Does Offshore Drilling Impact Gas Prices as Claimed by McCain?

[seycyrus]

As long as you have things like this popping up fairly often, it's safe to say racism is still an issue.


[/QUOTE]

That's a joke in poor taste. nothing to do with racism.

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/07/30...ar, the warning applies to Obama, not McCain.

 

[seycyrus]

The ad asks "who can you blame for rising prices at the pump" not "who's policies..." or "what kind of policies..."

Do we understand what inference is?

 

[seycyrus]

The ad is lying, cynical, and just "out there" enough to appeal to the Limbaugh "dittos". Laying the blame on Obama for high gas prices is beyond stupid.

It's amazing how you guys can't restrict the argument to the candidates themselves or even their campaigns. Who we going to bring in next? waiit...let me guess...let's throw down a few shots at papa bear too!

Failing to neglect that McCain supported the same off-shore drilling ban for years is dishonest at best, especially when you factor in McCain's senate seniority during the many years when he supported the ban.

*sigh* The inference was about the future as well.

I used to like McCain. No longer.

I don't believe the majority of the "I used to support McCain, but now I don't crowd."

I believe that the crosshairs wasn't on Mccain and that's why he was ignored. Plain and simple.

Now that Hilary is out of the way... target acquired, lemings activated! Ignite bloggers, start the digging!

Hilary clinton is no longer the one who is going to be racist Why she could *never* be racist, after all her husband was the first black president! It's McCain who's the racist!

 

[edward]

Do we understand what inference is?

Yep, and the add definitely inferred that Obama is to blame for high gasoline prices.

There are no semantics that can talk around that fact. BTW inferring that posters here are playing stupid will get you banned. You can play however you wish.

 

[WarPhalange]

Obama is a junior senator. What kind of leverage could he have applied in the Senate to cause a spike in gas prices?

That would seem to be McCain's strongest weapon against Obama. I don't know why he doesn't try to stick to it more. He goes out to these far-fetched ads that don't make much sense.

Even if he stuck to what seycyrus thinks he's doing (attacking policies, not the man), he'd be better off. I find it hard to believe that they would "accidentally" make an ad that vague, though. They could just hammer it in. Obama keeps saying his record on Iraq, i.e. voting against it, is better than McCain's. McCain should respond with ads directly attacking Obama's "naive" voting record. Just make sure McCain didn't vote the same way Obama did at that point.

 

[turbo]

I don't believe the majority of the "I used to support McCain, but now I don't crowd."

I don't appreciate being called a liar, either. I supported McCain when W and Rove were trashing him and would have voted for him over any Dem candidate. Life is not black-and-white, nor are political affiliations. I am an unaffiliated independent conservative. We have had enough of Rovian smears and lies over the last 8 years (including their attacks on McCain). McCain has taken the low road with his last series of campaign ads, and I have lost respect for him.

 

[WarPhalange]

Do we understand what inference is?

I can't speak for you.

See what I did there?

 

[seycyrus]

Yep, and the add definitely inferred that Obama is to blame for high gasoline prices.

No, the inference is about the policies.

There are no semantics that can talk around that fact.

I'm not the one talking semantics here. Are you going to apply the same standard to every single future ad by Obama that might show a picture of McCain?

BTW inferring that posters here are playing stupid will get you banned. You can play however you wish.

Yeah, the statement was finally dragged out of me after a few iterations back and forth.

Oh, I guess I'm not smart enough to realize that little zinger at the end was implying that I was playing stupid... gotcha.

Do you feel that the moderators here are incable of watching the forums, or do you get something else out of your warning?

 

[seycyrus]

don't appreciate being called a liar, either.

I purposesly wrote the "majority", so that i didn't single you out specifically. I have seen ads on tv that use this "I used to support, but now..." take, and I don't trust em at all. I believe it is simply a tactic used to give an opinion.

McCain has taken the low road with his last series of campaign ads, and I have lost respect for him

Strange, I don't see you voicing your lack of respect for Obama, over the fact that he called McCain a racist.

 

[WarPhalange]

No, the inference is about the policies.

So why didn't the ad simply claim "who's policies are responsible?" If it were more clear we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm not the one talking semantics here. Are you going to apply the same standard to every single future ad by Obama that might show a picture of McCain?

You're damn right. If Obama's ad shows a picture of McCain and says "Who's responsible for the Iraq War?" I will take the ad as meaning that McCain did it himself and will be equally disgusted.

Yeah, the statement was finally dragged out of me after a few iterations back and forth.

Oh, I guess I'm not smart enough to realize that little zinger at the end was implying that I was playing stupid... gotcha.

Do you feel that the moderators here are incable of watching the forums, or do you get something else out of your warning?

His post was meant to infer a warning, not a threat.

 

[turbo]

Strange, I don't see you voicing your lack of respect for Obama, over the fact that he called McCain a racist.

Please post one clip or quote in which Obama calls McCain a racist. Your claim is unfounded and is not supported by any facts.

 

[seycyrus]

I can't speak for you.

See what I did there?

Yes, you selectively applied your ability to infer based on your personal bias. Straneg that you can turn it off so easily, I certainly can't.

 

[WarPhalange]

My personal bias? You mean towards reality? I think I'll keep it.

 

[seycyrus]

Please post one clip or quote in which Obama calls McCain a racist. Your claim is unfounded and is not supported by any facts.

I find it interesting that only now, after my lengthy discussion with WarPhalange where he apparently argues that it is proper of Obama to make such a statement because "fox news is racist" (or at least I think that's what he was claiming, based on the links he posted), you are now asking for a citation.

I ask you to go back and read my original link on this topic, it has a video clip attached to it as well.

***
"doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
***

Apparently we are being warned by Obama that McCain will try to scare people off by what Obama *looks like*.

Reminds me of how Hilary was put in the spotlight because she said "you people" or "those people" or whatever it was.

Do we want to get into the semantics of how racism is defined?

Or are we going to argue that Obama didn't say McCain *was* (present tense) trying to get people to make a decision based on looks, but only that he was *going to* (future tense)?

 

[seycyrus]

My personal bias? You mean towards reality? I think I'll keep it.

The guy who talked about a station being shut down because of a comment about McCain thinks he has a tight grasp of reality. How ironic.

 

[edward]

Do you feel that the moderators here are incable of watching the forums, or do you get something else out of your warning?

See that report button on the side? Guess what?

 

[turbo]

I repeat, seycyrus, that if you want to claim that Obama has called McCain a racist that you either ought to link to your reference or retract your claim. After blaming Obama for rising gas prices, McCain's ad contained the disclaimer "I am John McCain and I approve of this ad." despite the blatantly false statements contained therein. Please link to an Obama ad in which he calls McCain a racist or stop making such claims.

 

[WarPhalange]

I ask you to go back and read my original link on this topic, it has a video clip attached to it as well.

I went and read your article. I noticed this paragraph:

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the senator was not referring to race.

"What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington," Gibbs said Thursday. "There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race."

Now, you and I both know that's a load of BS. The difference? I'm not twisting words and saying that "Who's to blame for high gas prices?" refers to policies and not a specific person.

Yeah, Obama played the race card. No, neither McCain nor Bush tried to play it so far, so it was unwarranted. You're right. Obama did a bad thing.

It's not like John McCain can just come out and say "I've never made a racist remark towards Senator Obama." and make that whole speech backfire. What a shame.

 

[WarPhalange]

Oh wait! He's doing that already. I can see why you like him. A normal person would have just bought a gallon of paint and an antique chair. But McCain counter-attacked! Who'da thunk it??

He's pretty late, since Obama's been saying it for months. Oh well.

 

[Evo]

This is nothing but pointless bashing.

Thread closed.

I suggest that everyone read the Guidelines and conduct themselves accordingly.

New Guidelines for Politics & World Affairs (Longer Version with Clarification of Intent of Rules and Examples)

Politeness and respect for others is essential here. Of course, disagreement is at the heart of a good debate. Thus, disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be polite and all people involved should extend basic respect to one another.

To maintain quality discussions that stay focused on issues and do not become personal or degenerate into arguments of “I’m right, you’re wrong,” the following rules apply to all new threads started in Politics and World Affairs effective as of the date of posting of these guidelines:

1) A clear statement of purpose written by the person starting the thread and contained in the opening post of the thread. This statement can be in the form of either a) an argument in support of one side of an issue to which members replying can either add further support or choose to refute with a counter-argument, or b) a neutral statement of a specific topic to be discussed with the reasons why it is relevant to politics and/or world affairs.

2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible). As with any of our forums, original sources must also be provided for any quotes used. Keep in mind that sources should be supportive of your arguments or claims, not used in lieu of a clear argument.

3) Any counter-arguments to statements already made must clearly state the point on which there is disagreement, the reason(s) why a different view is held, and cite appropriate sources to counter the argument. Again, citation of sources must be accompanied by an explanation or clarification of the reason for citing those sources.

4) When stating an opinion on an issue, make sure it is clearly stated to be an opinion and not asserted as fact.

5) When posting on topics of foreign policy or world issues, remember to ensure the topic is presented in a manner that makes all of our membership welcome to participate. Keep in mind we have an international membership at PF. Issues of domestic policy for any nation are acceptable topics for discussion, but remember that not all members are from the same country or even region of the world, thus tolerance of these external views is required.

In addition to content already prohibited by our global forum guidelines, the following are specifically NOT permitted in Politics & World Affairs:

1) Posts containing only a link or quotes from other sources without any explanation on the part of the person posting them, unless they are in direct response to a request from another member for a source to back up a claim.

2) Statements of a purely inflammatory nature, regardless of whether it is a personal insult or not.

3) Assigning truth values to opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and feelings.

4) Any statement that promotes or incites violence against any individual or group. We recognize that this is a violent world, and discussion of violent conflicts will arise; however, in order to maintain civility and respect, discussion of such topics will be restricted to political analysis of the events and their ramifications. For example, a thread asking the question, “If country X were to (bomb/go to war with) country Y, what would be the worldwide political ramifications,” would be an acceptable topic. A thread asking, “Should country X (bomb/go to war with) country Y,” is not acceptable, and a statement such as, “Country X should (bomb/go to war with) country Y,” is definitely not acceptable. The former welcomes all contributors of all nations to participate and share their views in the discussion, while the latter two draw nationalistic boundaries in the discussions that would interfere with open exchanges among all of our members.

Consistent with our general forum guidelines, if you disagree with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators via private message or by using the post report feature. Don't escalate the problem by writing scathing posts in the forum or trying to humiliate people publicly; such responses will also be considered personal attacks by the moderators.

If these guidelines are not followed, the moderators will take swift and appropriate action. Any thread that requires repeated intervention on the part of mentors, regardless of the merits of the topic, may be locked or deleted at the moderator’s discretion, and without further explanation. In addition, if moderator action is required due to violation of any of the above forum-specific guidelines, the member committing the violation will receive a 3-day ban to “cool off” and a 5 point warning. All decisions on moderation are made at the discretion of the mentors/administrators of PF.