McCain/Palin: Blizzard Of Lies

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Krugman, I am sorry, McCain could claim the sky blue and this hack would find a way to prove McCain lied and that is yellow.

Secondly this was probably taken from the editorial page right?

That smell, is the smell of deperation.

The sky is blue and white because Jesus is a Penn State fan. Fact.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Krugman, I am sorry, McCain could claim the sky blue and this hack would find a way to prove McCain lied and that is yellow.

Secondly this was probably taken from the editorial page right?

That smell, is the smell of deperation.

No, Krugman could say the sky is blue and you would say he called it yellow.

You accuse him here of baselessly attacking McCain's truthes as false.

So, you list which of Krugman's examples has him calling McCain's blue yellow - which example did he misreprest what McCain's campaign actually said on?

If you can't show any, then you are shown to be the one who is misrepresenting the facts.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87

I am not going to engage in debate over a piece by a known hack from an editorial page. It is clearly a waste of time.

I heard that Hitler once said that 2+2=4.

But he is a known Nazi so it is clear that he is lying to just further his agenda. No need to respond to such ridiculous statements such as his. :roll:

Here's a primary difference between intelligent debate and unintelligent debate. An intelligent person is able to distinguish between the message and messenger and either prove or disprove the statements based on the evidence.

An unintelligent debate example would be.....your reply.

This.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Yawn.... some republican hating writer for the liberal NYT writes a piece heaping garbage on the GOP. There's major news for ya.

Here's more about "some republican hating writer for the liberal NYT."

Columnist Biography: Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

There should be plenty for you to pick apart... if you can. While you're at it, would you like to tell us about your credentials to write him off so cavalierly? :confused:
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: eskimospy
1.) Is McCain's depiction of Palin's stance on the 'bridge to nowhere' honest, or dishonest?
2.) Is McCain's depiction of Obama wanting sex-ed for Kindergarteners honest, or dishonest?
3.) Is McCain's depiction of Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' comment honest or dishonest?

Do you have some links to McCain's depictions of these things? If, as you seem to imply, McCain was dishonest in perpetrating these incorrectly, he should be called out on it.

1.) Associated Press fact check on the bridge to nowhere. Their conclusion: McCain's representation is dishonest.
2.) Factcheck.org on the sex-ed issue. Their conclusion: McCain's representation was extremely dishonest.
3.) PoliFact.com on the 'lipstick' comment. Their conclusion: McCain's representation is dishonest, an "outrageous attempt to distort the facts".
Ouch.
Glory glory hallelujah!
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
You don't need an NYT oped to see McCain is lying

just look at what he said on The View today:

But you see? The gals on the View had the oppotunity to call him out on his LIE but they didn't and they should have

I bet Joy is kicking herself over her lost opportunity.

And listen, the important thing here isn't that McCain is lying I think the argument can be made that all politicans stretch the truth. The important thing is that dumb voters out there dont care and dont bother to understand the lies. He is getting the message that he wants out there for the dumb voters to listen to. THATS THE BAD PART.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Well, at least Genx admitted he is a hack in this thread. Not like we needed him to confirm it or anything :p
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: JS80
I love how a different point of view to a liberal is a "lie"

You're right. When it comes to whether Republicans lie, your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers have pretty much cemented that down as fact. Unless you really need it, here, I'll save the space in this thread and just refer you to your choice of Harvey "macros" documenting lie after lie, after lie, after lie.

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?

A: NEVER.

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

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
It's amazing how much McCain is lying now. Worse, he keeps repeating the same fucking lies.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: eskimospy
1.) Is McCain's depiction of Palin's stance on the 'bridge to nowhere' honest, or dishonest?
2.) Is McCain's depiction of Obama wanting sex-ed for Kindergarteners honest, or dishonest?
3.) Is McCain's depiction of Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' comment honest or dishonest?

Do you have some links to McCain's depictions of these things? If, as you seem to imply, McCain was dishonest in perpetrating these incorrectly, he should be called out on it.

1.) Associated Press fact check on the bridge to nowhere. Their conclusion: McCain's representation is dishonest.
2.) Factcheck.org on the sex-ed issue. Their conclusion: McCain's representation was extremely dishonest.
3.) PoliFact.com on the 'lipstick' comment. Their conclusion: McCain's representation is dishonest, an "outrageous attempt to distort the facts".
Ouch.

Seriously, who cares. It's a American Presidential Election. All shots are allowed, no matter how low they are. It is the guy who's got the biggest balls that will win this one, not the most qualified - and so far, history is proving me right (HW Bush, Bush, Nixon, etc.).

Obama should stop focusing about his projects and plans since Americans don't care a minute about that. They want some tough, narrowly-disputed stuff. They want a hard and slamming campaign for both of them. McCain has gone down the "Ad Hominem" road, unfortunately for the American People.

So incredibly sad, but so true.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87

I am not going to engage in debate over a piece by a known hack from an editorial page. It is clearly a waste of time.

I heard that Hitler once said that 2+2=4.

But he is a known Nazi so it is clear that he is lying to just further his agenda. No need to respond to such ridiculous statements such as his. :roll:

Here's a primary difference between intelligent debate and unintelligent debate. An intelligent person is able to distinguish between the message and messenger and either prove or disprove the statements based on the evidence.

An unintelligent debate example would be.....your reply.

God damn Godwin's law.
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: sierrita
-snip-
Attack the messenger, don't bother debating the issues; good for you, Mr. fair and balanced.


:cookie:

I'm sure I correctly recall your posts in Apple of Sodom's thread yesterday. That you have to gall to post the above comment here is astounding.

Fern




I think you are mistaken. I referred to his post as "Crapaganda."


If you recall, Apple of Sodom (his user name is just screaming for ridicule, but I won't touch that) tried to pretend that his post simply expressed the facts, when as it turns out, it was an obvious shill piece for Governor Palin.

I'm sorry you cannot see the difference, though seeing your recent posts, I'm hardly surprised.



 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Attack the messenger, don't bother debating the issues; good for you, Mr. fair and balanced.

There are no issues worth debating, and Krugman fails to offer the thoughtful investigative reporting approach to validate his claims.

Take the "bridge to nowhere"...the McCain camp is using that topic to paint Palin as a politician against wasteful spending...the Democrats want to expose that in reality, she was for it before she was against it...I have yet to see any quality investigative reporting that creates a trail showing Palin deliberately flip flopped on this issue.

Perhaps she WAS for it in the beginning, came to understand the nature of the project, and then changed her mind...a politician should be allowed to change their mind, especially to do the right or smart thing for the electorate...the Democrats have a wedge issue if they can prove she ARBITRARILY or IRRESPONSIBLY changed her position on this issue...otherwise, it is simply a perception game, not deception.

Politics are a perception game...and Krugman's opinion piece only reinforces my perception that the Democrats have yet to launch a strategy for effectively mitigating the Palin effect.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Attack the messenger, don't bother debating the issues; good for you, Mr. fair and balanced.

There are no issues worth debating, and Krugman fails to offer the thoughtful investigative reporting approach to validate his claims.

Take the "bridge to nowhere"...the McCain camp is using that topic to paint Palin as a politician against wasteful spending...the Democrats want to expose that in reality, she was for it before she was against it...I have yet to see any quality investigative reporting that creates a trail showing Palin deliberately flip flopped on this issue.

Perhaps she WAS for it in the beginning, came to understand the nature of the project, and then changed her mind...a politician should be allowed to change their mind, especially to do the right or smart thing for the electorate...the Democrats have a wedge issue if they can prove she ARBITRARILY or IRRESPONSIBLY changed her position on this issue...otherwise, it is simply a perception game, not deception.

Politics are a perception game...and Krugman's opinion piece only reinforces my perception that the Democrats have yet to launch a strategy for effectively mitigating the Palin effect.
you are absolutely right it is a perception game. And for the last couple of elections the GOP has painted "changing" one's mind as "flip flopping" and a sign of weakness.

So now that the tables are reversed its the rights turn to defend "flip flopping" or any perceived flip flop that can be tied to a candidate.

The bridge to nowhere qualifies as a perceived flip flop. Sorry if the republicans don't like it. I guess you can call it out as poor quality investigative reporting...but does that really matter? Dumb voters understand the words "flip flop"
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
If they use lies to sell themselves, they will use lies to sell wars, failed policies, etc, just like Bush administration has.
McCain simply cannot be trusted to lead this country after the ads he ran this week.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
And to follow up the link i posted earlier in this thread where McCain claims Palin never sought earmarked monies (On "The View" earlier today) I guess he doesn't know Palin all that well then. Either that or he is senile? or maybe he is simply LYING?

Even Palin says she took earmarked federal money as governor.

Please tell me someone else out there sees this as yet another example of McCain's opportunistic, win at all cost, lying/denying campaigning????

McCains camp is treating all of us like a bunch of idiots.

just an fyi: in Foxnews writeup of the appearance on 'The View' they failed to document the exchange wherein McCain lied about Palin and earmarks. here.

Im not sayin they are biased or anything...Im just throwing that out there.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Attack the messenger, don't bother debating the issues; good for you, Mr. fair and balanced.

There are no issues worth debating, and Krugman fails to offer the thoughtful investigative reporting approach to validate his claims.

Take the "bridge to nowhere"...the McCain camp is using that topic to paint Palin as a politician against wasteful spending...the Democrats want to expose that in reality, she was for it before she was against it...I have yet to see any quality investigative reporting that creates a trail showing Palin deliberately flip flopped on this issue.

Perhaps she WAS for it in the beginning, came to understand the nature of the project, and then changed her mind...a politician should be allowed to change their mind, especially to do the right or smart thing for the electorate...the Democrats have a wedge issue if they can prove she ARBITRARILY or IRRESPONSIBLY changed her position on this issue...otherwise, it is simply a perception game, not deception.

Politics are a perception game...and Krugman's opinion piece only reinforces my perception that the Democrats have yet to launch a strategy for effectively mitigating the Palin effect.

It's all in your mind. I bet you watch the McCain ads and slavishly nod your head in agreement.
 
Sep 14, 2005
110
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
If they use lies to sell themselves, they will use lies to sell wars, failed policies, etc, just like Bush administration has.
McCain simply cannot be trusted to lead this country after the ads he ran this week.

This is the cruz of Krugman's editorial. A ticket's ability to govern is more closely correlated to the integrity of their campaigning than the effectiveness of their campaigning. Just because the GOP are masters of the smear, appealing to the lowest common denominator, telling lies that no one calls them on and eventually winning a campaign because they took the low road, doesn't mean they're the right ones for the job.

Obama's VP pick was made to strengthen the experience and respect of the executive office, McCain's pick was pure party politics just grab votes to make sure the GOP stays in power. GOP is all about party first and to hell with what is in the best interest of the country.

Krugman has more ntegrity and class in his little finger than all the right wing blowhards that spew dishonest BS all day long, and right just laps it up and regurgitates it. But, hey, you know, guys like Genx87 are so discerning when it comes to where they get their information from.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Originally posted by: Infidel
Originally posted by: senseamp
If they use lies to sell themselves, they will use lies to sell wars, failed policies, etc, just like Bush administration has.
McCain simply cannot be trusted to lead this country after the ads he ran this week.

This is the cruz of Krugman's editorial. A ticket's ability to govern is more closely correlated to the integrity of their campaigning than the effectiveness of their campaigning. Just because the GOP are masters of the smear, appealing to the lowest common denominator, telling lies that no one calls them on and eventually winning a campaign because they took the low road, doesn't mean they're the right ones for the job.

Obama's VP pick was made to strengthen the experience and respect of the executive office, McCain's pick was pure party politics just grab votes to make sure the GOP stays in power. GOP is all about party first and to hell with what is in the best interest of the country.

Krugman has more ntegrity and class in his little finger than all the right wing blowhards that spew dishonest BS all day long, and right just laps it up and regurgitates it. But, hey, you know, guys like Genx87 are so discerning when it comes to where they get their information from.

this
 

golfercraig

Member
Feb 7, 2007
57
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Yawn.... some republican hating writer for the liberal NYT writes a piece heaping garbage on the GOP. There's major news for ya.

Here's more about "some republican hating writer for the liberal NYT."

Columnist Biography: Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

There should be plenty for you to pick apart... if you can. While you're at it, would you like to tell us about your credentials to write him off so cavalierly? :confused:

Krugman is the devil incarnate. Period. He is WORSE than Rush or Hannity.

He is a liar, and knows it. Keep reveling in him. He sneers at you and the other downtrodden that the Dems purport to champion. And you can't figure out why you're about to lose another election. Krugman and his ilk are the reason. Hack partisanship disguised as intellect are killing the left-wing of this country. If you can't see it, well, enjoy another loss in 4 years.