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.