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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Farang
I've seen a lot of news articles lately about McCain's distortions.. if this blows up into a bigger headline and gains some traction it could cause real trouble for him and his "Straight Talk" brand.

Unfortunately, that probably isn't going to happen.

It seems that there are enough Americans who believe campaign ads, regardless of how dishonest they are, that a highly-dishonest negative campaign can be extremely effective.

What it comes down to is that the lowest common denominator in America is SO low that a lie created from whole cloth would probably have a devastating effect on the target, regardless of how clearly the MSM documented the dishonesty.

For example, if McCain were to create an ad stating that Obama raped and impregnated one of his 16-year-old volunteer campaign workers, and further stated that the story was completely suppressed by Obama's powerful friends in high places, I'll bet that ad would win McCain the election. It wouldn't matter if headlines in all the major newspapers screamed that the ad was a complete fabrication. The MSM has lost so much credibility for many Americans that major stories reporting gross dishonesty would have the perverse effect of confirming the validity of the lies ("Well, those newspapers are in Obama's pocket; of course they're going to say the ads are a lie. Sounds like Obama is desperate.")

Sadly, this is what polictics in America has come to.
 

Drakkon

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
8,401
1
0
I'm still voting republican at this stage just NOT for mccain - his tone and demeanor at this point of the campaign is pathetic. There are tons of half truths and misinterpretations coming out of his camp that have played onto the fears of Americans. His commercials are overwhelmingly negative while Obama has taken the high road trying to promote his programs - something I've still yet to see from many of mccains ads. His interviews mostly go along the lines of saying something bad about obamas plan instead of giving a true answer on his own merits. Them Mccain tries to play it off recently saying 'if only we had those town hall debates' like this is obamas fault that he brought this on himself. Its disgusting tactics and the act of a politician and not a leader.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
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.

I'm sorry TLC but you are totally wrong. If you look at the history of American elections you will see that character assassination works really really really well. Waaaaayyyy better than self promotion or positive rhetoric.

Why do you think every campaign ever makes huge amounts of negative ads when things are close or they are losing? These people dedicate their lives to figuring out how to win elections, and they've found out that smearing the other guy is what works. And they're right. Remember way out when McCain just got the nomination and he was close or leading in the polls? He talked about wanting to have a campaign of 'ideas', touring the country and talking to the people. When Obama refused and McCain started losing, what happened? McCain went into crazy lie and smear mode. The entire RNC was basically a smear-fest on Obama. You know what? It worked pretty well.

You can think that people shouldn't smear McCain out of principle, but to say that smearing McCain will lose Obama the election is not supported by the historical record.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
1.) Lipstick on a pig referring to Palin
2.) Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners (perhaps the worst offense I've seen thus far)
3.) Palin is against earmarks (Alaska is the #1 state in terms of earmark ratio)
4.) Palin against the bridge to nowhere (outright lie, she was for it)
5.) Going on national television and saying the worst thing about campaigns is the negativity

404 lies not found
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

1.) Lipstick on a pig referring to Palin
2.) Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners (perhaps the worst offense I've seen thus far)
3.) Palin is against earmarks (Alaska is the #1 state in terms of earmark ratio)
4.) Palin against the bridge to nowhere (outright lie, she was for it)
5.) Going on national television and saying the worst thing about campaigns is the negativity

404 lies not found

Keep looking. You'll find plenty of them in your mirror. :roll:

Q: McCain says Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. When did Obama say that?

A: NEVER.

Q: When was it that Palin last said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to that bridge to nowhere?

A: NEVER.

Q: McCain says Obama supported an Illinois state bill to provide "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners that would teach them about sex before they learned to read. When did Obama say that?

A: NEVER.

September 9, 2008, 7:55 pm
McCain Hits Obama on Sex-Ed Law

Nick Timiraos
reports on the presidential race[/i].

John McCain went up with a hard hitting ad Tuesday, ostensibly attacking Barack Obama on education policy on the same day the Illinois senator unveiled initiatives on education.

But the ad goes straight for voters? attention with a different appeal: sex.

The ad bashes Obama for an Illinois state senate bill he supported that allowed for ?age-appropriate? sex education for K-12 instruction. The ad said that measure represents Obama?s only accomplishment on education.

The McCain ad characterizes Obama as someone who supported ?comprehensive sex education? for kindergartners. The voiceover in the ad incredulously asks: ?Learning about sex before learning to read??

The Obama campaign cried foul, calling the ad ?shameful and downright perverse? and pointing to the bill?s intent to protect young children from sexual predators ? not teach them about the birds and the bees. ?Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn?t define what honor was. Now we know why,? said spokesman Bill Burton.

The attacks are new in this election, but Obama has faced them before, in his 2004 Senate campaign. Obama defended the bill as a father of two young daughters who wanted to make sure his children knew about ?the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,? he said in a debate. ?And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse.?

Later in the campaign, Obama told voters, ?Nobody?s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it.?
.
.
(continues)

McCain Claims Palin Took No Earmarks as Alaska Governor.

BARBARA WALTERS: What is she going to reform, specifically?

JOHN MCCAIN: Well, first of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed half a billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.

WALTERS: She also took some earmarks

JOY BEHAR: A lot.

MCCAIN: No, not as governor, she didn't. She vetoed - Look, well, the fact is she's a reform governor.

Palin requests record per capita earmarks

Palin's earmark requests: more per person than any other state

By Hal Bernton and David Heath
Seattle Times staff reporters

GOP vice presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin touts her record as a reformer who worked to end the "abuses of earmark spending in Congress." But Palin has embraced earmarks from early on in her career as a mayor of Wasilla to the governor's mansion in Juneau. Just this year she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million ? more, per person, than any other state.

ANCHORAGE ? As she introduced herself to the nation Friday as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin touted her record as a reformer who worked to end the "abuses of earmark spending in Congress."

But earmarks have never been a dirty word in Alaska, a huge state dotted with small communities that have enormous dollar needs for sewers, roads and other projects.

Instead, earmarks ? pet projects that members of Congress fund but that no federal agency has requested ? have become a mainstay of political life here, and one that Palin embraced from early on in her career as a mayor of Wasilla to the governor's mansion in Juneau.

Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million ? more, per person, than any other state.

Her presidential running mate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., does not sponsor earmarks, calling the practice of doling out favors, often with scant oversight, "disgraceful."
.
.
(continues)

So John McCain, who squealed like a stuck pig over Obama's casual use of the expression, "lipstick on a pig," and who called Hillary Clinton's health care proposals, "lipstick on a pig," has chosen a running mate whose actions as Governor were, in his own words, "disgraceful." :shocked:

Want more? Google is your friend, but not theirs. McCain AND Palin's McShame is that they really are more of McSame.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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.
-snip-

YOU are claiming to be a Republican?

I think this might be a *test* to see if repubs/conservatives can even detect a lie, do I win?

Cuz you aint no Republican.

Fern
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Fern
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.
-snip-

YOU[/i are claiming to be a Republican?

I thik this might be a *test* to see if repubs/conservatives can even detect a lie, do I win?

Cuz you aint no Republican.

Fern

Careful Fern, I heard Hugh Hewitt on the radio the other day saying much the same thing..to his loyal callers.

You might lose a few fans if you keep this up! :p

I JEST I JEST!!
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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.
-snip-

Nope, one cannot definitively say whether it's a lie or the truth.

Definitionally, just can't be done.

It all turns on Obama's intent, we have no way of knowing what that might be, or I should say no ability to prove it.

Personally, my blief is that Obama did NOT intend that meaning. But I also believed people like that guy who said "macaca" too.

Instead, I think Obama demonstrated a surprising lack of P.C. awareness and common sense in making that statement. Immediately upon hearing Obama say that, most knew this McCain campaign claim would follow. (McCain is subject to this stuff too: "100 yrs in Iraq" and joke about $5 million to be rich)

Edit: Oops, left out the "not" word in the above sentence, seriously altering my intention.

Fern
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234

What a dishonest response.

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.
-snip-

Nope, one cannot definitively say whether it's a lie or the truth.

Definitionally, just can't be done.

It all turns on Obama's intent, we have no way of knowing what that might be, or I should say no ability to prove it.

Personally, my blief is that Obama did intend that meaning. But I also believed people like that guy who said "macaca" too.

Sheesh! Personally, My belief is that you're the not most malicious right wing nutcase on the forums, but damn, boy, do your own homework before you embarrass yourself further. :roll:

Obama's entire statement in context:

OBAMA: Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. Except... and so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush -- Except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington."

That's not change. That's just calling some... the same thing, something different. But you know, you can... you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.

Where's the reference to Palin? Where's the reference to ANYTHING other than the Bushwhackos' policies and Karl Rove's politics of slime, smear and lies?

While you're at it, can you explain what this guy meant when he referred to putting lipstick on a pig? :Q

Then, can you explain what this guy meant when he used the same expression? :shocked:

Do you only open your mouth to change feet? :laugh: :cookie:

---

Edited to correct the sentence per Fern's reminder. Thx. :)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
1.) Lipstick on a pig referring to Palin
2.) Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners (perhaps the worst offense I've seen thus far)
3.) Palin is against earmarks (Alaska is the #1 state in terms of earmark ratio)
4.) Palin against the bridge to nowhere (outright lie, she was for it)
5.) Going on national television and saying the worst thing about campaigns is the negativity

404 lies not found

This one belongs in the dictionary under JS80 post: wrong, clueless, and without even a word pretending to make the case for his assertion.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Sheesh! Personally, My belief is that you're the most malicious right wing nutcase on the forums, but damn, boy, do your own homework before you embarrass yourself further. :roll:

No need to over re-act.

My post above had a typo, now corrected.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
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.
-snip-

Nope, one cannot definitively say whether it's a lie or the truth.

Definitionally, just can't be done.

It all turns on Obama's intent, we have no way of knowing what that might be, or I should say no ability to prove it.

Personally, my blief is that Obama did NOT intend that meaning. But I also believed people like that guy who said "macaca" too.

Instead, I think Obama demonstrated a surprising lack of P.C. awareness and common sense in making that statement. Immediately upon hearing Obama say that, most knew this McCain campaign claim would follow. (McCain is subject to this stuff too: "100 yrs in Iraq" and joke about $5 million to be rich)

Edit: Oops, left out the "not" word in the above sentence, seriously altering my intention.

Fern

I'm sorry you are so cognitivally challenged.

Get the full context of Obama's remark. You can see it has *nothing* to do with calling Palin a pig.

That's a fact. You can no more argue otherwise than you can say I just claimed Palin shot JFK in this post.

But after writing this I see Harvey already did your homework for you. Get a clue Fern.

If you can't admit your error here, then I'm seeing no choice but to shift you in to the column of 'cult members'.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Sheesh! Personally, My belief is that you're the most malicious right wing nutcase on the forums, but damn, boy, do your own homework before you embarrass yourself further. :roll:

No need to over re-act.

My post above had a typo, now corrected.

Fern

Your post above has a fundamental comprehension error, not corrected.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
What a dishonest response.
This will be fun....I don't think you understand the concept of context.

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.
The media more than the McCain campaign took the lipstick comment out of context, and McCain played it for all its political worth...kind of like what happened to Bill Clinton in South Carolina when he mentioned that even Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, and what happened when Hillary Clinton evoked RFK's assasination as justification for her staying in the race...Obama made a gaffe that one could easily project as sexist, the media focused on it, and McCain exploited it...that is not a lie.

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.
No what we have are several candidates who exagerrate with percentages...again, not a lie.

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.
Translation...if these alleged controversies and lies had any merit, the media would ensure they stick...what you call lies ARE open to debate, and hence they are not sticking politically.

Your response to this lie is that the Democrats did not exploit it well. So you have four lies now.
Yes I am conceding the bridge story.

Again, you need to distinguish between overt lying and context...and as I said previously, politics are a game of perception, not tallying a score card of truths.

And quite honestly, let's assume you are correct and McCain is simply lying his way to the White House...shame on Obama, the media, the American people and our entire society for not challenging said lies with more vigor.

But to challenge a lie, it has to be a lie...and Obama knows that it is foolish to go on the offensive over nuances...remember Kerry and his intricate explanations...there you go.

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.
You are not entitled to give us assignments professor...I am questioning the merits of your position...the onus is on YOU to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these are lies.

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?
No, the cynic is the most cherished member of our political system...I know that both Republicans and Democrats are full of sh!t...despite the lies and perceptions game, at the end of the day what I care about is electing a President who can inspire the nation...a President cannot set economic policy or create national health care or solve the mortgage problem...Presidents set the tone for the nation through their leadership qualities, and what I care about is which candidate can stand up to controversy, function under pressure, deploy a sound strategy and communicate effectively.

Right now, Obama is faltering under pressure...that is what I care about, because Bush faltered under pressure.



 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Listen Starbuck, Fern, and the other conservative posters on here know full well their Republican party is full of shit in what they say. They know that, they are too fucking smart not to know that. But they don't care, for whatever reasons. So it's useless to debate them because, quite frankly, they don't care that the people they put into office tell lies and disgrace themselves to get there.

Some people are just wired differently, I don't understand their behavior but I've accepted that some people are just different than I am and were raised with a different set of values. Apparently they were raised to think it's ok to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

I'm sorry you are so cognitivally challenged.

Get the full context of Obama's remark. You can see it has *nothing* to do with calling Palin a pig.

That's a fact. You can no more argue otherwise than you can say I just claimed Palin shot JFK in this post.

But after writing this I see Harvey already did your homework for you. Get a clue Fern.

If you can't admit your error here, then I'm seeing no choice but to shift you in to the column of 'cult members'.

I don't think so.

But I do know who the "cult members" are.

None of what has been posted by you or Harvey really addresses the matter, IMO.

It's really quite simple, which is why the thought struck so many, and the claim resonates.

When a woman come along and makes a highly recognizable (and self-defining) line about the diffrence between herself and a pitbull is the lipstick she wears, then you almost immediate follow that up with your own remark about putting lipstick on a pig the conection is apparent. Many are going to assume you were intending (1) the slight (McCain or whomever's ad), or (2) you were trying to steal her thunder/line with some verbal kung fu. I personally believe it's the latter; but immediately knew many would think the former.

But it's all about *intent* & *implication", two words/concepts you and Harvey refuse to consider in this. Curious, because I thought Dems enjoyed "nuance" too.

Fern
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Like I just said, don't even bother with Fern. He KNOWS the bullshit he's spreading and he doesn't care. He knows the Republicans are full of shit with phony outrage but he plays along with this anyways just for shits and giggles. He doesn't seriously believe what he types and he knows it.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Listen Starbuck, Fern, and the other conservative posters on here know full well their Republican party is full of shit in what they say. They know that, they are too fucking smart not to know that. But they don't care, for whatever reasons. So it's useless to debate them because, quite frankly, they don't care that the people they put into office tell lies and disgrace themselves to get there.

Some people are just wired differently, I don't understand their behavior but I've accepted that some people are just different than I am and were raised with a different set of values. Apparently they were raised to think it's ok to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top.

I hope your panties were in just as big of a wad when the Dems distorted McCain's "100 yrs in Iraq" comment, which by the way factcheck.org disagreed with.

Or, we were hearing about Palin's baby really being her daughters.

Or when MCcain was accused of "not caring about military vets" because he opposed the college tution giveaway not too long ago.

I could go on....

Get over it, it's the same crap every election cycle. I've a feeling that you're rather new to all this, so be warned it's likely to get much worse when the 527's are cranked up and the state/local election advertising kicks in high gear. The state level stuff is far far worse. Depending upon you live, you'll likely see more of that "McCain has black babies" type stuff. It'll be both sides too.

Fern
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Fern

Edit: Oops, left out the "not" word in the above sentence, seriously altering my intention.Fern

OOPS! :eek: Edited out the word "not" in my post, as well:

... you're NOT the most malicious right wing nutcase... [/b].

Sorry, but I can only reply to what you posted, and everything you said in that post is total bullshit. You still have to do your homework.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Listen Starbuck, Fern, and the other conservative posters on here know full well their Republican party is full of shit in what they say. They know that, they are too fucking smart not to know that. But they don't care, for whatever reasons. So it's useless to debate them because, quite frankly, they don't care that the people they put into office tell lies and disgrace themselves to get there.

Some people are just wired differently, I don't understand their behavior but I've accepted that some people are just different than I am and were raised with a different set of values. Apparently they were raised to think it's ok to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top.

I hope your panties were in just as big of a wad when the Dems distorted McCain's "100 yrs in Iraq" comment, which by the way factcheck.org disagreed with.

There may have been some gray areas, but there was enough to what he said that using his comment to criticize him was pretty fair.

Or, we were hearing about Palin's baby really being her daughters.

Sorry, you are wrong to pretend that this was a broad attack by the left - we're talking about things *McCain and Palin* said, while you are taking a comment where Barack said the families are off-limits, and the mainstream media did not report this story, and the entire source for it was speculation not even by a reporter but by one private citizen making a post on one blog, and others discussing the speculation - and oh by the way, the speculation triggered in part by her daughter looking pregnant, which was then admitted.

Or when MCcain was accused of "not caring about military vets" because he opposed the college tution giveaway not too long ago.

There's a hell of a lot more to McCain voting veteran benefits than that one - there's a long list. S you're misrepresenting the issue.

I could go on....

Then do so because you havent' started yet.


 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Harvey
Q: When was it that Palin last said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to that bridge to nowhere?

A: NEVER.

She actually did eventually take a position against it. Her lie is in simply saying she was against it as if she had never been for it.

it's clearly not a lie, I mean she "said" those words just by saying that she said them :p

Huh? She portrayed herself in her speech as someone who had opposed the bridge to nowhere from the beginning, when in fact she was for it at first - that's a lie IMO.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Harvey
Q: When was it that Palin last said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to that bridge to nowhere?

A: NEVER.

She actually did eventually take a position against it. Her lie is in simply saying she was against it as if she had never been for it.

it's clearly not a lie, I mean she "said" those words just by saying that she said them :p

Huh? She portrayed herself in her speech as someone who had opposed the bridge to nowhere from the beginning, when in fact she was for it at first - that's a lie IMO.

in describing her position, she said the words -- "Thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere." thus, it's not technically a lie to say that she never spoke those words ;) the timing is just a little "misrepresented."