How many lies does it take for you to stop voting Republican?

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
This has nothing to do with Democrats.

I'm asking fellow Republicans here, how many lies does it take to make you not vote Republican. Watching the McCain campaign unfold this last month he has unleashed lie after lie after lie about his record, his opponent's record, and his VP's record. At what point do any of you say to yourself, do I really want this guy representing me?

Does it matter to you that McCain and his campaign are spreading outright lies on just about every issue imaginable?

When it comes to lies, this is a war. Politics turns it non-violent, but make no mistake that both sides of this conflict will do everything to win. It doesn?t matter because the both sides are equal at this. Show me a third side, and they?ll have my support.

Anyone who doesn?t value an escape from these two sides will not care about the lies. They will defend their side, and they will savagely lie about and attack the other side.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Obama is for sex education for kindergartners. Have you read the bill he approved?

Sigh... Have you? I'm certain you haven't. Because it doesn't say that at all. It specifies only 'age-appropriate' education. Which in the case of kindergartners, would be only that which is necessary to prevent and/or help identify molestation, especially from family members. Or are you saying that you want little kids to get raped by their daddies and uncles?

So you were lied to, straight from "I'm John McCain and I approve this message," and like the OP said, how many lies does it take? I bet he also told you he's a fiscal conservative who's gonna shrink the size and cost of federal govt, right?

:roll:

Um, you're cherry picking from factcheck.org

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:

The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:



It actually left the schools to determine what they felt was "age appropriate" Didn't it? And the abuse was only a component of the bill, it didn't specifically state that was what was to be taught to kindergartners.

Fact check doesn't say that abuse was the only thing to be taught to that age group, rather they took exception to the claim that it was Obama's only accomplishment.

A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

so now, according to your interpretation, kindergarteners are going to be taught "comprehensive sex education?"

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

1.) Lipstick on a pig referring to Palin

Not a lie...the McCain campaign exploited an Obama gaffe, and the media took the ball and ran with it to stir controversy.

2.) Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners (perhaps the worst offense I've seen thus far)

And Obama goes around saying that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time...not exactly a full truth either, but such is the nature of political campaigns.

3.) Palin is against earmarks (Alaska is the #1 state in terms of earmark ratio)

Considering all of the media scrutiny of Palin's governorship, none of these alleged flip flops are sticking to her...kind of like how Obama painted himself as the change candidate yet has a proven record of playing strictly along party lines...again, its all about perception.

4.) Palin against the bridge to nowhere (outright lie, she was for it)

She was for it before she was against it...the Democrats had a beloved patriot in her armor here, and blew it...thank the boy who cried wolf media response.

5.) Going on national television and saying the worst thing about campaigns is the negativity

That is a true statement, and she was certainly put through the media ringer after McCain's announcement...there is a lot of negativity in American politics...every candidate claims they want to rise above it, and yet they all throw mud.

So of the 5 lies, 4 are open to debate...I'll give you the bridge.

well actually #2, #3, and #4 are pretty much lies. Whether or not they "stick" is a matter of perception

I will give you #1 as controversial, and thats about it.

 

[TechAZ]

12 billion

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
This has nothing to do with Democrats.

I'm asking fellow Republicans here, how many lies does it take to make you not vote Republican. Watching the McCain campaign unfold this last month he has unleashed lie after lie after lie about his record, his opponent's record, and his VP's record. At what point do any of you say to yourself, do I really want this guy representing me?

Does it matter to you that McCain and his campaign are spreading outright lies on just about every issue imaginable?

When it comes to lies, this is a war. Politics turns it non-violent, but make no mistake that both sides of this conflict will do everything to win. It doesn?t matter because the both sides are equal at this. Show me a third side, and they?ll have my support.

Anyone who doesn?t value an escape from these two sides will not care about the lies. They will defend their side, and they will savagely lie about and attack the other side.

That's the problem. The Voter is the biggest victim in this "War".

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: TechAZ
12 billion

Good, you should stop voting Republican by mid October.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nope

Most of the 'lies' are subject to debate. There are VERY few instances where you can find a candidate saying something that is totally 100% false and known to be false.

WOW!!! Now I understand how you rationalize your postings here. They must be totally 100% false and known to be false for you to know any shame.

ON TOPIC; "My candidate right or wrong!!", does describe the dogmatic and self-invested feeling Republicans have for their leader. No matter how many the lies, they will follow the leader over the cliff just like lemmings.

Guaranteed he will be saying sometime soon that 9-11 never happened if not already.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Obama is for sex education for kindergartners. Have you read the bill he approved?

Sigh... Have you? I'm certain you haven't. Because it doesn't say that at all. It specifies only 'age-appropriate' education. Which in the case of kindergartners, would be only that which is necessary to prevent and/or help identify molestation, especially from family members. Or are you saying that you want little kids to get raped by their daddies and uncles?

So you were lied to, straight from "I'm John McCain and I approve this message," and like the OP said, how many lies does it take? I bet he also told you he's a fiscal conservative who's gonna shrink the size and cost of federal govt, right?

:roll:

Um, you're cherry picking from factcheck.org

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:

The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:



It actually left the schools to determine what they felt was "age appropriate" Didn't it? And the abuse was only a component of the bill, it didn't specifically state that was what was to be taught to kindergartners.

Fact check doesn't say that abuse was the only thing to be taught to that age group, rather they took exception to the claim that it was Obama's only accomplishment.

A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

so now, according to your interpretation, kindergarteners are going to be taught "comprehensive sex education?"

Is that or is that not in the bill?

Did the bill specify that abuse was the only subject to be taught to that age group?

 

[nageov3t]

in terms of political ethics, I'm not sure I'd necessarily rate deliberately misrepresenting facts as really being significantly worse than winning an election by subverting the entire democratic process via getting all of your opposition disqualified on such earth-shacking technicalities as printing a name instead of signing it.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Bill Maher had a great show tonight. I suggest anyone watch it if they are interested in how an intelligent and educated person could so willingly support this Republican administration.

Regarding Obama trying to teach sex-education to kindergartners I cannot believe you Republicans are trying to defend McCain for that. Answer a simple question, yes or no. Do you honestly believe Barack Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners?

Yes or no.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nope

Most of the 'lies' are subject to debate. There are VERY few instances where you can find a candidate saying something that is totally 100% false and known to be false.

LIke... I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMEN

Well, given that Clinton at the time he said that was in a trial where the term 'sexual relations' had been defined not to include oral sex, that wasn't '100% false'.

It was a lie, since he was misleading people intentionally by taking advantage of that narrow definition, but there are worse examples of clear lying.

Like, IMO, Bush promising that the authorization for force would not be used for war except as a last resort, but instead then kicking out the inspectors and invading.

 

[Craig234]

What a dishonest response.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

1.) Lipstick on a pig referring to Palin

Not a lie...the McCain campaign exploited an Obama gaffe, and the media took the ball and ran with it to stir controversy.

It WAS a lie, a complete, intentional, manufactured lie. There was no gaffe at all. McCain's campaign completely lied in saying it had anything to do with Palin.

2.) Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners (perhaps the worst offense I've seen thus far)

And Obama goes around saying that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time...not exactly a full truth either, but such is the nature of political campaigns.

So your response to this LIE is not to disprove it was a lie, but to make an attack that Obama did something wrong too. You asked for lies, you have two now.

3.) Palin is against earmarks (Alaska is the #1 state in terms of earmark ratio)

Considering all of the media scrutiny of Palin's governorship, none of these alleged flip flops are sticking to her...kind of like how Obama painted himself as the change candidate yet has a proven record of playing strictly along party lines...again, its all about perception.

Your response to this lie is that it's not 'sticking' to hurt her politically. You don't disprove it's a lie - that's three lies for you now.

4.) Palin against the bridge to nowhere (outright lie, she was for it)

She was for it before she was against it...the Democrats had a beloved patriot in her armor here, and blew it...thank the boy who cried wolf media response.

Your response to this lie is that the Democrats did not exploit it well. So you have four lies now.

5.) Going on national television and saying the worst thing about campaigns is the negativity

That is a true statement, and she was certainly put through the media ringer after McCain's announcement...there is a lot of negativity in American politics...every candidate claims they want to rise above it, and yet they all throw mud.

So of the 5 lies, 4 are open to debate...I'll give you the bridge.

How the hell do you count those as not lies when you don't challenge anything about the fact they are lies but just say things like 'well that's what happens'.

Of the last one, I'll give you that it's not clearly a lie, however hypocritical and dishonest it is for her to pretend to be against negativity while being the leading practicer.

So of the 5 lies, 4 are not open to debate. You have a start there.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Bill Maher had a great show tonight. I suggest anyone watch it if they are interested in how an intelligent and educated person could so willingly support this Republican administration.

Regarding Obama trying to teach sex-education to kindergartners I cannot believe you Republicans are trying to defend McCain for that. Answer a simple question, yes or no. Do you honestly believe Barack Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners?

Yes or no.

I only saw part, but I agree, it was better than usual, and the woman panelist was great, she called BS on the Wall Street Journal buffoon very well. Worth watching.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nope

Most of the 'lies' are subject to debate. There are VERY few instances where you can find a candidate saying something that is totally 100% false and known to be false.

WOW!!! Now I understand how you rationalize your postings here. They must be totally 100% false and known to be false for you to know any shame.

ON TOPIC; "My candidate right or wrong!!", does describe the dogmatic and self-invested feeling Republicans have for their leader. No matter how many the lies, they will follow the leader over the cliff just like lemmings.

Guaranteed he will be saying sometime soon that 9-11 never happened if not already.

Exaggerating PJ's prevarications doesn't help anyone.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What a dishonest response.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

1.) Lipstick on a pig referring to Palin

Not a lie...the McCain campaign exploited an Obama gaffe, and the media took the ball and ran with it to stir controversy.

It WAS a lie, a complete, intentional, manufactured lie. There was no gaffe at all. McCain's campaign completely lied in saying it had anything to do with Palin.

2.) Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners (perhaps the worst offense I've seen thus far)

And Obama goes around saying that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time...not exactly a full truth either, but such is the nature of political campaigns.

So your response to this LIE is not to disprove it was a lie, but to make an attack that Obama did something wrong too. You asked for lies, you have two now.

3.) Palin is against earmarks (Alaska is the #1 state in terms of earmark ratio)

Considering all of the media scrutiny of Palin's governorship, none of these alleged flip flops are sticking to her...kind of like how Obama painted himself as the change candidate yet has a proven record of playing strictly along party lines...again, its all about perception.

Your response to this lie is that it's not 'sticking' to hurt her politically. You don't disprove it's a lie - that's three lies for you now.

4.) Palin against the bridge to nowhere (outright lie, she was for it)

She was for it before she was against it...the Democrats had a beloved patriot in her armor here, and blew it...thank the boy who cried wolf media response.

Your response to this lie is that the Democrats did not exploit it well. So you have four lies now.

5.) Going on national television and saying the worst thing about campaigns is the negativity

That is a true statement, and she was certainly put through the media ringer after McCain's announcement...there is a lot of negativity in American politics...every candidate claims they want to rise above it, and yet they all throw mud.

So of the 5 lies, 4 are open to debate...I'll give you the bridge.

How the hell do you count those as not lies when you don't challenge anything about the fact they are lies but just say things like 'well that's what happens'.

Of the last one, I'll give you that it's not clearly a lie, however hypocritical and dishonest it is for her to pretend to be against negativity while being the leading practicer.

So of the 5 lies, 4 are not open to debate. You have a start there.

Wow that's some serious ownage right there. Starbuck do you know how to read? Not once did you DISPROVE the lie which is what I asked you to do. Instead you stated why they weren't worth talking about politically.

The worst kind of person in politics is the cynic. The guy that KNOWS better but doesn't care. You're not an idiot, I've read your posts. You know the Republican party is full of shit but you just don't care....that's the problem and that's the point of this thread. How can you not care?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: brencat
I've lived too long and become way too cynical to think both parties won't lie and disappoint us constantly. Frankly, it's funny watching so many of you on P&N get so bent out of shape and posting a new thread everytime the Obama or McCain camps say something you all don't like. Talk is cheap -- look at their voting record/history.

For me, I'm an economic conservative first and a moderate on social issues. Therefore, I pretty much always vote based on wallet issues and who will keep my taxes as low as possible. That typically happens to be Republicans and McCain this time as well, given the bracket I'm fortunate to be in. Sorry if this sounds too shallow for all you sensitive types.

Well, if you're comfortable screwing over your children and the future of this country with short-term thinking and the Republican's habitual deficit spending, who am I to question it, eh?

 

[dbk]

Everyone says Obama is just an empty suit but McCain hasn't really spoken too much about the issues. He states his positions but he doesn't explain them too well. Here's an example from his convention speech:

I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it.

My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

I remember when I heard this part, I kept asking myself, "Am I supposed to just blindly believe this?" I don't think I've heard McCain go in depth into anything...just a bunch of rhetoric. On the other hand, Obama goes into a lot of detail and specifics but sometimes he seems like he's just making empty promises.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I'll be very honest on this one:

I don't care even one iota how many lies a campaign tells. My sole voting criterion is how well I agree with their proposed policies. Which is why I'm going with a write-in candidate this election.

ZV

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Did the bill specify that abuse was the only subject to be taught to that age group?

No Pliablemoose the bill specified exactly what you said it did. You represented the bill about as accurate as I think it could be represented.

But given that. And given that the instruction and curriculum will be developed and implemented as medically "factual" as possible, and "age and developmentally" appropriate for learners...do you think that schools and teachers would develop curriculum for 4 and 5 year olds (kindergarten age) that includes lesson plans on sexual intercourse?

Do you think parents would accept that type of curriculum for thier children?

Also from the bill:


(c) Notwithstanding the above educational areas, the
17 following areas may also be included as a basis for curricula
18 in all elementary and secondary schools in this State: basic
19 first aid (including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary
20 resuscitation and the Heimlich maneuver), early prevention
21 and detection of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and
22 the prevention of child abuse, neglect, and suicide. The
23 school board of each public elementary and secondary school
24 in the State shall encourage all teachers and other school
25 personnel to acquire, develop, and maintain the knowledge and
26 skills necessary to properly administer life-saving
27 techniques, including without limitation the Heimlich
28 maneuver and rescue breathing. The training shall be in
29 accordance with standards of the American Red Cross, the
30 American Heart Association, or another nationally recognized
31 certifying organization. A school board may use the services
32 of non-governmental entities whose personnel have expertise
33 in life-saving techniques to instruct teachers and other
34 school personnel in these techniques.

Do you think they will be teaching CPR to kindergarteners too? maybe teach them early warning signs of cancer while they are at it?

common sense people......common sense.

common F'n sense.

So, should I be concerned about you Pliablemoose? Do I need to email Chris Hansen?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

ZOMG!!!! Personal Revelation! The Dems never tell lies!

What have I been thinking?

Oh wait... Dem lies are just less injurious than R lies. Ok then. Maybe I should choose the lesser of two evils?

Oh wait... they are both staffed by politicians so they are both equal liars...


What to do... what to do...


But just out of curiosity... how many lies from the dems would it take for you to realize that they pander to your cause without ever DOING anything about it?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Like I said, this thread is not about Democrats. I'm speaking to you Republicans.

Uh huh. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

:roll:

I'm not Republican or Democrat. I'm just sick and tired of the dipshits from both sides in here trotting out their their partisan crap. YOU are trotting out partisan crap that results in nothing more than a troll. It's garbage exactly like this why Obama is going down in the polls. Democrats can't quite figure out, despite all their proclaimed awesomeness and education, then wonder why they keep losing elections.

Well, I'll tell you why. It's because of threads like yours. You embody a complete turn-off attitude and that's why there's been a swing. People like me that think Obama should be our next president are pissed off at people like you who think belittlement and character assassination of the other guy is the way to win. Please. Pretty please. STFU. People like you are losing the election for Obama.

Sez the biggest dipshit and troll at AT P&N ....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I'll be very honest on this one:

I don't care even one iota how many lies a campaign tells. My sole voting criterion is how well I agree with their proposed policies. Which is why I'm going with a write-in candidate this election.

ZV

That is honest. And it's good to see you not fall for the Republican BS (I understand the Democrats policies are not appealing to you, however much we disagree).

I think you're throwing away your vote, until we improve the voting system to allow for tiered/ranked voting, but I figure most Libertarian votes cost the Republicans, so fine.

I'd rather see Libertarians abandoned their fantasies that would lead to disaster though, and understand that democratic government has a role to play in the well being of society.

Then when they get past the Republican lies about democrats, they may just find that democrats protect a lot of freedoms and keep the system working for business.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

Originally posted by:Vic

Well, if you're comfortable screwing over your children and the future of this country with short-term thinking and the Republican's habitual deficit spending, who am I to question it, eh?

I bought into the Republicans "fiscal responsibilty, low taxes, balanced budget" rhetoric several years ago, and believed it. what a bunch of BS. I wil l never vote republican again. Start TWO major military conflicts and not pay for them? Or require the rest of the American population to share some of the war burden, rather than the miltary shoulder all of it. It is reprehensible. I can't believe people are so stupid as to vote against there own interests. Hats off to the Republican machine for making average Americans think the republican party is 'their party". If it wasn't for gays, abortions or guns, half of the Republican base would disappear.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by:Vic

Well, if you're comfortable screwing over your children and the future of this country with short-term thinking and the Republican's habitual deficit spending, who am I to question it, eh?

I bought into the Republicans "fiscal responsibilty, low taxes, balanced budget" rhetoric several years ago, and believed it. what a bunch of BS. I wil l never vote republican again. Start TWO major military conflicts and not pay for them? Or require the rest of the American population to share some of the war burden, rather than the miltary shoulder all of it. It is reprehensible. I can't believe people are so stupid as to vote against there own interests. Hats off to the Republican machine for making average Americans think the republican party is 'their party". If it wasn't for gays, abortions or guns, half of the Republican base would disappear.

Yeah it's like they want America to fail.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I'll be very honest on this one:

I don't care even one iota how many lies a campaign tells. My sole voting criterion is how well I agree with their proposed policies. Which is why I'm going with a write-in candidate this election.

ZV

This seems contradictory because you're willing to vote for what a dishonest person is promising to do once elected.