Name calling
 

Is it just me? It seems to me that I see a lot more schoolyard name calling from Liberals than Conservatives. It seems that in almost every news article that allows public comments to be posted, its McSame, McLame, McBush, Sarah Pain, etc., etc. To be fair (and balanced LOL) I also see Obama referred to as the Messiah and an empty suit, but it seems that there is more childish name calling from the left.

There is a lot of honest debate, but for many people, calling names substitutes for rational thought. Does anyone else see the same thing?

I disagree. While not namecalling persay, I see a lot of mutations of Obama's name to compare him to a terrorist. I think both sides are equally culpable.

I'd say it's pretty even on both sides.. even with the right's bogus ads.

it's all simple marketing.. associate McCain with bush.. people on the right may swing to the left.. associate Obama with Osama and people on the left may swing to the right for their fears of terrorism.

the whole Palin thing is dumb..I don't even want to get into that in this thread. She's as big a threat to this country as any terrorist.

They're all a bunch of poopyheads.

I go back to the clearly enunciated McCain campaign strategy....it is not about the issues, it is about shaping the image of the candidates.

Really? Because she disagrees with you she's a threat?

I dont know that she is a threat. She has been so superficial on the campaign trail that it is difficult to judge....other than on her policies and actions as governor.

But I do find it amusing, if not a bit troubling, that the McCain campaign wont let her interact with the public and the media except in scripted speeches and hand-picked audiences. IMO, that suggests that the campaign doesnt have much confidence in her ability to articulate policy positions other than with one-liners.

But that will change next Thursday with the VP debate, even with the limits of interaction between the candidates that was demanded by the McCain campaign....and that her coaches are all former Bush staffers.

It's troubling to you that Palin is scripted, as Obama begins a three-day practice session?

It doesn't trouble me that anyone is scripted. They all are scripted to a point. What's troubling to me about Palin ( and no I'm not as focused on her as McCain) is that if she were needed to step into the Presidential role, her values and policies are a threat to what so many people have fought for..mainly women's rights. Now I understand that she'd have an awful difficult time of getting anything passed and I seriously doubt anyone in congress would even have the balls to pass or champion a bill revoking choice rights, but it's still there on the table.

What bothers me also is that she really hasn't done an interview. She was on ABC with Charlie Gibson and Fox with Sean Hannity.. seriously. those two are a joke when it comes to being real and asking the hard questions.. and if Palin is so damn scripted.. it's amusing how she can't even answer a question about foreign policy and has to hope McCain steps in about how her son served in the Alaskan Guard (which is wrong he was in the Army)

But this isn't a thread about vetting anyone.. this is a thread about namecalling.. it's a common practice of playing politics and quite frankly, both candidates are pretty shitty at it this go round.

You're right, gucci, it is about name calling. I started the thread. So how would one go about comparing the amount of name calling?

Google tells me that there are about 700,000 references to the words Obama and Osama used together. While many of these are likely negative comparisons of your candidate to the terrorist leader, many are probably news articles where your candidate has something to say about bin Laden (or vice versa).

Google also tells me that there are around 1,115,000 references to McSame etc.

Add to this the recent news about the Canadian commentator, and the nasty commments way beyond simply disagreeing with political platforms or relative degrees of experience.

Have you ever listened to Randi Rhodes? She can hardly get between commercial breaks without calling some Conservative a childish name. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard her use the term "Bushies."

Ever listen to Hannity? Admittedly one of the more outspoken Conservative commentators, yet he always addresses the Liberal that he is talking about by name.

On the other hand, there's nothing terribly insulting about McSame; it just indicates that the candidates policies are thought to be close or identical to the current president. It's not even a baseless accusation, even if you disagree with it. However, comparing Obama to Osama is terribly insulting. Even if you disagree with Senator Obama, he's nothing like Osama bin Laden, and to connect the two because they have similar names is baseless and even breathtaking. It's the difference between saying someone favors a stronger central government, and calling them Hitler.

It's amusing to me that "Bushie" is now considered an insulting name. Just a few years ago conservatives, some on this very forum, were proud to call themselves "Bushies."

This thread confuses *name calling* with *making fun of someone's name* which are not necessarily the same thing. Playing on someone's name, no matter how clever, tends to make people sympathize with the insulted person because a lot of people had their names twisted into insults in grade school, it sucks.

To say that one party does it more than another is kind of a farce in my view. The Google "research" above was exceptionally weak and lazy. "Obama+Osama" and "McSame" are in no way to be considered equivalencies (what about the 488,000 results for "obamania?"). Are you sure you're just not more sensitive to your candidate's name being played on?

The Left should have learned better after the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" full page ad pretty much backfired for MoveOn. As with most things political, the media doesn't question the Right with equal vigor. Someone made a few bundles of cash selling "Sore/Loserman" and "Flush the Johns" posters, t-shirts, stickers, and other paraphernalia during the last two election cycles.

/thread

I don't want to detract too much from the thread topic, but I find it interesting that her opposition to abortion leads you to conclude that she's a threat to women's rights. I'd like to think the women's rights movement is about more than the right to abortion.

Are there other areas that I'm just failing to remember?

She also doesn't like investigating rape cases.

actually there are plenty more, it's just one that I threw out there. I didn't go into the whole pot because well, that's not what this thread is about.

Look, each side has it's issues with the others and we'll always have liberals who will simply bash the right for simply being conservative and we'll have the conservatives who will simply bash the other for being liberal. It's the cycle we're in and I honestly don't see it changing any time soon. Until our whole election process is changed and people don't run under a party who is considered liberal or conservative, we'll always have the Rhodes and the Limbaugh's of the world spewing rhetoric for the sake of nothing but a label.

Surely it can be stipulated that she'd repeal a woman's right to choose if she could, since she's freely admitted that. If you take away a woman's right to choose, don't you think that it would begin a backwards spiral?

Keep women in their place. Barefoot and pregnant, taking care of their man, reliant on their man. She thinks she has it all, but hasn't stopped to think about the repercussions of forcing her "good Christian" mindset on the rest of us. It's scary enough that there are men in power that would love nothing better than to take us back where we were 40+ years ago, and as someone who grew up watching women fight for my rights, I find her attitude appalling. I can respect her choices, but the fact that she has no tolerance for mine is extremely scary.

Equal pay. Voting. Respect. Once choice is gone, it's not much of a leap to see that the push would be on for the rest to fall in line.

@Jewels: While I respect your opinions on the matter, I can't really see the other advances falling away. I don't think giving up the right to choose is a 'gateway' to losing all of your other hard-earned rights.

I could be wrong here and I really don't want to jack this thread any more than it has been.. but isn't John McCain against equal pay?? If he is, I find it pretty funny that he has a woman running mate.

Why oh why couldn't the Dem's have chosen Hillary for the top of the ticket.. *sigh*

I used to play a lot of chess. I can see it.

Defining the legal moment of conception to be at a time that you happen to disagree with implies that eventually women will lose the right to vote? Chess tells you that? Will eliminating quotas lead us back to slavery? Pawn to Queen's Bishop 3.

@Jewels: I play chess too frequently. I still don't see it happening :\.

On the other hand, I'm personally pro-life in my own life, but I'm legally for pro-choice. So it's not like I'm disagreeing with you.

I think what those of us who are claiming the rights issue with Palin are saying that if eventually a super conservative freako like herself ever gets one right like that passed the door would be wide open for that line of thinking to invade other area's as well. I don't see it happening.. but I'd rather not have someone who needs "holy" hands placed on them to protect her from witchcraft as my VP.. or in my government at all really.

I have no argument with you there whatsoever.

It's interesting that it's Palin's religious beliefs that cause you issues. You are certainly within your rights to base you vote on that. It's even more interesting to read that many Liberals see an inevitable progression between voting for her and a return to primitive versions of women's rights.

actually, I'm not basing my vote on that.. or her at all. To me, she's really a non-factor for what's actually getting my vote. I'm throwing my vote to Obama, because like I've said elsewhere, the Dem's record on Fiscal Responsibility is leaps and bounds above the Republican's and I think McCain is seriously full of shit. He's already flip-flopped around during this campaign so much I'm dizzy.

I'm merely comparing the VP's together. I think that in my case I wouldn't care if a conservative woman was in office.. it's just that she's so far right that even Rush Limbaugh would look like he was on the left. There's conservative and then there's sleeping in bed with Pat Buchanan..whom she actually supported.

Y'all don't see it, but I do.

Once we lose the right to choose, the young women who are forced to have babies are out there, often on their own. In order to cope with having to either give their child away or give up their dreams because they have no other opportunities or help. Of course, those who've enabled the repeal of this amendment now have her at her knees (and we're not even talking about welfare). If she wants help caring for her baby while she goes to school or works, she's going to have to plead to get a dime out of this coalition. She learns that the only way out is to find a man who'll be willing to foot the bill for her and the baby. :hmm:

Surely you can see that a great many of the women who exercise that right to choose will often lose hope and the opportunity to choose anything else in life. There's more, but that's a good beginning for the opportunists.

That's pretty much how I see it. I certainly don't see Obama as some savor. Personally I think who ever is elected is in for hard times. IMHO, Bush and the neo-cons have screwed shit up so bad it's going to take decades to get the country back on the right track.

And I agree with your assessment regarding McCain's ever shifting position(s) he's turning into Diamond Joe Quimby. Any day now I expect to hear him say "Very well, if that's the way the winds are blowing, let nobody say that I don't also blow."

So, the darling VPULF is bringing up the Obama and his radical friends again.

Who knew, McCain has his own strange ties. :orly: Gordon Liddy???

With friends like these ... -- chicagotribune.com

Charles Keating
The Other Keating 4
G. Gordon Liddy
Alaskan Secessionists
Voodoo Witch Doctor Alaskan Church

These people are WAY closer to McCain/Palin than Ayers and even Rezko were to Obama.

The ONLY thing that's really ever had any marked impact on Obama's polling numbers was the Rev. Wright association. So we can expect that to worm its way back to the surface, despite Obama's very public split with the man, and despite the damage it does to the Obama Is Muslim meme that's still out there--although anyone who still thinks that can't really be accused of thinking very much, so the disconnect may pass un-noted. It certainly won't have the same impact it had when it was first revealed. There may be something to that "vetting-the-candidate-in-a-tough-primary" thing.

Back to the OP: I saw a comment on a blog the other day that went roughly, "These liberals, all they got is name calling. McSame, McOld, whatever. It's pathetic. Besides, everyone knows Osama just wants to tax us into the ground and open us up to terrorist attack...."

So.... When you call names, that's calling names. When I call names, that's legitimate political discourse. Makes sense. :rolleyes: