Lipstick on a pig?

[Craig234]

When the far right is in a completely indefensible position, they concede with the statement 'both sides are wrong', translation, 'we're wrong'.

To them, admitting that maybe they're as bad at something as the horrible other side is an enormous concession proving their own integrity, even when it's actually a smear.

Originally posted by: JD50
The faux outrage from both sides is getting a little ridiculous.

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: Craig234
When the far right is in a completely indefensible position, they concede with the statement 'both sides are wrong', translation, 'we're wrong'.

I think when someone says that "both sides are wrong" from either side, they are being realistic. But it's good to know you someone that looks at everything objectively.

 

[sammyunltd]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I noticed how the thread is no longer about Obama's comment now that the video puts it into proper context?

Coincidence?

Lack of reading ability?

That would be McCain I think:

http://www.factcheck.org/elect...torts_our_finding.html

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding
September 10, 2008
Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.
Summary
A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "absolutely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."

...We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

LOL. Everybody knows FactCheck is biased and pro-Liberal, pro-Obama...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd

LOL. Everybody knows FactCheck is biased and pro-Liberal, pro-Obama...

Buzzzz. Fail

That Pig don't fly ....

 

[KK]

Making a big deal over this is just as stupid as making a big deal over the word "uppity."

 

[jpeyton]

McCain Lipstick On A Pig

McCain Lipstick On A Pig 2

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Typical Pro-Jo B.S.

You conveniently forget to mention the money that will come from cuts in wasteful GWB programs and just assume all of Obama's spending will be ON TOP of what Bush spends.

He gets all his talking points from Sean Hannity. He may even be on his paid staff.

Anyway it was awesome today to hear Obama and his staff go after the scum Sean Hannity.

Go Obama staffers go :thumbsup:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: manowar821
Well, he wasn't talking about her. He was making a general comment on their policies.

But I'll say it about her. She's a pig. She demands as much respect from me as the pope does, absolutely none. Enjoy another wannabe despot, though.

LOL. those in glass basements shouldn't throw stones.

So, is that supposed to combat the fact that her and McCain are both just the next in a line of POS lying despots constantly being churned out by the "conservative" party? Or did you really just have nothing to say, like usual?

Oh, and where is this basement or glass you speak of?

Little boy, what have you done in your pitiful life to compare to anything Palin, the Pope, or any other public figure have done? Going to a liberal arts school, wearing anarchy and chavez shirts, and posting how stupid sheeple are in 9/11 threads doesn't count. Neither does declaring war on Fauxnews.

No go out there and ban some books, abuse your power to get even with your bum of a brother in law and live next to some Russians.

Speaking of malcontents with not a lot to say...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Speaking as a malcontent with not a lot to say...

Don't be so hard on yourself there Bunky.

 

[hellokeith]

If someone scripted that line for Obama, they need to be fired.

If Obama went off script and said that on his own, it doesn't bode well for his upcoming debates.

Either way, he needs to apologize quickly and then move along. The longer he avoids apologizing, the more likely this becomes a John Kerry "stuck in Iraq" incident, and we know what happened to John Kerry.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
If someone scripted that line for Obama, they need to be fired.

If Obama went off script and said that on his own, it doesn't bode well for his upcoming debates.

Either way, he needs to apologize quickly and then move along. The longer he avoids apologizing, the more likely this becomes a John Kerry "stuck in Iraq" incident, and we know what happened to John Kerry.

To apologize means he said soimething wrong which he didn't so it would be ridiculous for him to apologize. On the other hand I think McCain's campaign should apologize to the American Public for thinking the public is stupid enough to buy their disingenuous outrage over much ado about nothing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: hellokeith
If someone scripted that line for Obama, they need to be fired.

If Obama went off script and said that on his own, it doesn't bode well for his upcoming debates.

Either way, he needs to apologize quickly and then move along. The longer he avoids apologizing, the more likely this becomes a John Kerry "stuck in Iraq" incident, and we know what happened to John Kerry.

To apologize means he said soimething wrong which he didn't so it would be ridiculous for him to apologize. On the other hand I think McCain's campaign should apologize to the American Public for thinking the public is stupid enough to buy their disingenuous outrage over much ado about nothing.

For McCain to apologize for thinking much of the public would fall for this would also be wrong, because, he, too, was right as Keith predictably shows.

Now, apoloigizing for dishonesty - that would be appropriate.

And quite unlikely.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: Craig234
When the far right is in a completely indefensible position, they concede with the statement 'both sides are wrong', translation, 'we're wrong'.

I think when someone says that "both sides are wrong" from either side, they are being realistic. But it's good to know you someone that looks at everything objectively.

Well, you have a point. I think in the Holocaust, both Nazis and Jews were wrong.

In the OJ situation, both OJ and Nicole were wrong.

You get the idea.

But I'm glad you have decided the definition of 'objectively only has one conclusion, both sides being wrong.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: hellokeith
If someone scripted that line for Obama, they need to be fired.

If Obama went off script and said that on his own, it doesn't bode well for his upcoming debates.

Either way, he needs to apologize quickly and then move along. The longer he avoids apologizing, the more likely this becomes a John Kerry "stuck in Iraq" incident, and we know what happened to John Kerry.

To apologize means he said soimething wrong which he didn't so it would be ridiculous for him to apologize. On the other hand I think McCain's campaign should apologize to the American Public for thinking the public is stupid enough to buy their disingenuous outrage over much ado about nothing.

For McCain to apologize for thinking much of the public would fall for this would also be wrong, because, he, too, was right as Keith predictably shows.

Now, apoloigizing for dishonesty - that would be appropriate.

And quite unlikely.

So you think McCain shouldn't apologize for thinking those like hell1okeith are stupid enough to buy into this bullshit and actually being right? What a mean guy:disgust:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: KK
Making a big deal over this is just as stupid as making a big deal over the word "uppity."

Uppity: racist comment making an appeal to racist voters - if you want the leaders who will oppose an 'uppity' black, vote for him.

This controversy: Republicans take a comment from Obama that was perfectly appropriate, pointing out Republicans' flaws, and lie about what he said to attack him.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: hellokeith
If someone scripted that line for Obama, they need to be fired.

If Obama went off script and said that on his own, it doesn't bode well for his upcoming debates.

Either way, he needs to apologize quickly and then move along. The longer he avoids apologizing, the more likely this becomes a John Kerry "stuck in Iraq" incident, and we know what happened to John Kerry.

To apologize means he said soimething wrong which he didn't so it would be ridiculous for him to apologize. On the other hand I think McCain's campaign should apologize to the American Public for thinking the public is stupid enough to buy their disingenuous outrage over much ado about nothing.

For McCain to apologize for thinking much of the public would fall for this would also be wrong, because, he, too, was right as Keith predictably shows.

Now, apoloigizing for dishonesty - that would be appropriate.

And quite unlikely.

Both you guys completely missed what I said.

Many argued that John Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment was 1) taken out of context and 2) not directed at the perceived group (the military) but at his competitor. But neither of these mattered because the public saw/heard the clip and perceived John Kerry insulting the military. John Kerry initially refusing to apologize and then trying to explain it away in technical detail, he only made matters worse and prolonged the agony of the incident.

The same is true of Obama's comment. Public perception is what matters. You can lose the battle but later win the war. The alternative is not so forgiving.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: hellokeith
If someone scripted that line for Obama, they need to be fired.

If Obama went off script and said that on his own, it doesn't bode well for his upcoming debates.

Either way, he needs to apologize quickly and then move along. The longer he avoids apologizing, the more likely this becomes a John Kerry "stuck in Iraq" incident, and we know what happened to John Kerry.

To apologize means he said soimething wrong which he didn't so it would be ridiculous for him to apologize. On the other hand I think McCain's campaign should apologize to the American Public for thinking the public is stupid enough to buy their disingenuous outrage over much ado about nothing.

For McCain to apologize for thinking much of the public would fall for this would also be wrong, because, he, too, was right as Keith predictably shows.

Now, apoloigizing for dishonesty - that would be appropriate.

And quite unlikely.

Both you guys completely missed what I said.

Many argued that John Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment was 1) taken out of context and 2) not directed at the perceived group (the military) but at his competitor. But neither of these mattered because the public saw/heard the clip and perceived John Kerry insulting the military. John Kerry initially refusing to apologize and then trying to explain it away in technical detail, he only made matters worse and prolonged the agony of the incident.

The same is true of Obama's comment. Public perception is what matters. You can lose the battle but later win the war. The alternative is not so forgiving.

Cool so you aren't stupid enough to buy that load of crap that McCain's campaign is shoveling regarding this situation. :thumbsup:

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: Craig234
When the far right is in a completely indefensible position, they concede with the statement 'both sides are wrong', translation, 'we're wrong'.

I think when someone says that "both sides are wrong" from either side, they are being realistic. But it's good to know you someone that looks at everything objectively.

Well, you have a point. I think in the Holocaust, both Nazis and Jews were wrong.

In the OJ situation, both OJ and Nicole were wrong.

You get the idea.

But I'm glad you have decided the definition of 'objectively only has one conclusion, both sides being wrong.

That is some FVked up shit!!! Don't be a typical lib and put this on something it's not! I still don't know where or how wtf you mean by saying the jews were wrong??? Or even that Nicole was wrong.

Congratz winner of the the most 711cked statement of the day.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: KK
Making a big deal over this is just as stupid as making a big deal over the word "uppity."

Uppity: racist comment making an appeal to racist voters - if you want the leaders who will oppose an 'uppity' black, vote for him.

This controversy: Republicans take a comment from Obama that was perfectly appropriate, pointing out Republicans' flaws, and lie about what he said to attack him.

Fashizzle?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: Craig234
When the far right is in a completely indefensible position, they concede with the statement 'both sides are wrong', translation, 'we're wrong'.

I think when someone says that "both sides are wrong" from either side, they are being realistic. But it's good to know you someone that looks at everything objectively.

Well, you have a point. I think in the Holocaust, both Nazis and Jews were wrong.

In the OJ situation, both OJ and Nicole were wrong.

You get the idea.

But I'm glad you have decided the definition of 'objectively only has one conclusion, both sides being wrong.

That is some FVked up shit!!! Don't be a typical lib and put this on something it's not! I still don't know where or how wtf you mean by saying the jews were wrong??? Or even that Nicole was wrong.

Congratz winner of the the most 711cked statement of the day.

Point being that you were siding with *always* saying that the statement 'both sides are wrong' is correct, contrasdicting my position that it's a wrong phrase sometimes when one side realizes it's indefensibly wrong, to at least try to bringing the other side down since it's going down.

You attacked my position as being biased without *any* justification, any evidence, any supporting logic, just practically if not actually a personal attack.

I showed you that your position is wrong, by showing some ultra clear examples when 'both sides are wrong' is NOT the right position you claimed it to be.

The jump I asked you to make - and it was obviously too much to ask - was that if 'both sides are wrong' can be wrong in my extreme examples, then JUST MAYBE I was correct in saying that there are also situation in which one party is terribly wrong, and it's WRONG for them to say 'both sides are wrong' to smear the other party which actually has not done the wrong they did?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: KK
Making a big deal over this is just as stupid as making a big deal over the word "uppity."

Uppity: racist comment making an appeal to racist voters - if you want the leaders who will oppose an 'uppity' black, vote for him.

This controversy: Republicans take a comment from Obama that was perfectly appropriate, pointing out Republicans' flaws, and lie about what he said to attack him.

Fashizzle?

?

 

[badnewcastle]

You said when the far right is in a indefensible position, they concede with the statement 'both sides are wrong'. And yes I did attack that position because the far right doesn't do that in every situation. I was simply saying that if anybody says both sides are worng, I don't jump to conclusions and you did. That's all.

In my last post, all I was trying to do was make the point that it was not smart and there was no reason to use the examples you used.

 

[alchemize]

.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
You said when the far right is in a indefensible position, they concede with the statement 'both sides are wrong'. And yes I did attack that position because the far right doesn't do that in every situation.

If it wasn't clear, I'm saying it's a common tactic, not every time.

I was simply saying that if anybody says both sides are worng, I don't jump to conclusions and you did. That's all.

I think the opposite is the case. You said you jump to the conclusion that any time someone says both sides are wrong, it's "realistic", and I did not jump to any conclusion.

 

[Deliximus]

Obama said nothing wrong. He labelled McCain's economic policies as pig with lipstick because they are basically the same 'trickle down' economic policies.

Obama should say this EVERY DAY and label McCain's policies as such because it gets the attention of the press. It will connect with voters with a motto that even McCain used himself on Clinton. Label McCain's economic policies as Pig w/ lipstick over and over again will work.

Obama cannot be 'high road' guy anymore. I rather see him get in the mud and throw some serious punches. Remember, Bill Clinton is the only democrat to do and he won...twice (with help from Ross Perot). You can't govern when you can't win.