New Obama ad: "Honor"

[tonton]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/obama-ad-targets-mccains_n_126382.html

It's refreshing to see an ad that doesn't contain a single lie or distortion.

I hope this ad gets lots and lots of airplay because this is exactly the kind of campaign McCain is running, and is a good sign of exactly the kind of president McCain would be (a remoreseless liar like Bush).

[groverat]

This is not "exactly the same kind of campaign McCain is running", because it's not predicated on lies.

It's hard-hitting and real.

I fucking love this ad. (And I have been very critical of Obama's ads for being weak lately, especially that stupid "Still" ad.)

They should plaster this ad everywhere for 2 reasons:
1 - It baits the McCain campaign into throwing out the "POW" victim card for the trillionth time, further weakening its impact.
2 - It shifts the media narrative back to John McCain, away from Sarah Palin.

[trumptman]

Actually that entire ad is a distortion. All of the quotations contain a last name and then the source. They are almost all from left leaning editorial columnists who of course, condemn McCain and praise Obama.

I mean really, an ad telling me Joe Klein doesn't like something John McCain does. That is about as surprising as the sun rising this morning. The fact that CBS News, NY Times and the Washington Post are also quoted is very telling. They, like most liberals believe that all politics is personal and thus anyone who disagrees with Obama is lying. The audience understood to whom the pig and lipstick were referringand laughed accordingly. Anyone who is honest knows that Obama and his surrogates(wolves) are out to get Palin. Obama's support of sex ed k-12 did include very disturbing standards for k-3. None of those are lies.

I hope Obama wastes every cent he has on these ads. The 90% line hasn't gained him a bit of traction. Obama himself admitted he votes with the Democratic leadership 96-97% of the time. Obama has never defined what percent of voting with versus against Bush would be bipartisan and even if he did, he wouldn't meet the definition himself.

The best part though is again, any actions that Obama undertake that get him away from speeches, away from big stages, big crowds and make him just another politician are positive in my view. Obama doesn't have a plan. He has a personal journey. Anything that shows the personal journey did nothing more than make him a typical politician makes me happy. I hope he goes negative in a strong way. Every bit of it helps John McCain and makes HOPE and CHANGE a distant memory if not an outright lie.

[tonton]

This is not "exactly the same kind of campaign McCain is running", because it's not predicated on lies.

It's hard-hitting and real.

I fucking love this ad. (And I have been very critical of Obama's ads for being weak lately, especially that stupid "Still" ad.)

They should plaster this ad everywhere for 2 reasons:
1 - It baits the McCain campaign into throwing out the "POW" victim card for the trillionth time, further weakening its impact.
2 - It shifts the media narrative back to John McCain, away from Sarah Palin.

I didn't mean this ad is exactly what kind of campaign McCain is running. I mean this ad exposes exactly the kind of campaign McCain is running.

As to Nick's comment... when someone exposes the truth (that McCain's ads are dishonorable lies) it has nothing to do with "left-leaning" or "right-leaning". Karl Rove said McCain went too far, for fuck's sake.

[hardeeharhar]

Obama doesn't have a plan.

You are so very wrong... I really wonder when the entire cast of conservatives {ad hom deleted} became unthinking shills for the Republicans....

Obama's plan. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)


one also wonders how {at this site} constitutes an ad hom attack...

particularly since no one person was named...

ah well...

[hardeeharhar]

Actually that entire ad is a distortion. All of the quotations contain a last name and then the source. They are almost all from left leaning editorial columnists who of course, condemn McCain and praise Obama.

I mean really, an ad telling me Joe Klein doesn't like something John McCain does. That is about as surprising as the sun rising this morning. The fact that CBS News, NY Times and the Washington Post are also quoted is very telling. They, like most liberals believe that all politics is personal and thus anyone who disagrees with Obama is lying. The audience understood to whom the pig and lipstick were referringand laughed accordingly. Anyone who is honest knows that Obama and his surrogates(wolves) are out to get Palin. Obama's support of sex ed k-12 did include very disturbing standards for k-3. None of those are lies.

I hope Obama wastes every cent he has on these ads. The 90% line hasn't gained him a bit of traction. Obama himself admitted he votes with the Democratic leadership 96-97% of the time. Obama has never defined what percent of voting with versus against Bush would be bipartisan and even if he did, he wouldn't meet the definition himself.

The best part though is again, any actions that Obama undertake that get him away from speeches, away from big stages, big crowds and make him just another politician are positive in my view. Obama doesn't have a plan. He has a personal journey. Anything that shows the personal journey did nothing more than make him a typical politician makes me happy. I hope he goes negative in a strong way. Every bit of it helps John McCain and makes HOPE and CHANGE a distant memory if not an outright lie.
Please, Nick, for everyone's sake including your own edification go to factcheck.org

Oh, and don't you think that the Obama campaign intentionally avoided factcheck.org? There is bait there in this ad, and you fell for it...

[groverat]

No distortions, no lies.

John McCain is a dishonorable liar who has abandoned his values in an attempt to win an election. Not even his supporters will argue against that except for the word "dishonorable".

The Palin attention is dying down and it will soon be back to Obama vs McCain.

[tonton]

Obama doesn't have a plan.

Nick. Obama's extensive plan has been pointed out to you numerous times. You are aware that Obama has a full, complete, detailed plan.

The next time you say Obama doesn't have a plan, I will reference this post, and Obama's plan. At that point, if I happen to point out that you are a liar, I cannot be (rightfully) reprimanded for that comment, because it would be a proven fact. Go ahead. Make my day.

Note to Lundy: We cannot be forced to avoid calling people liars when they do so repeatedly, and unashamedly.

Lundy. The next time Nick says Obama doesn't have a plan, I am going to call him a liar. If you at that point give me a "point", then I guess there's really no integrity on this board, nor is there any effort to maintain a culture of integrity.

[lundy]

Nick. Obama's extensive plan has been pointed out to you numerous times. You are aware that Obama has a full, complete, detailed plan.

Then your job is done.

The next time you say Obama doesn't have a plan, I will reference this post, and Obama's plan. At that point, if I happen to point out that you are a liar, I cannot be (rightfully) reprimanded for that comment, because it would be a proven fact. Go ahead. Make my day.

The truth or falsity of an ad hom is irrelevant. It is not the topic and is not permitted.

Note to Lundy: We cannot be forced to avoid calling people liars when they do so repeatedly, and unashamedly.

Why not avoid it voluntarily?

Lundy. The next time Nick says Obama doesn't have a plan, I am going to call him a liar. If you at that point give me a "point", then I guess there's really no integrity on this board, nor is there any effort to maintain a culture of integrity.

You just gave him a lob that he's going to smash for game, set, and match. Or a pitch that he's going to hit out of the park for a grand slam. Good work.:\

If you call him a name, I am going to implement the 10-day ban on you. Call him a liar by PM. He does not call anybody names; anyone that can point me to a post in which he does so will be rewarded by seeing him get banned.

[tonton]

Why not avoid it voluntarily?

Because that is tolerance of lying. Which to me is as dishonorable as lying itself, and is exactly why this country is in the mess it is in.

I stand by my post.

If I get the 10-day ban, so be it. It will prove once and for all where Nick's integrity lies, as well as the integrity of you, as the representative of this board.

An ad-hom is nowhere near as harmful to this board, or to this country, as a liar.

Proven liars, who keep lying over and over and over and over again should be banned. An administrator who tolerates such lying "because it's not an ad-hom" would be morally reprehensible.

[tonton]

Telling that this line of comment is in a thread called "honor". This country obviously needs more honor. This forum obviously needs more honor. John McCain clearly does not have enough of a sense of honor to be be President of the United States of America.

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Honour or honor (see spelling differences), (the latter directly from the Latin word honos, honoris) is the evaluation of a person's trustworthiness and social status based on that individual's espousals and actions. Honour is deemed exactly what determines a person's character: whether or not the person reflects honesty, respect, integrity, or fairness. Accordingly, individuals are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions, code of honour, and that of the society at large. Honor can be analysed as a relativistic concept, i.e., conflicts between individuals and even cultures arising as a consequence of material circumstance and ambition, rather than fundamental differences in principle. Alternatively, it can be viewed as nativist — that honour is as real to the human condition as love, and likewise derives from the formative personal bonds that establish one's personal dignity and character.

[lundy]

OK - suit yourself. You can say it's not true, you can point out why it's not true, but you cannot call someone a name. You can say that in your opinion, the evidence you presented proves your case.

Once I allow people calling each other liars, then it degenerates into yes you are, no I'm not, yes you are didn't your mother raise you to tell the truth, my mother isn't a whore like yours, etc.

If you can't see that, there isn't anything else I can do. Unregistered people read this forum and I am not going to permit threads where the only thing happening is people insulting each other.

As I have said many times, this is a standard rule for just about any internet forum. Any ad-hom attack is off-topic, because the topic cannot be the characteristics of a poster.

In a true formal debate, such as high schools and colleges have, you would instantly lose by using such a tactic.

And no, banning someone for "lying" is ridiculous. Everyone has their opinion and nobody is entitled to say that someone is intentionally stating a falsehood. It accomplishes nothing, it does not advance your argument beyond what you have already said (namely that the stated facts are not true), and it sends the thread off on an absurd track.

[trumptman]

I didn't mean this ad is exactly what kind of campaign McCain is running. I mean this ad exposes exactly the kind of campaign McCain is running.

As to Nick's comment... when someone exposes the truth (that McCain's ads are dishonorable lies) it has nothing to do with "left-leaning" or "right-leaning". Karl Rove said McCain went too far, for fuck's sake.

If I were Karl Rove I would say that too. If Steve Schmidt helps McCain pull this election of it will be Karl Who? Rove could be out of business.

Please, Nick, for everyone's sake including your own edification go to factcheck.org

Oh, and don't you think that the Obama campaign intentionally avoided factcheck.org? There is bait there in this ad, and you fell for it...

I've been there. It pretty much finds something to pick at with every ad from every candidate. The difference is that of course Obama is telling the truth when he lies and Republicans lie because they are evil and bad, or some sort of inane reasoning like that I suppose. I could also point you to MRC aka Newsbusters which not only does the same thing for candidates, but for media as well.

Nick. Obama's extensive plan has been pointed out to you numerous times. You are aware that Obama has a full, complete, detailed plan.

The next time you say Obama doesn't have a plan, I will reference this post, and Obama's plan. At that point, if I happen to point out that you are a liar, I cannot be (rightfully) reprimanded for that comment, because it would be a proven fact. Go ahead. Make my day.

Note to Lundy: We cannot be forced to avoid calling people liars when they do so repeatedly, and unashamedly.

Lundy. The next time Nick says Obama doesn't have a plan, I am going to call him a liar. If you at that point give me a "point", then I guess there's really no integrity on this board, nor is there any effort to maintain a culture of integrity.

It doesn't matter what someone posted to his website. We don't elect a website. We elect a person. He does not talk about it. How many people can tell you the actions that represent hope and change? What percentage of his speech is about his personal journey versus his plan? The Republican plan may be boiled down to reform and drill baby drill but I'll take drill baby drill over hope and change any day.

I hope the left continues to talk about how Palin might be a terribile mom or complains about her actions on building roads. I hope they harp about how McCain has used POW too many times and how choosing Palin shows terrible judgement. Saying you are not someone is not a plan. Saying someone else is someone is not a plan.

So again, regardless of what is posted on his website, what is coming out of his mouth is not a plan. The constant complaint about Obama even by those who support him is the lack of specifics in his speeches.

Honestly you can't imagine how happy this ad makes me. Every action Obama undertakes that fails to present 3-4 actions he will take, that worries about everybody knowing the other guy is a liar and that show he is a typical politician all harm him. This is just like Kerry calling Bush a liar while declaring he will run a "better" war. (We never did figure out what better means) It leads to Republican gains.

:lol::lol:

Finally Tonton, just relax man. We are posting in a political sub-forum on a computer forum. My nor your integrity have any effect on this presidential race. I like you and want you here. Call me whatever you want in PM's. Do it early and do it often. Add multiple parties to the send form so five other people will know you did it. If you want to ask me privately anything I'll gladly share including if I have received what for whatever actions. I don't hide but there is a time, place and proper path for all things.

[hardeeharhar]

And no, banning someone for "lying" is ridiculous. Everyone has their opinion and nobody is entitled to say that someone is intentionally stating a falsehood.

Ok...

Hypothetical:

Person A claims something to be true.
Person B shows that the claim is untrue.

Later, Person A repeats claim.
Person B repeats showing claim is untrue and questions Person A's use of truth (not yet calling them a liar)

Later still, Person A repeats claim.
Person B repeats showing claim is untrue and accurately points out that Person A seems to be intentionally lying.


Is this an ad hom, in your eyes, lundy?

[hardeeharhar]

I've been there. It pretty much finds something to pick at with every ad from every candidate. The difference is that of course Obama is telling the truth when he lies and Republicans lie because they are evil and bad, or some sort of inane reasoning like that I suppose. I could also point you to MRC aka Newsbusters which not only does the same thing for candidates, but for media as well.

So the details aren't important? I understand that it takes energy to be perseverant in trying to get the most facts you can about the candidates for office and the tactics they use to present themselves; in fact, this is the most important thing a voter can do during an election, but factcheck.org isn't a site you can just use to get a sense of what is going on. They have detailed analysis of every ad out there, and on the whole McCain's campaign has recently used falsehoods to an extent that makes the claim that the two campaigns are equivalent absurd (and this is exactly what the site says). In point of fact, factcheck.org is responsible for keeping the media truthful (and during election years, the candidates)...

The point, here, Nick is that we should all be better about our due diligence as voters. Claiming that Obama has no plan, or McCain is using as many falsehoods as Obama shows that you might not actually be doing your part, and this disturbs me.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I feel obliged to point out what I believe are very serious errors in logic and factual accuracy in trumptman's post.

Actually that entire ad is a distortion. All of the quotations contain a last name and then the source. They are almost all from left leaning editorial columnists who of course, condemn McCain and praise Obama.


If they are "left-leaning editorial columnists", then the advertisement reports their opinions accurately and it cannot be said to be a "distortion."

Secondly, two of those sources are from right wing publications and columnists.

Thirdly, and tangentially perhaps, even Karl Rove and now Mitt Romney have condemned McCain's campaign so to deny that the ad reflects a consensus is incorrect.

Anyone who is honest knows that Obama and his surrogates(wolves) are out to get Palin.

Yes. They are contesting a general election. Palin is the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. (This is accurate. You are certainly reading the 'Fox News' website page. I know because I read that she was a candidate there myself. She has made speeches too, and even had an interview.)

Obama's support of sex ed k-12 did include very disturbing standards for k-3.

Well, perhaps, but his is a matter of opinion. But McCain's ad said that Barack Obama wanted to teach "comprehensive sex education to pre-schoolers", which is a lie. It is a lie because we can compare Obama's policy with the Republican assertion of what it is, and we can see that the two do not match.

Obama doesn't have a plan.

I'm not calling you a liar (because that would be really bad), but I will say that if you repeat this assertion it means that you will be telling a lie.

[tonton]

It doesn't matter what someone posted to his website. We don't elect a website. We elect a person. He does not talk about it.

So, we went from "he doesn't have a plan" to "he doesn't talk about the plan that he has posted on his website".

Which is it? There's a vast difference between those two statements, and they are mutually exclusive.

[vinea]

Actually that entire ad is a distortion. All of the quotations contain a last name and then the source. They are almost all from left leaning editorial columnists who of course, condemn McCain and praise Obama.


When Karl Rove says you may have stepped across the line you know you're about 100 miles past that line...

[vinea]

The truth or falsity of an ad hom is irrelevant. It is not the topic and is not permitted.

...

If you call him a name, I am going to implement the 10-day ban on you. Call him a liar by PM. He does not call anybody names; anyone that can point me to a post in which he does so will be rewarded by seeing him get banned.

You DO realize that when he calls someone a liberal he's using it as a pejorative to do an ad hom attack right? He is not refuting the argument/position but calling into question the vailidity of the position because the advocate is a liberal.

Folks may or may not consider liberal a bad term but in this context the poster IS using it as such. Pretty much because we kick liberal ass when it comes to redefining the political vocabulary. Amusing that the Democrats often end up adopting the negative meanings...use of the term Democrat Party vs the correct name: Democratic Party. Or Democrat Senator vs Democratic Senator.

I've seen "Republicon Party" as a counter but that never caught on and isn't subtle at all. Neither has Republicant.

[vinea]

Obama's support of sex ed k-12 did include very disturbing standards for k-3. None of those are lies.


You mean disturbing standards like "babies don't come from storks" and the difference between "good touch" and "bad touch"?

Yes, these are lies and deliberate ones. Folks may be prohibited from calling a shovel* a shovel but a rose by any other name would smell as false.

* yes, it should be spade.

[trumptman]

So the details aren't important? I understand that it takes energy to be perseverant in trying to get the most facts you can about the candidates for office and the tactics they use to present themselves; in fact, this is the most important thing a voter can do during an election, but factcheck.org isn't a site you can just use to get a sense of what is going on. They have detailed analysis of every ad out there, and on the whole McCain's campaign has recently used falsehoods to an extent that makes the claim that the two campaigns are equivalent absurd (and this is exactly what the site says). In point of fact, factcheck.org is responsible for keeping the media truthful (and during election years, the candidates)...

The point, here, Nick is that we should all be better about our due diligence as voters. Claiming that Obama has no plan, or McCain is using as many falsehoods as Obama shows that you might not actually be doing your part, and this disturbs me.

The details are important and guys like us, people who discuss politics pretty much full time and care deeply about those issues do get into them. The reality though is that the lay person who tunes in from Labor Day on isn't going to care to the degree we do and if you don't aim your message at them, it is likely that you will not get their vote. Worse still if you spend your time calling them stupid because they don't care to the degree you do or refuse to put the energy into understanding that you do, you guarantee yourself to lose their vote.

When we dig into the facts, it often becomes shades of truth versus untruth. The Sex Ed one is an example of what they just put up. He supported it but didn't co-sponsor it. He doesn't support explicit but does support age appropriate. Meanwhile we could start a thread and go on for twenty pages for whether a cartoon dick is explicit versus a picture of an actual penis. We could discuss how we have to be more "explicit" when discussing it with K-3 since their reasoning doesn't allow much abstraction. We could go around and around about it. Factcheck.org uses the words with no rebuttal and clearly thinks they use them in the most appropriate way.

Quick example:

It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:

Phrase: True
Lowered age: True
Includes kindergarten: True

McCain doesn't mention age appropriate. However it is a 30 second ad. It doesn't mention the opt out. Obama could run an ad to counter this mentioning the opt-out but the reality is that most voters are not of the view that any of it is appropriate for kindergarten. McCain called it his one legislative achievement when Obama supportors would not label it the same. The quotes are cherry-picked, the same thing that is happening in this Obama ad.

We could go around and around about their analysis forever. It doesn't give it a degree of truthfulness, and I have seen some websites attempt that, but it certainly isn't 100% lie and 0% truth. How long could we debate what degree of truth is acceptable and normal for politics versus unacceptable and thus a lie, probably forever.

We discuss it longer than most but even as geeky as I am, I'm not going to dig into something forever. When I reach that point I expressly say I'm going to let the claims stand as they are and trust the reader.

[BRussell]

Ha, I'm fascinated by this thread. You can say that a post like "Obama has no plan" is false, but you can't say it's a lie or that the poster is a liar? Or is it that you can't say a poster is a liar but you can say a post is a lie? If the latter, that's more about grammar than content, isn't it? It seems to me to be clearly an attack on the poster call a statement a "lie," because a lie is intended to deceive. It's really no different from using passive vs. active.

And then there's the whole thing about people getting banned. Who the hell wants anyone to get banned? Why? I really don't get it. Why would lundy say you can get "rewarded by seeing him get banned?" What kind of reward is that? :???:

[vinea]

And then there's the whole thing about people getting banned. Who the hell wants anyone to get banned? Why? I really don't get it. Why would lundy say you can get "rewarded by seeing him get banned?" What kind of reward is that? :???:

Points. So far we conservatives are winning to a huge degree...it's some number to 0 but I stopped keeping track a while back.

[BRussell]

Points. So far we conservatives are winning to a huge degree...it's some number to 0 but I stopped keeping track a while back. Now I REALLY don't get it.

[trumptman]

So, we went from "he doesn't have a plan" to "he doesn't talk about the plan that he has posted on his website".

Which is it? There's a vast difference between those two statements, and they are mutually exclusive.

It is a given that at this level of campaigning, both campaigns are comprehensive. This means they have all their boxes checked. All have plans for everything. They all have response operations, fact-finding/dirt-digging operations, you name it. That is the point in being comprehensive.

That doesn't mean however that there isn't a priority list within that comprehensiveness. Of course the campaigns won't disclose that priority list. That is part of what we must do as informed voters. McCain for example has global warming included within his campaign. Yet I have concluded that this will be a lower priority than domestic energy production. The website presents both equally. I have made that determination for myself as a voter as I am sure you have as well. Thus I think McCain will be "better" than Obama on energy production. Obama has tossed drilling in as well, and they will both do this on any issue since they want to be comprehensive and gain maximum votes.

In terms of determining priorities, Obama desires to keep things as fuzzy as possible. Even his own supporters have grown frustrated looking for the clues that will show them the true priority list within each comprehensive campaign. I call that priority list the true plan. No politician really wants to be against anything since it will cost votes. So they all support everything but with conditions, with disclamers, etc. Drilling down beneath this is the true "plan" only with Obama, there is no drilling. There is no plan, just hope and change platitudes.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

It is a given that at this level of campaigning, both campaigns are comprehensive. This means they have all their boxes checked. All have plans for everything. They all have response operations, fact-finding/dirt-digging operations, you name it. That is the point in being comprehensive.

That doesn't mean however that there isn't a priority list within that comprehensiveness. Of course the campaigns won't disclose that priority list. That is part of what we must do as informed voters. McCain for example has global warming included within his campaign. Yet I have concluded that this will be a lower priority than domestic energy production. The website presents both equally. I have made that determination for myself as a voter as I am sure you have as well. Thus I think McCain will be "better" than Obama on energy production. Obama has tossed drilling in as well, and they will both do this on any issue since they want to be comprehensive and gain maximum votes.

In terms of determining priorities, Obama desires to keep things as fuzzy as possible. Even his own supporters have grown frustrated looking for the clues that will show them the true priority list within each comprehensive campaign. I call that priority list the true plan. No politician really wants to be against anything since it will cost votes. So they all support everything but with conditions, with disclamers, etc. Drilling down beneath this is the true "plan" only with Obama, there is no drilling. There is no plan, just hope and change platitudes.
I don't understand this post.

:???:

Normally I'm very good at understanding the written word (I've even read 'Finnegan's Wake'!) but I don't understand this. I know it's not your fault, because I can read all sorts of stuff, even the most difficult, or over-parsed, or equivocating and disingenuous horseshit (which this of course is not), and I can usually understand it, so clearly the problem is mine.

Now, Barack Obama has very detailed policies posted on his website, which I would consider to form what we might call 'a plan'.

It seems you're suggesting that, like McCain, Barack Obama has priorities for implementing his policies should he be elected, but somehow this means Obama does not have "a plan" while John McCain does.

Could you clarify?

Edit: It's OK, I've read your post again, and that's exactly what you're saying so no clarification necessary. And that's OK, it's your opinion, which I respect (everyone's got one!) although I must tell you that I disagree with your opinion! :)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

By the way, I'm back, hi.

[screener]

Ha, I'm fascinated by this thread. You can say that a post like "Obama has no plan" is false, but you can't say it's a lie or that the poster is a liar? Or is it that you can't say a poster is a liar but you can say a post is a lie? If the latter, that's more about grammar than content, isn't it? It seems to me to be clearly an attack on the poster call a statement a "lie," because a lie is intended to deceive. It's really no different from using passive vs. active.

And then there's the whole thing about people getting banned. Who the hell wants anyone to get banned? Why? I really don't get it. Why would lundy say you can get "rewarded by seeing him get banned?" What kind of reward is that? :???:
Correcting grammar, spelling is allowed and according to the mod, enjoyable.

Referring to the Nazi thread, you can get an infraction for what I consider minor and have your proper usage of a noun corrected. Double hit, commit the crime and correct their grammar, which has nothing to do with the crime.

As to the reward comment, I believe the mod thinks of the posters here as children, evidenced by comments about inboxes being filled with inconsequential reports of mistreatment.

Grow up people, if your ego is big enough to allow yourself to share your views with others, even anonymously, you gotta know they will be challenged.

And Lundy, I know you shouldn't start a sentence with and, but I don't care, lighten up on this name calling thing.
There's name calling and then there's real name calling, this isn't a formal high school debating forum for christs sake.

All that you're doing with this all or nothing approach is raising the frustration level and creating the appeal of fuck it, I'll take the ban.

Worrying about unregistered viewers shying from contributing because of a fear of being called a liar is dumb.
Sure you don't want to be called a, for example douche bag, which can't be proven, but liar can be proven or disproved and gives said viewer an opportunity to contribute one way or another.

In my opinion, if the posting rules are going to be so stringent, make the correcting of spelling, grammar etc, an offense as well because you'll be denying an awful lot of people the opportunity of posting their thoughts for fear of being ridiculed.

I mean, who would want to be singled out by being perceived as uneducated, which can be demonstrated by their bad grammar, spelling mistakes.

I mean, correcting some one is about them, not the topic, right?

[Bergermeister]

Actually that entire ad is a distortion. All of the quotations contain a last name and then the source. They are almost all from left leaning editorial columnists who of course, condemn McCain and praise Obama.

I mean really, an ad telling me Joe Klein doesn't like something John McCain does. That is about as surprising as the sun rising this morning. The fact that CBS News, NY Times and the Washington Post are also quoted is very telling. They, like most liberals believe that all politics is personal and thus anyone who disagrees with Obama is lying. The audience understood to whom the pig and lipstick were referringand laughed accordingly. Anyone who is honest knows that Obama and his surrogates(wolves) are out to get Palin. Obama's support of sex ed k-12 did include very disturbing standards for k-3. None of those are lies.

I hope Obama wastes every cent he has on these ads. The 90% line hasn't gained him a bit of traction. Obama himself admitted he votes with the Democratic leadership 96-97% of the time. Obama has never defined what percent of voting with versus against Bush would be bipartisan and even if he did, he wouldn't meet the definition himself.

The best part though is again, any actions that Obama undertake that get him away from speeches, away from big stages, big crowds and make him just another politician are positive in my view. Obama doesn't have a plan. He has a personal journey. Anything that shows the personal journey did nothing more than make him a typical politician makes me happy. I hope he goes negative in a strong way. Every bit of it helps John McCain and makes HOPE and CHANGE a distant memory if not an outright lie.


Karl Rove said McCain's ads were lies. He spoke on Faux News.

The right of the right as right can be.
---


Obama's ad is dead on. McCain has reduced the presidential campaign to garbage, showing how he will act in office. It really is pathetic. IMHO, he should be removed from public office immediately. He is a disgrace to the nation.

[Bergermeister]

Ok...

Person A claims something to be true.
Person B shows that the claim is untrue.

Later, Person A repeats claim.
Person B repeats showing claim is untrue and questions Person A's use of truth (not yet calling them a liar)

Later still, Person A repeats claim.
Person B repeats showing claim is untrue and accurately points out that Person A seems to be intentionally lying.


You just described the current campaign in a nutshell.

[shetline]

The 90% line hasn't gained him a bit of traction. Obama himself admitted he votes with the Democratic leadership 96-97% of the time. Obama has never defined what percent of voting with versus against Bush would be bipartisan and even if he did, he wouldn't meet the definition himself.
This comment in and of itself is another dishonest Republican talking point, one which I've heard repeated many, many times. No flat out lie here, just a sneaky attempt (so sneaky that maybe even a lot of the people who repeat it buy into themselves) to deflect dealing with the real problem.

The real problem is that McCain has voted over 90% of the time with Bush. WITH BUSH. Obama isn't trying to engage McCain in contest to measure how often either candidate has voted against his own party, whichever party that might be. This is about who has voted the most in line with Bush and the screwed up Republican agenda (you know, the agenda which issue polls show that the great majority of voters are tired of), and who hasn't.

Whoever has voted the least in line with Bush-supported positions is the candidate who represents the greatest likelihood of change from the status quo. How often that means Obama has voted along Democratic party lines -- a party line I like much better than the Republican party line -- is totally irrelevant to the point of the "90%" argument.

Are you smart enough to understand but play the standard spin anyway? The dirty players in the political game love the rule "if you're explaining, you're losing", and they know clearing up the confusion caused by the talking point you are happily chanting takes too much explaining.

[midwinter]

You just described the current campaign in a nutshell.

He left out the part where the institutions that are supposed to help the public determine the accuracy of such claims utterly fail to do their jobs.

[trumptman]

Edit: It's OK, I've read your post again, and that's exactly what you're saying so no clarification necessary. And that's OK, it's your opinion, which I respect (everyone's got one!) although I must tell you that I disagree with your opinion! :)

As you note we can disagree. However the reality is that no matter who we elect a large percentage of the promises and plans will never see the light of day. With Obama the one big change I do believe might occur (still can't tell) is something with health care. The Democrats spent a lot of time arguing the non-universal universalness of the Obama plan. (I know that is a totally strange way to describe it but that is my take on it.) Either way with a Democratic Congress and president something bad might happen. What, who knows because the Obama plan doesn't mandate coverage, just presumes you would spend the money on it if it was "affordable." What is affordable? Good question. How is it universal if not mandated? An even better question to think about. The reality is that Congress writes the laws and they could tell him to kiss their ass and write up something they want and that they know he will sign. (Think Welfare Reform 1996 and the Democratic reaction to it.)


I feel obliged to point out what I believe are very serious errors in logic and factual accuracy in trumptman's post.

I'm shocked and surprised to hear such a thing.:lol:


If they are "left-leaning editorial columnists", then the advertisement reports their opinions accurately and it cannot be said to be a "distortion."

Yes but it doesn't not identify the statements as opinion pieces and thus when they see Washington Post, NY Times, etc. They believe them to be news reporting. That is a distortion. The very notion of using opinion pieces for a campaign to prove something factually should set off alarms in the first place.

Secondly, two of those sources are from right wing publications and columnists.

Which sources do you consider those to be?

Thirdly, and tangentially perhaps, even Karl Rove and now Mitt Romney have condemned McCain's campaign so to deny that the ad reflects a consensus is incorrect.

I haven't seen anything from Romney but I can see Rove's point but also note the possible ulterior motives there.

Yes. They are contesting a general election. Palin is the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. (This is accurate. You are certainly reading the 'Fox News' website page. I know because I read that she was a candidate there myself. She has made speeches too, and even had an interview.)

Yes and many of the smears are not related to any of those stated facts.

Well, perhaps, but his is a matter of opinion. But McCain's ad said that Barack Obama wanted to teach "comprehensive sex education to pre-schoolers", which is a lie. It is a lie because we can compare Obama's policy with the Republican assertion of what it is, and we can see that the two do not match.

Pre-K? I saw K.

I'm not calling you a liar (because that would be really bad), but I will say that if you repeat this assertion it means that you will be telling a lie.

What if I repeat it while standing on my head? What if I cite several opinion pieces to show it is a fact?:lol::lol:

You mean disturbing standards like "babies don't come from storks" and the difference between "good touch" and "bad touch"?

Yes, these are lies and deliberate ones. Folks may be prohibited from calling a shovel* a shovel but a rose by any other name would smell as false.

* yes, it should be spade.

Those are not the standards.

This comment in and of itself is another dishonest Republican talking point, one which I've heard repeated many, many times. No flat out lie here, just a sneaky attempt (so sneaky that maybe even a lot of the people who repeat it buy into themselves) to deflect dealing with the real problem.

So aside from being "sneaky" do you think that making the case that McCain will be a Bush third is a strong case?

The real problem is that McCain has voted over 90% of the time with Bush. WITH BUSH. Obama isn't trying to engage McCain in contest to measure how often either candidate has voted against his own party, whichever party that might be. This is about who has voted the most in line with Bush and the screwed up Republican agenda (you know, the agenda which issue polls show that the great majority of voters are tired of), and who hasn't.

We are going to have to agree to disagree here. Obama proclaims himself to be post partisan and claims that he will bring all parties together. He claims that he will put an end to the divisiveness in Washington by working with the other party and reaching across the aisle. If you don't believe those claims or think them talking points that is fine because Obama is a much weaker candidate if he is viewed as just being a good Democrat.

Whoever has voted the least in line with Bush-supported positions is the candidate who represents the greatest likelihood of change from the status quo. How often that means Obama has voted along Democratic party lines -- a party line I like much better than the Republican party line -- is totally irrelevant to the point of the "90%" argument.

Of course you like Democrats voting with Democrats and I like Republicans voting with Republicans. That doesn't get you to 50%. Those in the middle are making up their minds what percent and to what degree they want change. These claims are clearly aimed at them.

Are you smart enough to understand but play the standard spin anyway? The dirty players in the political game love the rule "if you're explaining, you're losing", and they know clearing up the confusion caused by the talking point you are happily chanting takes too much explaining.

:???::???: Sounds like an attack via rhetorical/loaded questioning. I'll leave it alone.

[groverat]

Obama doesn't have a plan.

I know, it's not like he has an entire book (http://www.amazon.com/Change-We-Can-Believe-Americas/dp/0307460452/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221524843&sr=8-1) dedicated to outlining specific policy initiatives...

... or a 33 page PDF file with specific policy plans (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf).

... or numerous webpages (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) dedicated to detailing specific policy stances and ideas.

[jimmac]

Actually that entire ad is a distortion. All of the quotations contain a last name and then the source. They are almost all from left leaning editorial columnists who of course, condemn McCain and praise Obama.

I mean really, an ad telling me Joe Klein doesn't like something John McCain does. That is about as surprising as the sun rising this morning. The fact that CBS News, NY Times and the Washington Post are also quoted is very telling. They, like most liberals believe that all politics is personal and thus anyone who disagrees with Obama is lying. The audience understood to whom the pig and lipstick were referringand laughed accordingly. Anyone who is honest knows that Obama and his surrogates(wolves) are out to get Palin. Obama's support of sex ed k-12 did include very disturbing standards for k-3. None of those are lies.

I hope Obama wastes every cent he has on these ads. The 90% line hasn't gained him a bit of traction. Obama himself admitted he votes with the Democratic leadership 96-97% of the time. Obama has never defined what percent of voting with versus against Bush would be bipartisan and even if he did, he wouldn't meet the definition himself.

The best part though is again, any actions that Obama undertake that get him away from speeches, away from big stages, big crowds and make him just another politician are positive in my view. Obama doesn't have a plan. He has a personal journey. Anything that shows the personal journey did nothing more than make him a typical politician makes me happy. I hope he goes negative in a strong way. Every bit of it helps John McCain and makes HOPE and CHANGE a distant memory if not an outright lie.


McSame's whole campaign is a lie and a joke. From the choice of Palin to his new platform of change. Give me an extra big break!

But republicans ignore it because it's all about winning. How sad.

[shetline]

So aside from being "sneaky" do you think that making the case that McCain will be a Bush third is a strong case?
On a policy basis, yes. At one time I would have thought McCain had more integrity than Bush, but he's lost that over the past few years. I suppose McCain might go back to being the more liberal and independent politician we once new, but he could only do so by even losing more integrity, turning back on the platform he's used to convince conservatives to vote for him.

I suppose if your scale of difference is calibrated to a spectrum of conservative Republicans only, McCain might seem a bit different from Bush, but on a scale that includes Obama as an alternative, there's not much difference between Bush and McCain that I can see. McCain is even beginning to seem as out of touch and uninformed as Bush of late.

Obama proclaims himself to be post partisan and claims that he will bring all parties together. He claims that he will put an end to the divisiveness in Washington by working with the other party and reaching across the aisle. If you don't believe those claims or think them talking points that is fine because Obama is a much weaker candidate if he is viewed as just being a good Democrat.
Obama first and foremost bills himself as wanting to change the status quo in terms of policy, with policies which are pretty much mainstream Democratic positions. Bipartisanship comes in second, and in the form of seeking out things that both Republicans and Democrats can agree upon together, not in going against his own party to score "maverick" points.

All you're doing is trying to duck the validity of comparing McCain to Bush, pretending, in good talking point fashion, that somehow how often you vote differently than your own party is the real issue, and using anything said against McCain as a launching point to bitch about Obama rather than deal with McCain's problems.

Quite often your defense of McCain comes out to nothing better than, "Well, Obama does it too!"

[midwinter]

I know, it's not like he has an entire book (http://www.amazon.com/Change-We-Can-Believe-Americas/dp/0307460452/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221524843&sr=8-1) dedicated to outlining specific policy initiatives...

... or a 33 page PDF file with specific policy plans (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf).

... or numerous webpages (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) dedicated to detailing specific policy stances and ideas.

Yes, but Grover, those are not plans. Those are things that are written down that have plans on them, and which are colloquially called "plans," but they are different. They are plans for plans, which as anyone with a lick of sense knows, is most definitely not an actual plan.

That, after all, was the point of this:

It doesn't matter what someone posted to his website. We don't elect a website. We elect a person. He does not talk about it.

So you see, Obama can publish all the books on policy initiatives he wants, all the web sites with details and specifics about his agenda that the internets can hold. The fact of the matter is that those aren't actually plans. Those are things that he calls plans, and things that many other people call plans, but those people are simply mistaking a clear and public articulation of proposed policy changes and goals for "plans," when they are actually just proposals for plans. Or even worse, proposals for plans to make plans.

It's really simple. I'm surprised everyone doesn't see this.

[groverat]

McCain is not someone hardcore conservatives ever liked to begin with. They're having an extremely difficult time selling him to themselves and their friends in the hardcore base. Palin helps, but as I said weeks ago that is going to wear off. He's got to pretend he's a right-wing hardliner. But he's not.

I think what you saw from 1998-2001 was the real John McCain; the John McCain that John McCain wants to be; the John McCain before the thirst for power overtook him.

For hardliners, how do they trust a guy who converted to their cause for obviously political purposes?
For independents, do you really trust that someone will go back to what he was a decade ago?

He's a former P.O.W. with a built-in media advantage during a war, and he's running against a black guy named "Hussein". He shouldn't need the Great Alaskan Gimmick to pull ahead in the polls temporarily.

McCain's entire campaign has been an act of desperation. The lies against Romney, the lies against Obama... he's abandoned any dignity and honor he once had.