Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
The "progressive" Democrat's favorite poster child, Florida Representative "Lyin'" Alan Grayson (D - Could it be anything else? :rolleyes:) has released a campaign ad that wildly distorts his opponent's words through very selective editing.

Grayson says "Taliban Dan Webster"

In the full video, however, Webster is talking to husbands at a gathering of a religious organization about biblical passages to choose when praying for loved ones. He actually says:

"Find a verse. I have a verse for my wife; I have verses for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, um, she should submit to me. That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, love your wife, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband. She can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it."

Grayson, a "progressive" loon, feels free to remove all the words before and after the phrase "she should submit to me," and represent them as Webster's ideology.

The Truth

In a statement from the campaign Monday afternoon, Webster’s wife and campaign manager derided Grayson’s ad as “shameful” and “ludicrous.”

I would say that is about par for "Lyin'" Alan Grayson.



Grayson's 'Taliban' ad backfires


By: Andy Barr
September 28, 2010 08:57 AM EDT


Rep. Alan Grayson's attempt to equate his Republican challenger with the Taliban is having a big impact — just not the one Grayson may have hoped.

In an ad, Grayson's campaign calls Republican Daniel Webster a "religious fanatic" — a charge it supports with video in which Webster seems to encourage wives to "submit" to their husbands.

But FactCheck.org says the narrative crafted by the Florida Democrat's campaign distorts what Webster was actually saying.

"Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He's using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said," the nonpartisan site, sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, wrote on its blog Monday.

"Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands," the site points out. "In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: 'Don't pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, 'She should submit to me.'"

Grayson was also reprimanded by the Orlando Sentinel, which posted a story Monday headlined "Grayson's 'Taliban Dan' Ad Takes Webster's Words Out of Context, Twists Meaning."

"By twisting Webster's words, Grayson risks eroding some of the support he may have won from independent voters," the paper concluded.

Grayson campaign manager Susannah Randolph defended the ad, issuing a statement in which she attempted to turn fire on Webster's record of social conservatism.

"Sen. Dan Webster has pushed an anti-woman agenda for 28 years in the Florida Legislature," she said. "Sen. Webster sponsored a bill to outlaw divorce, even in cases where women are in abusive relationships, he voted against a ban on insurance companies listing battery as a preexisting condition, and he would require women who are victims of rape or incest to bear their attackers' child. Women in Central Florida need to be made aware of these extreme views and that Sen. Webster will push an anti-woman agenda if he gets to Congress."

In a statement from Webster's campaign Monday,Webster's wife condemned the ad as "shameful."

"Mr. Grayson seems to have a problem telling the truth and no problem misleading the public. Dan has been an amazing husband and father, and the finest man I have ever known. Mr. Grayson should be ashamed of his nasty smears against my husband," said Sandy Webster.

The ad has created an opening for Webster's campaign, which significantly trails Grayson's in fundraising.
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,483
20,007
146
Wow!!! That's pretty bad. About as bad if not worse than Shirley Sherrod's case, I'd say.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Kickass, look at the righties on the defensive! Wow, a Dem who knows to call the children on their own game. Keep hammering them, Republicans are all about being scared and reactionary which leads to trip-ups and infighting. Keep them on the defense and they will run crying with their victim trip and make a mess on themselves since they cannot handle being called out on who they are.

Remember, these republican folks are in their own world and echo chamber, isolate them and point out the delusion, they fall apart. (or turn into reactionary fools that drives away the moderates)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,483
20,007
146
Kickass, look at the righties on the defensive! Wow, a Dem who knows to call the ratfuckers on their own game. Keep hammering them, Republicans are all about being scared. Keep them on the defense and they will run crying with their victim trip and make a mess on themselves since they cannot handle being called out.

So you support libel and slander if it supports your own cause?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
So you support libel and slander if it supports your own cause?

Why not? Repubs make shit up all day all night, hell they have talk radio and fox to "Catapult the Propaganda" and anyhow, the OP of course does not mention that Grayson's edit is valid. He agrees with the biblical part of submission to her husband but is too chickenshit to tell people to read it to their women. (well at least this one you can tell by his knowledge of good women relations is probably not a closet case hypocrite like a lot of repubs.)
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Since I live in a nearby district I've seen all of his ads. They're all terrible in that cheesy, I'm a politician now kind of way but this one I just found stupid. He doesn't need to boost his rep with the people this ad would target.

The ads for his first campaign were simple and effective, he's reaching now and it's a little off-putting. There are a lot of fundy whackos in that area and Orlando in general, no need to motivate them.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Ahh PJabber's usual partisan bullshit.

While Greysons editing and manipulating his opponents words is bad, and should not be rewarded, it is SOP for all politicians these days.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Ahh PJabber's usual partisan bullshit.

While Greysons editing and manipulating his opponents words is bad, and should not be rewarded, it is SOP for all politicians these days.

Uhhh yeah. I don't want to defend politicians and their ads, but I think this particular example is waaaay eggregious.

Looks like it backfired and will probably hurt him somewhat.

I haven't been to central FL in a long long time, but my recollection was that it was pretty conservative back then.

I imagine this is great motivation material for the religious types to get out and vote against him for this.

He compared them to the Taliban? Dumb, extremely dumb and made worse by the lying.

Fern
 
Last edited:

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Did he say McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock?

Unfortunately, freedom of speech allows for this kind of lying in political ads, since both sides are usually careful to not quite reach the level of legally actionable defamation.

It gets pretty bad here in Washington state as sides for and against an initiative or politician run slanted attack ads designed to mislead the voters.

(Note that I'm not defending this lying weasel, just saying it's one of the consequences of freedom of speech.)
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Gotta love it as PJIBBERISH proves he is still one of the lying liars spinning the truth.

Complex issues will not be solved by slogan spouting.
 

Generator

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
793
0
0
Pretty shitty move for Grayson. But I get the comparison trying to make and also just look at Webster vote. You Republican when you just say no to everything you become vulnerable to ads calling you pro rape (Al Franken), troop haters (no on appropriation bill), Mexican haters (Justice Soto, Dream Act), gay haters (DADT not repealed), job outsourcers, big oil puppet hacks (saying BP got a shake down, no on big oil being subpoenaed) and now pretty much wife beaters.

Votes matter dude, at least for these ads. As for Grayson this dude is the next Nixon. Good or bad, this guy is going to be somebody.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Grayson is a prime example of everything that is wrong with partisan politics today. He is the sole reason I am voting in the upcoming mid-terms, purely so I can vote against his douchiness.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I like it when PJABBER pretends to know what things progressive Democrats consider to be their favorites.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
How is this not libel? It is a totally fallacious representation of what he said.

I am so tired of these 30 second ads. It's election time in NY. I fvcking HATE them. They're all the same. Start with 15 seconds of discolored (generally black and white or at least "tinted") pictures of the bad guy and rant about some sh*t he did, how he's a political insider and raised taxes, etc. then cut to 15 seconds of the guy guy in color, smiling talking with citizens. It's so transparent it's sick. But it obviously works.

Some of the responses in this thread are "funny". So much hate for pjabber you can't even agree with him when he links something as black and white as this.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,418
6,533
136
Why not? Repubs make shit up all day all night, hell they have talk radio and fox to "Catapult the Propaganda" and anyhow, the OP of course does not mention that Grayson's edit is valid. He agrees with the biblical part of submission to her husband but is too chickenshit to tell people to read it to their women. (well at least this one you can tell by his knowledge of good women relations is probably not a closet case hypocrite like a lot of repubs.)

So your ethical standards are based on the worst that others have done? Good luck with that.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Some of the responses in this thread are "funny". So much hate for pjabber you can't even agree with him when he links something as black and white as this.

Greyson doesn't deserve a pass, but the act that only Democrats are guilty of distorting the truth in political ads should net PJabber all the hate he deserves.
He is a transparent partisan hack, and nothing more.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Greyson doesn't deserve a pass, but the act that only Democrats are guilty of distorting the truth in political ads should net PJabber all the hate he deserves.
He is a transparent partisan hack, and nothing more.

Good to see even a slight criticism of Grayson's lying, but if you are truly concerned about others lying, you can always make a thread to that effect. I haven't seen one, but I am only intermittently on this forum.

Partisanship is an unusual claim to make against me. I am definitely opinionated, but most of my comments are reasoned critiques of both the abuse of power and the hubris manifested by those in power and their enablers. I am definitely opposed to governmental corruption, the encroachment of governmental overstepping and fiscal irresponsibility, and I am definitely against totalitarianism in its various forms.

Do you feel those are partisan issues? Maybe, if you are a supporter of big government and excuse such abuses as necessary or inevitable, particularly when they are the damnable actions of people and groups you support.

Perhaps you can accept that I am particularly issue focused and not necessarily in the camp of Republicans even as I abhor the corruption of the Democrats in power?

"And nothing more?" I posit that my posts are singularly referenced, inevitably quote learned sources, are backed by statistical and expert witness and are almost the only ones to do so in most threads. You would do well to read them and follow the referenced links, you would learn much if you were actually open to being informed rather than indoctrinated.

For example, in this thread all we have are expressions of personal animosity and personal opinion, with the singular exception of the OP, where I reference both the source information, the countering response and offer a personal commentary.

I invite you, and curious others to explore my commentary and extensive references in the "A Muslim's perspective" thread, for example. I have an opinion, else I would not bother participating, but, as opposed to the OP in that thread and hundreds of other responses, I take pains to refer to many expert sources, pose illuminating questions and do so with great politeness.

I take pains to lay out my reasoning and why I come to the conclusions that I do. But, you know what? My factual information is seldom challenged here even as people such as you castigate the opinion that springs from such information. Perhaps that speaks much more to a lack of intellectual rigor on your part than any partisanship on my part.

I believe you and others here, as liberals, are challenged and frustrated by my approach to topics. Maybe you, and other liberals here, may not have much exposure to substantive challenge. Maybe you feel having a politically correct opinion supersedes the need for a cogent defense of that opinion.

Accusations of partisanship in a political and news forum presupposes that the purpose of a forum of this type is to avoid controversy and all the elements which polarize opinion.

As I have stated many times, I am here to kick back and I frankly don't much care who accepts my contributions and who does not. I offer them with the humility of a life long learner who would be the last to claim infinite knowledge or unfailing insight. But I also offer them with the recognition that any insight I do have is bound to be wonderfully different from those who indeed have a partisan agenda they are so woefully unable to justify without much the same effort and thought I put into my words. :awe:
 
Last edited:

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
More of the same old long winded bullshit.:awe:

I'm glad I had just finished my drink, otherwise you would owe me a new keyboard.

When you accept the fact that you are nothing more than a partisan hack and quit calling me a "liberal" maybe we could discuss things and perhaps even see eye to eye on an issue or two.
Until then you are welcome along with the other "righties" here to play the victim, indignation and misc hackery cards any time someone left of you blows their nose.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
No proof needed.

Your posts are contradictory to what is written in history.

Thank god for Historians past, present and future for they will always show the liars like you.
This is a strange comment from a person with more history of lying on these forums than perhaps everybody else combined.