Don't call me Hannity.

Hannity Hannity Hannity!

I feel that Obama is a politician.

It's okay, dude.  Politics is about feelings but don't use false choice/dichotomies when you do it, you Cato-quoter.

It's false DILEMMA, dude!!  Don't say I quoted Cato.

Well, you wrote Cato...to be equal, I will reference Iago! I have the last word and it is innuendo.  Debate over!

---------------------------------------------------------

...but is it really?

duke

[TMN]

For those just tuning in, I offer the summary version of NON v. justiceiro.

---------------------------------------------------------

Obama's a politician.

Snark and innuendo.

Politicians are oily.

Don't get all albish and intellectually dishonest on me.  More innuendo.

Look up innuendo in the dictionary.

Intellectual honesty, false choice, and stunning Hannity disappointment.

Don't call me Hannity.

Hannity Hannity Hannity!

I feel that Obama is a politician.

It's okay, dude.  Politics is about feelings but don't use false choice/dichotomies when you do it, you Cato-quoter.

It's false DILEMMA, dude!!  Don't say I quoted Cato.

Well, you wrote Cato...to be equal, I will reference Iago! I have the last word and it is innuendo.  Debate over!

---------------------------------------------------------

...but is it really?

duke

OMGosh! This is rich!

[TheFang]

I think you know who I'm talking about...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/HCaOCWYpPk4&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/HCaOCWYpPk4&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

Sigh... I can't believe just how crazy the repubs are getting with 5 days left.

Bombshell: Obama Malcom X Love Child?

Pamela "Atlas" Geller Oshry is a conservative blogger previously notable only for having vlogged in a bikini, once, and for being totally obsessed with mustachioed former UN ambassador John Bolton. Today, she announced that Barack Hussein Obama is not, as previously reported, the son of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., but rather the illegitimate son of Malcolm Little, a.k.a. El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, a.k.a. Malcolm X. Yes, she is serious. Honestly? It is too much work to comb through her insanely long and convoluted post in order to write some sort of summary, so we'll just post some random excerpt from her fascinating investigation:

    "Barack Hussein Obama Jr Malcolm X Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Barack Hussein Obama Sr., Tom Mboya, and Philip Ochieng, all share common physical features of the Kenyan Luo tribe: Modest stature under six feet, round faces, small chins, wide set eyes, slanted back foreheads, and retracted hairlines…none of these features are shared by Malcolm X and Barack Hussein Obama Jr."

Makes sense, right?

___________

Oh and at Politico Ben Smith coverage of all the crazy emails that have been going out, and then debunking all of it.

Well at least it's all entertaining. 5 more days! Goddamn I'm gonna miss all this.

[VV]

I hope so as opposed to this nonsense.  http://clarkbeast.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/postcard-from-the-real-america/

[TheFang]

Man, I hope we sound this reasonable, informed and articulate.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/UxlwYP0HNdc&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/UxlwYP0HNdc&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/oEKNAZbn9p0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/oEKNAZbn9p0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

[duke_of_earl]

For those just tuning in, I offer the summary version of NON v. justiceiro.

---------------------------------------------------------

Obama's a politician.

Snark and innuendo.

Politicians are oily.

Don't get all albish and intellectually dishonest on me.  More innuendo.

Look up innuendo in the dictionary.

Intellectual honesty, false choice, and stunning Hannity disappointment.

Don't call me Hannity.

Hannity Hannity Hannity!

I feel that Obama is a politician.

It's okay, dude.  Politics is about feelings but don't use false choice/dichotomies when you do it, you Cato-quoter.

It's false DILEMMA, dude!!  Don't say I quoted Cato.

Well, you wrote Cato...to be equal, I will reference Iago! I have the last word and it is innuendo.  Debate over!

---------------------------------------------------------

...but is it really?

duke

[NON]

But please, have some political honesty.

I now regret saying this. What I meant was, if you're going to make an argument, make sure the way you feel, which we all know is not rational, holds up to how you think, which is. I wasn't applying it to you, J., just your line of thought, which I think you haven't examined as much as you ought to.

It's funny, because unlike most of us, you've cast your vote. But for some reason that's not enough for lefties like me and NON. We don't merely want to shape action (a job I applaud NON for doing, in no uncertain terms, thank you for that), for we have this need to make people agree with us, too.

I appreciate the shoutout, Bug. But I would politely ask you to speak for yourself in this regard. I have no interest in making justi or anyone else in this thread agree with me. Or with my candidate. I jumped into this fray only because I thought it rather, um, facile of justi to jump on Br6Dr, the classic easy-target, typical hair-on-fire without much intellectual backup liberal, while having entirely dodged your well-reasoned post from a while back.

I accept that justi doesn't like Obama, for his own reasons that he need not justify, to anyone accept maybe himself. What I don't sit by idly for is the albian imagined accusations he threw out, gut suspicions masquerading as fact.

Disagree, just don't fabricate insinuations as some sort of concrete evidence and expect them to go unchecked.

[NON]

For the record, I never "put up" a "blog post" about anyone in the South. At least not to my knowledge

It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread as closely as you should.  Or you are just being difficult on purpose.

And it's pretty clear that, when it suits you, you vacillate between talking to the "class" and talking to/about individuals. Any response I've made to you has been squarely toward you and the things you've said. I attribute nothing to you other than what you've said yourself, whereas I'm apparently responsible for the postings of other people? How facile of you.

That was just me playfully using the false dichotomies you've spent most of this thread dealing in. And last time I checked, my Cato-quoting friend,

See, this is the point where, if you were writing my side of this, you would jump in and say "I never quoted Cato, so your being intellectually dishonest!"  It's sort of like "nyah-nyah" but a little more classed up.

You're correct, you never quoted Cato, you simply referenced him. I retract my earlier statement, and replace it with the less juicy "my Cato-referencing friend." Recognizing mistakes is hard, but you should give it a whirl some time. Just to keep those intellectual honesty muscles from succumbing to complete atrophy.

 you had lived in the Northeast for a lot more time than half the folks who the right accuses of being "Northeastern intellectuals" did. Regardless, at least you're consistent in your use of the false choice argument. Bravo.

This is why arguing with you is so unsatisfying.  You take things as playful or metaphorical when it suits you, and then a tendentiously literal when it doesn't suit you- you seem to choose whatever gives you an opportunity to call someone an asshole.  This seems to be a paramount goal in your life or something.  How's that going?  Is it productive?  Does it serve the truth?  Because I find you so irritating that I'm tempted to go out and vote for McCain against my better judgment just to spite you.

I wouldn't doubt it for a second that you would (if you could). Which separates you from me.

Oh, and thanks for the incisive (and highly relevant to this discussion) character assessment. Why bother sticking to the issue when you can psychoanalyze the opponent. It's a nifty way to change the subject. :golfclap:

And if I wanted to actually call you an asshole, I would. It's much more fun, however, for you to actually continue acting like an asshole all by yourself, and let others draw their own conclusions. Thanks for playing along.

As regards my use of "false dilemma" argument (which is what I think you mean when you say "false choice")

Ooooooh nice gotcha! False choice is one of many types of argument that one could classify as "false dilemma". i.e. GWB saying to the world "you're either with us, or you're against us." Or like you implying "you either concede the fact that all politicians are categorically corrupt, or you're simply looking the other way and willing to support corrupt politicians in your particular party." Which is the false choice you presented.

this sounds much more like what you are doing:

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive.

So where exactly am I using the false dilemma argument?  When I report the fact that the actions of elements of the democratic party goes a long way towards alienating an entire section of the country? (Because it does, and they are alienated).

Even accepting your oh so thoroughly researched factual supposition that "they" are "alienated", the democratic party didn't do it alone. The Rove-ian GOP has played Iago to the hilt in painting the dems as godless non-flag-pin-wearing homos. Whoever this "they" is (are?), if "they" are so easily manipulated, maybe I'm (personally) not so bothered about their alienation. But I guess that's just my elitism showing.

Or when I say that I don't like Obama very much, but he's the best on offer?

If you had simply and honestly registered that opinion, I wouldn't have even bothered to respond. But you didn't. You made shit up. Which is hella weak. And you've thrown a hissy fit when being taken to task for it. Which is typical.    

The whole point of the "false dilemma" argument is that it is composed entirely of extremes and bluntness, and allows no subtlety. 

Not according to my good friend Wikipedia:

"When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic."

That pretty much sounds like how you argue, all the time.

Citations? TIA.

It's like innuendo.  It sounds like a nasty word, but you have to use it correctly for it to really stick.  Or your just, well, talking like a right wing radio host, for example.

Hey if the way I'm using the word 'innuendo' in the political context is good enough for the Times of London and Salon (those evil liberals!), I'm okay with how I'm using it. But hey, you keep on getting in those smarty-pants digs. They *clearly* make you feel good, without actually furthering the arguments that sparked this now-lame (and now-over) "debate".

[CeeDub]

Also to mention, the the WiredJC style manual calls for asterisks on either side of *clearly* . . .

Let's all take a deep breath here.  I'm reminded of the 2 year cycle building up to a 6 month cruise.  More shit went down in the last week before deployment between family members, shipmates, bar fights.

:duckandcover:

[VV]

Great story.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/27/1027jones.html

[jc_insomniac]

We interrupt this regularly-scheduled debate to bring you ...

The Obama/McCain Dance Off!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/wzyT9-9lUyE&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/wzyT9-9lUyE&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

[bdlaw]

Or your just, well, talking like a right wing radio host, for example.

You've misused "your" in a spot where it should have been "you're", so you've clearly lost this entire argument.

I believe this is the legendary, but not oft seen, "Strunk & White" corollary to Godwin's Law.

[Darna]

Or your just, well, talking like a right wing radio host, for example.

You've misused "your" in a spot where it should have been "you're", so you've clearly lost this entire argument.

That would be correct, unless justi is using "your" as a modifier of "talking," which would be proper, as a gerund requires a possessive.  But then the sentence would lack a predicate...But I digress.

[glx]

Or your just, well, talking like a right wing radio host, for example.

You've misused "your" in a spot where it should have been "you're", so you've clearly lost this entire argument.

[justiceiro]

For the record, I never "put up" a "blog post" about anyone in the South. At least not to my knowledge

It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread as closely as you should.  Or you are just being difficult on purpose.

That was just me playfully using the false dichotomies you've spent most of this thread dealing in. And last time I checked, my Cato-quoting friend,

See, this is the point where, if you were writing my side of this, you would jump in and say "I never quoted Cato, so your being intellectually dishonest!"  It's sort of like "nyah-nyah" but a little more classed up.

 you had lived in the Northeast for a lot more time than half the folks who the right accuses of being "Northeastern intellectuals" did. Regardless, at least you're consistent in your use of the false choice argument. Bravo.

This is why arguing with you is so unsatisfying.  You take things as playful or metaphorical when it suits you, and then a tendentiously literal when it doesn't suit you- you seem to choose whatever gives you an opportunity to call someone an asshole.  This seems to be a paramount goal in your life or something.  How's that going?  Is it productive?  Does it serve the truth?  Because I find you so irritating that I'm tempted to go out and vote for McCain against my better judgment just to spite you.

As regards my use of "false dilemma" argument (which is what I think you mean when you say "false choice") this sounds much more like what you are doing:

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive.

So where exactly am I using the false dilemma argument?  When I report the fact that the actions of elements of the democratic party goes a long way towards alienating an entire section of the country? (Because it does, and they are alienated).  Or when I say that I don't like Obama very much, but he's the best on offer?  The whole point of the "false dilemma" argument is that it is composed entirely of extremes and bluntness, and allows no subtlety.  That pretty much sounds like how you argue, all the time.

It's like innuendo.  It sounds like a nasty word, but you have to use it correctly for it to really stick.  Or your just, well, talking like a right wing radio host, for example.

[elgoodo]

On a related note, I think Room on Fire, the Strokes' second album, is an overlooked classic.

I'll agree with that.

[AmbushBug]

The Matrix must've had a hiccup. Did

Reptilia

come on right after?

[CeeDub]

F RE A AKK YY

While i was reading the post below this, some Phish came on.

Now it's the Preservation Hall Jazz Band.

That's what I like about Warren Miller, after a night of politicoTV.

[AmbushBug]

But please, have some political honesty.

I now regret saying this. What I meant was, if you're going to make an argument, make sure the way you feel, which we all know is not rational, holds up to how you think, which is. I wasn't applying it to you, J., just your line of thought, which I think you haven't examined as much as you ought to.

It's funny, because unlike most of us, you've cast your vote. But for some reason that's not enough for lefties like me and NON. We don't merely want to shape action (a job I applaud NON for doing, in no uncertain terms, thank you for that), for we have this need to make people agree with us, too.

So, why? What about Mr O that so crawls the skin of smart, sometimes even centrist and progressive, Americans like Mr Justiciero?

My brother and I used to call this the Phish Correlative. That is, there's a reciprocal relationship between how you feel about a given thing and the fervor of the people who champion it. At work, I argue every day with a former Clinton speechwriter who agrees with the majority of Barack Obama's policy, but nonetheless hates the guy with true conviction. Justi, trust me, it ain't about the band.

On a related note, I think Room on Fire, the Strokes' second album, is an overlooked classic.

[Frank M]

Hottest.
Thread.
EVER.

You think?  I was going to make a motion that justiceiro and NON are restricted to responding to each other only once and in haiku form only. 

duke

POLITICS

it’s likely a rose
if it smells of a flower
so odorifous

uh... color me stupid


it’s likely a rose
if it smells of a flower
odoriferous

[VV]

For the jaded and less than sanguine, here's a sobering view.  For those who use hyperbolic speech saying marxist, socialist and other inapt phrases to stir the pot, BHO is not the staunch liberal or socialist you paint him to be; but certainly more liberal and progressive than regressive McCain.  Nonetheless, as Jenny said, just exercise your right to vote. 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/28-5

[Frank M]

Hottest.
Thread.
EVER.

You think?  I was going to make a motion that justiceiro and NON are restricted to responding to each other only once and in haiku form only. 

duke

POLITICS

it’s likely a rose
if it smells of a flower
so odorifous

[jennymayla]

Hottest.
Thread.
EVER.

You think?  I was going to make a motion that justiceiro and NON are restricted to responding to each other only once and in haiku form only. 

duke

I'm totally serious about this!  Smart, educated, witty debate about important issues = hotness.

To me, at least.