0
   

McCain lies

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:41 am
woiyo wrote:
Obama is not qualified to be CIC so no matter what "visits" he makes, will not change the fact he has no/limited foreign policy experience and no/minimal experience regarding matters of defense.


If you apply such a criterion, you will have disqualified more than half the people who ever held the office of President. Please explain to me what foreign policy experience or "matters of defense" experience which the Shrub had in 2000 which could have reasonably been alleged to have been more than minimal.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:45 am
mm, did you read the second page of the article nimh posted?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:45 am
mysteryman wrote:
Heres the most interesting part of this whole thing.

The Obama supporters are saying that Obama never planned to take the press with him.
They know this because Obama says so.
That still doesnt explain why Obama cancelled the visit.
If it was already planned into the trip, there was no reason for him to cancel it.If it was a spur of the moment thing, there was still no reason to cancel it.

But what strikes me as odd is the fact that the Obama devotees are saying that since Obama said it, it has to be true.
They totally discount the possibility that Obama is just covering his ass and that McCain may be correct.
After all, Obama is a politician and he isnt going to admit to anything that would make him look bad.


I think the independent news reports by those such as Andrea Mitchell, which say that Obama never was going to take the press in the first place and the press wasn't given plans that they were going to go, have a bit more to do with it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:48 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Heres the most interesting part of this whole thing.

The Obama supporters are saying that Obama never planned to take the press with him.
They know this because Obama says so.
That still doesnt explain why Obama cancelled the visit.
If it was already planned into the trip, there was no reason for him to cancel it.If it was a spur of the moment thing, there was still no reason to cancel it.

But what strikes me as odd is the fact that the Obama devotees are saying that since Obama said it, it has to be true.
They totally discount the possibility that Obama is just covering his ass and that McCain may be correct.
After all, Obama is a politician and he isnt going to admit to anything that would make him look bad.


I think the independent news reports by those such as Andrea Mitchell, which say that Obama never was going to take the press in the first place and the press wasn't given plans that they were going to go, have a bit more to do with it.

Cycloptichorn


That doesnt answer the basic question however.

WHY did Obama cancel the trip?

Everything else is ancillary.

There was no good reason for him to have cancelled the trip, at least Obama hasnt given an explanation for it.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:52 am
Well, he gave a reason, but in order to accept it you would have to take his word for it. I think the bigger question is why does it matter that he canceled a trip?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:53 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, he gave a reason, but in order to accept it you would have to take his word for it. I think the bigger question is why does it matter that he canceled a trip?


And his reason was what?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:54 am
Did you read the article?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:58 am
Why do you clowns keep asking why the trip was canceled? It was spelled out in the first two posts:

nimh's [i]Washington Post[/i] source wrote:
The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event. [..]


And . . .

nimh's NBC quote of the [i]New York Times[/i] wrote:
The plan was to go with his military aide, retired General Scott Gration. The Pentagon said Gration was off-limits because he had joined the campaign -- violating rules that it not be a political stop.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:59 am
Of course he didn't....

MM, what makes you think Obama has any reason to lie on this non-issue?

I wonder if you guys have any clue how ridiculous you sound. Can't attack Obama on anything meaningful, so let's imply... that he doesn't support the troops! Yeah, that's what will get people to hate him!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:08 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course he didn't....

MM, what makes you think Obama has any reason to lie on this non-issue?

I wonder if you guys have any clue how ridiculous you sound. Can't attack Obama on anything meaningful, so let's imply... that he doesn't support the troops! Yeah, that's what will get people to hate him!

Cycloptichorn


I imply nothing.
Unlike you, I would come right out and say it if I believed it.
I dont believe it however.

But, from the article nimh posted...

Quote:
Later that night, after Obama gave a speech in Berlin, a campaign source spoke about the canceled stop on the condition of anonymity. The official said that the trip was canceled after the Pentagon informed a campaign official that the visit would be considered a campaign event.


Overnight, the Obama team issued two statements, one from senior campaign official Robert Gibbs and the other from retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was on the trip.

Gibbs's statement said the hospital visit, which had been on the internal schedule for several weeks, was canceled because Obama decided it would be inappropriate to go there as part of a trip paid for by his campaign. Gration said the Pentagon had told the campaign that the visit would be seen as a political trip.


He was told by the Pentagon that taking Gen. Gration would be wrong, because the military is supposed to be nonpolitical.
That does not mean that Obama couldnt go on his own.

And that is what I am wondering, why didnt he go on his own.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:22 am
mysteryman wrote:
He was told by the Pentagon that taking Gen. Gration would be wrong, because the military is supposed to be nonpolitical.
That does not mean that Obama couldnt go on his own.

And that is what I am wondering, why didnt he go on his own.



Probably for the same reasons that McCain didn't "go on his own" when the Pentagon declined a McCain campaign request to speak at the Naval Aviation Museum at the naval base in Pensacola.

McCain's advisor Steve Schmidt at that time simply noted that hey, "We follow the rules."

Seems to be the same thing. Senators can visit US Army bases. Candidates for the Presidency cannot. It's up to the Pentagon to draw the line and determine which kind of visit is appropriate and which one isn't, and the campaigns, all the campaigns, are going along with that.


There's been some discussion about this back in April.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:39 am
Well, to wrap this thread up fittingly, McCain's camp is now admitting that they were wrong.

Quote:
McCain's camp, accused in the New York Times and the Washington Post this morning of distorting Obama's canceled trip to a military hospital in German, seems to have backed off the core of the charge: That he canceled the trip because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras."

"It does now seem that Barack Obama snubbed the troops for reasons other than a lack of photo-op potential," writes McCain blogger Michael Goldfarb this morning, contradicting his campaign's televised ads and his candidate's statements.

But as the media swings around to contradict McCain's story, the campaign is trying to stay on offense, blaming the press for the confusion:


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/McCain_campaign_backs_off_cameras_charge.html?showall

Goldfarb, moron that he is, still tries to get another swing in even while admitting that they were lying. When you don't know the facts about something, but present it as if you do, you are lying. Bullshit dodges about what they 'believed' at the time don't convince anyone.

Cyclotiptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:54 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
When you don't know the facts about something, but present it as if you do, you are lying.


Wrong.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:57 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
When you don't know the facts about something, but present it as if you do, you are lying.


Wrong.


In what way?

Oh, I see - if you can say you believed it was true. That's crap. It's a construction carefully designed to allow anyone to lie at any time with no recourse. And you and other Republicans have been using it to excuse falsehoods uttered by your leaders for years.

You should be able to show which facts led you to that belief, though, and when asked, the McCain camp was unable to actually show any facts which would have led to that belief.

You are digging yourself in deeper, as I showed above, McCain has already admitted they were wrong, how much longer are you going to push this foolish bullshit?

McCain is a liar. His campaign is full of liars. They consciously lied on this issue for political gain, and it has now blown up in their faces, as the media actually called them on it for once.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 11:02 am
I'm not digging myself any deeper. I merely pointed out that you were wrong. Yet again.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 11:04 am
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm not digging myself any deeper. I merely pointed out that you were wrong. Yet again.


You asserted it, but provided no evidence to back up your assertion. A meaningless thing to do. And generally a sign that you know your argument is hosed.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 11:08 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
When you don't know the facts about something, but present it as if you do, you are lying.


Wrong.


In what way?

Oh, I see - if you can say you believed it was true. That's crap. It's a construction carefully designed to allow anyone to lie at any time with no recourse. And you and other Republicans have been using it to excuse falsehoods uttered by your leaders for years.

You should be able to show which facts led you to that belief, though, and when asked, the McCain camp was unable to actually show any facts which would have led to that belief.

You are digging yourself in deeper, as I showed above, McCain has already admitted they were wrong, how much longer are you going to push this foolish bullshit?

McCain is a liar. His campaign is full of liars. They consciously lied on this issue for political gain, and it has now blown up in their faces, as the media actually called them on it for once.

Cycloptichorn


So then Obama is also a liar.
Remember, he stated as FACT that the surge wouldnt work.
He presented no evidence to support that, except to say thats what he believed.

So, using your own definition, Obama is also a liar.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 11:10 am
mysteryman wrote:
So then Obama is also a liar.
Remember, he stated as FACT that the surge wouldnt work.


Ticomaya wrote:
I suspect you accuse the local weatherman of lying if he predicts rain and then fails to produce.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 11:12 am
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
When you don't know the facts about something, but present it as if you do, you are lying.


Wrong.


In what way?

Oh, I see - if you can say you believed it was true. That's crap. It's a construction carefully designed to allow anyone to lie at any time with no recourse. And you and other Republicans have been using it to excuse falsehoods uttered by your leaders for years.

You should be able to show which facts led you to that belief, though, and when asked, the McCain camp was unable to actually show any facts which would have led to that belief.

You are digging yourself in deeper, as I showed above, McCain has already admitted they were wrong, how much longer are you going to push this foolish bullshit?

McCain is a liar. His campaign is full of liars. They consciously lied on this issue for political gain, and it has now blown up in their faces, as the media actually called them on it for once.

Cycloptichorn


So then Obama is also a liar.
Remember, he stated as FACT that the surge wouldnt work.
He presented no evidence to support that, except to say thats what he believed.

So, using your own definition, Obama is also a liar.


I don't think he presented as 'fact' that something in the future wouldn't work; I think you are torturing the word 'fact' when you really should be using the word 'opinion.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 12:11 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm not digging myself any deeper. I merely pointed out that you were wrong. Yet again.


You asserted it, but provided no evidence to back up your assertion. A meaningless thing to do. And generally a sign that you know your argument is hosed.

Cycloptichorn



Meanwhile, you've asserted your position, but have no evidence to back it up.

That is a sign that you are lying ... according to the standard you endorse.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain lies
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/22/2019 at 11:23:54