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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,803
126
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 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

Agreed. He has obviously not fallen for the Lies. Republican? Come on! :roll:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
What a dishonest response.
This will be fun....

No, it won't. I enjoy cleaning up after the Republicans' absurd falsehoods less than after a dog in the back yard, and view them as pretty similar actitivies.

I don't think you understand the concept of context.

That's a reflection of your lack of understanding.

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.

Wrong in several ways. One of those is that McCain stated this as true, and that's his fault regardless of whether the media said something wrong.

Another is that the other examples you give at least has some nugget of truth to them - they were at least debatable - while this one is black and white wrong.

It's like claiming you called Obama the n-word in your post. A black and white lie.

You are the one who does not understand context, when you see the context of his remark in Harvey's quoting, having NOTHING to do with Palin, and you say otherwise.

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.

You edited out too much - what percentages - but just your comment suggests you are spinning here, claiming it's just 'exaggerating with percentages'.

Well, then, I guess you don't mind claims that 98% of McCain supporters say they're pro-Al Queda and support the 9/11 attacks. Just exaggerating percentages.

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.

No, you can't replace the fact of a lie by saying that if the media don't make it 'stick' as a big issue, then it's not a lie. It's still a lie. And not 'open to debate'.

There are all kinds of examples of clear lies that don't 'stick' as big media stories, and you're wrong to say that the measure of whether something is a lie is its political impact.

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.

We're not discussing the political impact of the lies, we're discussing whether the McCain campaign told lies or not, and I showed they did.

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.

Let's assume that, since it's true.

Now we can agree, shame on all the above for not challenging the lies more.

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.

The topic was whether they're lying, and I showed they are.

I'm not in agreement with or much interested in your 'political' spin on the issue of 'big lies' and 'little lies' on these - I'd say they're 'big lies', though.

One nominee accusing the other of calling his female running mate a pig and getting days as one of the biggest news stories, is big enough to address.

But I think pretty much any lie by a nominees is not 'small'.

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.

He did.

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

Oh, really?

I don't see Obama faltering under pressure at all. He's going strong.

The one faltering under presure is McCain. Facing a failing campaign, did he choose a responsible VP or one that's terrible for the nation but had the chance to get a lot of attention and help him politically? He caved in his obligation to the nation to try for the political benefit. Faced with a failing campaign after he promised not to run a negative campaign, under pressure did he stick to his word? No, he let the campaign become a sleazy attack campaign of lies.

He caved under pressure in not standing up against the sleazy 2000 campaign against him, in his position against 'agents of intolerance' once he needed their votes, and on more.

I see McCain cave under pressure constantly on political issues.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
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."

Sorry, but as with Bill Clinton's 'sexual relations', a lie is broader than the most literal words involved, it involves an intent to deceive.

In her speech, she gave the impression that she had never supported the bridge and had opposed it all along, and that's a lie - she supported it at first.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
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

Or like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

One Lie was a personal matter... the other cost 500 billion dollars and many many lives.

Gain some perspective man!
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: retrospooty
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

Or like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

One Lie was a personal matter... the other cost 500 billion dollars and many many lives.

Gain some perspective man!

Since republicans are all about "family values", obviously one man cheating on his wife is more important than spending a half trillion dollars and thousands of Americans losing their lives. :roll:
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
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

See answers 1-5 above and pull your head out of your rear. =)
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
I can honestly say this year's campaign is outperforming Bush in '04 as far as the lying goes. I don't recall having this much outrage over the lies back then though. It occurred to me today why that is, McCain is a terrible liar. He doesn't even try, he just straight lies and repeats bold blatant lies.

Bush, Cheney, Rove....professional liars. If someone is going to lie to me and there is nothing I can do about it, at least try like they did. McCain doesn't even bother, he just spews unfiltered nonsense and has absolutely no care for any backlash from what he says.

This is the same subject matter as your previous thread. Threads are combined to reduce redundancy.

PC Surgeon
AnandTech P&N Moderator
 

hellod9

Senior member
Sep 16, 2007
249
0
0
But wait. Lying is 'cool.' If you're McCain, its called being a "Maverick." Plus, he's a true American Hero.

Here's how the Republicans want you to compare the candidates:

Obama: Out of touch 'elitist'
Pailin: Hockey mom you can identify with.

That is the logic they want voters to use. They don't even want you comparing McCain to Obama. They don't want you comparing issues.

This is far more serious, in my opinion, than mere lies. It is a purposeful perversion of the Democratic Ideal.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: Fern
Did you forget about your other THREAD, also started today, on this same subject?

Fern

did you forget what thread you are in? You posted a link back to this same thread.

So you f'ed up while trying to accuse OneOfTheseDays of f'ing up.

Typical republican... Now I am just waiting to here you spin it to make this all OneOfTheseDays fault. =)
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Fern
Did you forget about your other THREAD, also started today, on this same subject?

Fern

did you forget what thread you are in? You posted a link back to this same thread.

So you f'ed up while trying to accuse OneOfTheseDays of f'ing up.

Typical republican... Now I am just waiting to here you spin it to make this all OneOfTheseDays fault. =)

the two threads were merged.

when fern replied, there were two different threads.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Fern
Did you forget about your other THREAD, also started today, on this same subject?

Fern

did you forget what thread you are in? You posted a link back to this same thread.

So you f'ed up while trying to accuse OneOfTheseDays of f'ing up.

Typical republican... Now I am just waiting to here you spin it to make this all OneOfTheseDays fault. =)

the two threads were merged.

when fern replied, there were two different threads.

Then its a vast right wing conspiracy!!! ;)
 

Grunt03

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2000
3,131
0
0
It's been a very long time since the Republicans have had a good choice to vote for, but after GWB a retard would seem better qualified.........
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
No, it won't. I enjoy cleaning up after the Republicans' absurd falsehoods less than after a dog in the back yard, and view them as pretty similar actitivies.
Do you also clean up after the absurd falsehoods of Democrats...if not, there really isn't much left to discuss, as there is a partisan slant to your perception of truth.

I don't see Obama faltering under pressure at all. He's going strong.
The polls would suggest otherwise...there is no reasonable explanation why this election should be close...Americans are weary of the Bush Administration, McCain's peak was 8 years ago, and Palin has yet to demonstrate the credentials for her appointed slate as McCain's running mate...and yet Obama is off message, on the defensive and slipping in the polls.

I think Obama's message of change and hope resonates...but his platform is that of just another liberal Senator, and well articulated speeches can only get you so far.
 

Thegonagle

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2000
9,773
0
71
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Like I said, this thread is not about Democrats. I'm speaking to you Republicans.

You rationalize the lies as the ends justifying the means. Unfortunately when you choose the dark path you often stay on that path. Bush came into the White House as a fresh-faced outsider who was going to reform our country. We all saw what happened.

At what point do you stop accepting things the way they are and demand more from your public leaders?

Oh, Bush kept his promise, he sure did. He reformed the USA from "example for us all" right into status as World's #1 pariah.

And the formerly sharp, intuitive, do-what's right "maverick" McCain now represents nothing more than "more of the same."

Yech! :frown:
 

AllWhacked

Senior member
Nov 1, 2006
236
0
0
The lies don't actually bother me since I wasn't going to vote for BHO anyway. But I think the question you should be asking is what kind of candidate do Republicans (and most Americans) want to vote for? The answer is that they want a president with some balls. Look at California, they elected the Terminator and the state is mostly Democrat. But the perception that he's tough got him elected. The same thing with Reagan and the same thing with Bush 04 got those seemingly incompetent guys elected. The Dems have so far failed to project strength and genuine pride in America. They tried it with Kerry, but they forgot to vet this guy properly and I guess didn't see his testimony at the Winter Soldier's conference as a liability. Add the fact that they touted his military record so much made it a double whammy once the 527 ads got him.

Anyway, I would vote for the Democrat presidents of the past like FDR, JFK, and Truman. Heck, if you listen to Sarah Palin's acceptance speech she mentions Truman and that's not to pander to Democrats like the mention of Hillary and Ferraro were. Truman and the men of those days were men worth voting for. Reagan said it best when he said that it wasn't he who left the Democrat party, it was the party that left him.

Find me an FDR instead of a Jimmy Carter and I'll vote Democrat. Until them, keep your whining to yourselves.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
That's your problem. You're not smart enough to vote on policies or issues. Your part of the collective stupid, simple, small minded Americans that vote on personality. You are what's wrong with our political system today. People who aren't smart enough to do research on their own and investigate what the candidates are really about. People like you are turning this into American Idol.

We lose as a nation when people like you fail to do their part in the elective process.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: AllWhacked
The lies don't actually bother me since I wasn't going to vote for BHO anyway. But I think the question you should be asking is what kind of candidate do Republicans (and most Americans) want to vote for? The answer is that they want a president with some balls. Look at California, they elected the Terminator and the state is mostly Democrat. But the perception that he's tough got him elected. The same thing with Reagan and the same thing with Bush 04 got those seemingly incompetent guys elected. The Dems have so far failed to project strength and genuine pride in America. They tried it with Kerry, but they forgot to vet this guy properly and I guess didn't see his testimony at the Winter Soldier's conference as a liability. Add the fact that they touted his military record so much made it a double whammy once the 527 ads got him.

Anyway, I would vote for the Democrat presidents of the past like FDR, JFK, and Truman. Heck, if you listen to Sarah Palin's acceptance speech she mentions Truman and that's not to pander to Democrats like the mention of Hillary and Ferraro were. Truman and the men of those days were men worth voting for. Reagan said it best when he said that it wasn't he who left the Democrat party, it was the party that left him.

Find me an FDR instead of a Jimmy Carter and I'll vote Democrat. Until them, keep your whining to yourselves.

I could talk about how you're wrong on the history of the older democrats, but won't bother. Let's just say JFK was the most anti-war democrat of the last century IMO.

Instead, I'm going to say two things. One, we don't need a president with the kind of balls George Bush has, or John McCain. We don't need out military overused.

Second, as a politically engaged native Californian, you don't understand, IMO, at all why Schwarzeneggar was elected.

The whole scheme to recall the current governor that paved the way for a special election for Arnold was the scheme of a few connected Republicans, who perversely used the *Republican*-linked scandal of Enron, which the governor was doing the right thing on by blocking a corrupt settlement that let them off the hook, to get angry voters blaming him and voting for Arnold, who was secretly closely linked to Enron, one of a handful of Republican leaders who was invited to and attended a secret strategy session with them.

The big factor for Arnold was not 'tough', but a combination of the dynamics of the election, which split the vote between 135 candidates instead of having primaries, and his unique public image as a movie star - remember, Ronald Reagan was, too, and he was also Governor of California, and the way the right mostly united behind Arnold (there was one 'real conservative', McClintok who split off a small number of votes), while Democrats did not put up anyone with the public image of Arnold.

It was basically voter idiocy and ignorance IMO. 'Tough'? The voters weren't looking for Arnold to conquer Nevada.

They got what they deserved, a hypocrite who ran on promises of being extremely 'clean' of any money and above politics, who had plenty of his own money and did not need any of those dirty contributions his predecessor accepted - and then went on to take more donations from all kinds of industries than his predecessor had.
 

AllWhacked

Senior member
Nov 1, 2006
236
0
0
Thanks for your broad over-generalization and your insults. That's another reason why I don't vote for elitist candidates because they and those who support them tend to be rude, condescending and arrogant. I know it does not compute in your mindset, but it is that level of overt condescension that cost Kerry the 04 election and may also end up costing BHO to lose as well.

But I do agree that this election is turning into another American Idol. BHO is an empty shell that has a record of voting strictly the Democrat party line--never deviating and therefore showing no proven record for change. He has never reached across party lines to achieve anything. His one accomplishment of bi-partisanship legislation was an amendment to an existing bill created by a Republican and another Democrat senator that was supported universally by both Republicans and Democrats--therefore it was not something seemingly remarkable like Obama makes it out to be.

Obama likes to make grandiose claims of hope and change, but he does not have a history of bucking his own party, like McCain has with regards to reform. Obama only stopped requesting earmarks this year when he started campaigning. Beforehand, he asked for around $1 billion in earmarks. Compare that to John McCain whose been in the Senate for 28 years and has not once asked for a single earmark. Obama has only been in the senate for less than 3 years and spent the last 18 months campaigning. He likes to tout his "presidential" experience as a community organizer and that he knows how to run a good campaign as proof we should trust this guy with the presidency. By that same logic, Hitler was also a community organizer and Karl Rove got an idiot like Bush elected twice, does that make those two guys fit to be president? At least FDR spent time as a governor.

People criticize McCain for making a cynical choice of choosing Palin, because Obama picked some Democrat senator whose been in the senate longer than McCain has and therefore must be just as experienced as McCain whereas McCain picked a governor with about the same experience as Obama, but somehow the other side doesn't see her experience as relevent, totally ignoring the fact that Obama has not done squat. If Obama ran a business, even a small business I would give him a lot more credit. At least I know he can manage something. Running a campaign just means that David Axelrod is a good campaign manager, it does not mean Obama is.

Biden may be a nice guy, but he's says some idiotic things that reflect poorly on Obama's decision making skills. Disregarding his gaffe about Indians and slaves, I dislike the pick of Biden more than I dislike the pick of Palin, on the grounds that Biden represents more of the corruption in Washington that "Hope" and "Change" Obama was promising to rid us of. But because Obama was getting hammered on the experience angle, he did the pragmatic thing (already breaking his promise for change) and picked 'talking' Joe Biden--a guy who plagiarized a speech from a British politician, because Biden's own life story wasn't interesting enough [Source].

People say McCain lies, but Biden stole someone else's life and tried to pass it off as his own in order to win an election. He did not even both to change the life story events to fit his own, he copied the British politicians background exactly--what does that say about character. To the contrary, McCain said he'd rather lose an election than let his country lose a war. That shows a level of selflessness, integrity and love of country I want the president to possess--which is something I find lacking in both Joe Biden and Barak Obama (I'm not saving they don't have it, but they aren't showing it, which is important). Biden has also shown signs of extremely poor judgment, luckily he's never administered anything. After 9/11 he suggested to aids that in order to improve the US image in the Arab world, we should send a $200 million dollar check to Iran, no strings attached. [Source] I find that incredulous that the Democrats so called terrorism/foreign policy expert would suggest a stupid thing like that. Also not mentioned in that article, is the fact that Iranians are Persians, whereas the terrorist in Al-Qaeda are mostly Arab based. Added to the fact that Arabs and Persians hate each other, I don't think sending Iran money would suddenly endear us to the Arab world and do anything more than waste tax payers money.

In conclusion, if anyone is the idol, it's Obama. This cult of personality around the Democrat's "Dear Leader" is a big turn off for me. It's cynical for me to say this but if Obama was not black, I don't think he would have gotten as much traction as he has gotten (especially on a vague platform of hope and change), just as Palin would not have been chosen as VP if she was not a women. Bottom line, Obama makes great speeches, likes to parade around Europe like he's already the president, but on substance and merit I find nothing to substantiate why I should vote for this guy. I'm not even a religious guy and the Democrat party is expecting me to take a leap of faith and "Hope" that this guy is going to bring about change, when he has no record of that and seemingly no way nor past intention of achieving that. Hell, this guy did not even win the majority of the Democrat primary votes--that was Hillary and she got screwed by her own party and the media. And to top it off, Obama rejected her and picks a guy whose been rejected twice by his own party when running for president. If the Democrats picked someone more centrist instead of a left-wing extremist, I would vote Democrat. Heck, I even voted for Gore 2000 because I wanted more of the same of Clinton and was also disgusted by how McCain got screwed over by GW and the smear campaign against him.

As a final note, I agree that we lose as a nation when the electorate does not do its homework. I've done my homework and I still don't like Obama. Energy independence is a must, both candidates support it, but Obama has no solution for what to do in the interim. With higher fuel costs, leads to higher food costs, lost jobs in industries reliant on cheap fuel (eg. aviation, transportation, etc), higher heating/electricity and less cash overall. At least with McCain, domestic drilling will at least keep some of the $700 billion we send overseas to be spent at home and out of the hands of unfriendly regimes. Plus, unlike Palin, he is against drilling in ANWR, which is a sentiment I support. Another thing, I used to like Clinton, but I've come to the sentiment that his pussification might have caused 9/11. And I don't mean he could have gotten Bin Laden but didn't crap. As read here, the cruise missile strike into Afghanistan caused the Taliban to get closer to Bin Laden and led to the two to actively work towards what we all know eventually happened. I'm not going to blame Clinton or Bush, but I will say that now in this post 9/11 world, I want a president who'll follow up on the job to destroy Al-Qaeda or diminish it enough that it could never rise again. While in theory, we all want our elected officials to be pillars of virtue, nice and principled as Jimmy Carter, as what had happened during his administration showed, the world does not play nice and we need a president who has the balls to play by those same rulesl. When I hear Obama whine about the mean McCain campaign, I think if this guy can't take it then imagine to his surprise when he meets Putin or opens his mouth slacked jawed, when the world fails to change its opinion of the United States. They are still going to see the US as a mean and selfish country and unless Obama plans to do a complete 180 degrees in foreign policy (eg. abandon Isreal, go soft on Iran) I doubt that is going to happen. Remember, people hated America well before GWB came to office. World opinion is still going to be the same whether a Republican or Democrat is in the white house.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
The funniest current neo-con Republican lie to me to this day is this:
Why do the neocons feel it's ok to start wars, yet don't want to raise taxes to pay for them? They want such a huge military but don't want to pay for it, instead they act like it's better to borrow money to fund it.