NoBama - your mother should have taugh you better.

A free pass comes in handy

 

I agree also. I think some folks' heads here have obviously been hit by a nail.

Here. The full text from Obama's remark:

So - anyone - let's please use Occam's razor, shall we, and go to the cleanest answer possible? Please tell me where anything in the above can be construed as anything other than what the damn term is customarily used for?

While at it, while continuing the crying jag over the use of a term used by millions daily to make the point Obama was making - to the point where Bill O'Reilly himself is telling his minions to get real:

Just curious:

This is what "conservative" politics have come to, then. From the people regularly preaching "country first," "honor," "self-reliance," honest to god, I see nothing but gutter, smear, divisiveness, gutless propaganda; picking like vultures over the refuse of what is left of true conservatism in America to morph it into its estranged, and strange, distant cousin. Barry Goldwater is crying in his crypt.

May O'Reilly be right - may people see this kind of crap for what it is, pure, unadulterated horseshit, and respond accordingly.

 

John McCain Should Apologize to Barack Obama. McCain has no important issues to raise other than these useless smears.

Chris Matthews Lays the Smackdown on the McCain Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXjUczyJ8ts

Here's what Obama needs to do to win - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqTRDDJ6h8o&feature=user

 

Thanks for the link, Gauharjk. I wasn't aware of the other time McCain used it last year - once again, directly referring to Hillary Clinton in a prepared speech, the thing that seems to be getting inside Jazz's craw :

Yet here, when Obama never referred to Palin, and referred to McCain's policies only, all sorts of would-be culture warriors and knights of chivalry leap in indignation to protect the virtue of the woman who called the Democratic nominee in essence a traitor to his country.

John McCain should be ashamed indeed. The conservative movement is dead, and this is what is left.

 

I thought this was kinda funny.

 

NPT is getting fired about this. I love it.

I missed the last couple of pages worth of posts. I'll go ahead and say it again though that I don't think it was just a coincidence that a lipstick joke and McCain's age has been joked about over the last week or so and then his speech contains metaphors of "lipstick on a pig" and "old fish". Like I said before though, I don't care too much. I know that politics are dirty. They should spend more time defending their policy stances than they should defending themselves from the name calling.

 

PHP, I tend to get fired up about any moronic crap, from any corner, whether it's naming the GOP the "party of child molestors," or the plethora of bullshit like this directed against the person of Barack Obama. Given that it's idiocy like this that can garner baseless votes, I do have a problem with the mindset.

Respectfully, I'd suggest a read of those two pages, then, since they contain information showing why this is all such an idiotic and disingenuous whine by those preaching honor, truth, square dealing, etc. Surprised as I was, Bill O'Reilly categorically calls this bullshit, and the American people deserve better. I agree with him, for the many reasons discussed.

OK, fair enough. Given that Obama specifically references similarities of McCain's record on "economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove style politics," never once referring to Sarah Palin, while John McCain twice specifically directed his lipstick on a pig comment, for effect, in prepared speeches, to the person of Hillary Clinton - well, given your conclusion, you'd also conclude John McCain was personally attacking the womanhood of Hillary Clinton, then?

 

OK,

"Lipstick" used by Palin to describe herself a week ago. It was a very memorable line. "Lipstick" makes headlines and SP becomes associated with lipstick because of media coverage.

Obama uses the "lipstick on a pig" reference.

People think Obama takes a shot at Sarah Palin.

While you deny that it was scripted, as if either of us will ever know, it was at the very least a terrible blunder on Obama's part. Really, do you think he could have avoided all this?

After all his whining about ethnic slurs, he should have known better. There's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I didn't ask whether she used the comment herself. I asked where, in the following:

Can it be reasonably construed this was an attack on Sarah Palin? Can I conclude you think O'Reilly is full of shit on this, condemning the attempt to paint this as an attack on Palin as bullshit?

 

You are right. The smallest things can swing a vote.

Are you calling O'Reilly fair and balanced? People see it differently, he is entitled to his opinion.

No, I believe on page 2 I already pointed out the differences in the way that the metaphor was used. Like I said before, do you think it was just a coincidence (baring in mind what has been discussed in the last week or so) that "lipstick on a pig" and "old fish" landed in his speech? I don't, nor do I think that they were meant to be anything more than just small jabs. Admittedly, the comments have been blown out of proportion by the Republicans.

 

I never said she said "lipstick on a pig".

No, you asked:

I replied:

Now, I have answered you question.

 

But this is why I said you should consider the last two pages, because I was unaware McCain also used it in a prepared speech, directly referring to Hillary Clinton's plan.

Bottom line, it seems to me, one either says "who gives a damn" to either candidate, or one holds both candidates to the same standard, as both used it. Actually, as I have tried to show, one has to look at the actual words used, and conclude McCain was making an obvious slam on Hillary Clinton, while it isn't at all clear to me that Obama wasn't using the word in its standard usage, in his words, "calling the same thing, something different."

The weight of the actual words used is that Obama never once mentioned (or implied) Sarah Palin, but McCain's similarities across several policy segments to the Bush presidency, while McCain specifically and directly refers to Hillary Clinton.

 

So are you narrowing the usage down to a coincidence in relation to the "lipstick" headline news in the last week or so?

What I am surprised about is that the "old fish" comment hasn't been tagged on too to those who are upset over the comments. To me, the usage of that metaphor also shows that this was a clear dig at the McCain/Palin ticket.

In reference to McCain's usage: I think there is a clear difference in the way the metaphors were used. While the implication of the metaphor doesn't change, you see that Obama is referencing McCain directly being the same as Bush (this is what he is pushing, no?). McCain's usage was while discussing a healthcare policy of Clinton's. If you think that this was a clear dig at Clinton also: who or what was he referencing Clinton to be the same as (the usage of the metaphor)?

 

Actually, Jazz, you haven't answered anything - to include why you're crying foul here, while giving a pass to Palin's calling Obama a traitor to his country, in essence in her RNC speech. To this question, again,

I think we both know Palin used the comment "lipstick" in her speech, and this is what I was referring to.

"Damn term" in my above quote, again: Please tell me where anything in what Obama said - word by word, if you would - can be construed as an attack on Sarah Palin.

Was it here?

Was it here?

Here?

Here?

Here?

Here?

Here?

Here?

Here?

Here?

Here? After the entire line of thought, this magically drops the discussion of McCain's record, and leaps onto Sarah Palin's womanhood?

God, this really is so stupid, sorry. Since he is specifically referring to McCain's record, please show me where anything in his comment refers to Palin.

On the other hand, please show me where the following does not refer to Hillary Clinton directly, and, therefore, a jab at her gender:

Emphasis added, as the issue seems to be difficult to see.

 

This is precisely my point, PHP - you've stated it perfectly.

Obama was referencing McCain, and McCain's policies, as being the same as Bush, yet being termed a "maverick, change" position by John McCain. In Obama's words, "calling the same thing, something different." Putting lipstick on a pig. He said it directly, the summation of his argument, no dramatic pause or pronouncement (well...ha ha, hee hee, ho ho, don't like to use the term, but....) needed for "effect."

McCain was referencing Clinton's universal healthcare plan. He compared her plan, 1993, to her plan, today, and said, there's nothing different. THE ADDITIONAL FACT is that he used it with reference to Hillary Clinton, chose to use the analogy with respect to her position, specifically - even going so far as a tacit acknowledgment of its secondary usage - "I don't like to use the term, BUT, I WILL," (peals of laughter). If anyone wishes to argue for a double entendre, at best, it is lunacy to give this a pass.

For the logic to hold, given he was referring to John McCain specifically, a slam - on the order of McCain's to Clinton's - would have to hit him on something vulnerable to him, say, the notion of McCain's "songbird" status. If Obama had said something like, "well, John McCain sing his song all day long, but the idea he's a candidate for change is being sung by a singer seriously out of tune."

NOTE: I honor McCain's service, and make zero judgment on his moral strength while a POW. The guy was, and is, a tough bastard, and he is to be honored for what he did, and what he went through. Merely an example to show the logic doesn't hold up in the issue as it is being attempted.

 

NorthPoint, I know you are smarter than this, so you must just be getting stubborn in your old age.

Of course Obama used the term while refering to McCain's record. I never missed that. What you have chosen to avoid is the double meaning of his choice of words, "lipstick on a pig".

Source

 

This is exactly why I'm a libertarian. Politics is stupid, Rome is burning.

We're obsessed with linguistic deconstruction, "defending" the most powerful people in the world from cheap or imaginary insults, and we're on the hook for their never ending "parties."

On the issues? Who knows, who cares, {insert party stereotypes here}

 

Exactly. I'm just showing you that there is a difference in the usage of the metaphor. One being a personal reference, the other in reference to a plan. That is a significant difference between the two if you are trying to compare them.

These speeches are well thought-out and planned in advance. The two metaphors "lipstick on a pig" and "old fish" in his speech were not just a coincidence.

 

Why are you in the politics section if you hate politics that much?

 

Jazz, you've missed everything entirely. I won't go too much into formal logic, because we haven't even risen to informal logic, actually, but briefly, that a term can have a double association, doesn't mean it was necessarily used for that double association.

You've ignored everything written in this thread, and given the lack of substantive points with your posts, I'm not surprised you've resorted to attempting to frame me as merely a befuddled, moronic and disingenuous old man. But it serves you nothing.