0
   

McCain lies

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 12:15 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
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.


Which position would that be? For I have not only provided logical argument - a good source of evidence for an assertion - but factual evidence, that McCain's camp had no information which would have led it to make the claim that they did, and they have also admitted that they were wrong. You on the other hand have provided zero evidence.

Sometimes your arguments are better, sometimes worse; this is one of your weaker ones. At this point, you have been reduced to petty sniping, your central narrative has been cracked in half. Better to withdraw before the group heckling begins.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 12:20 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
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.

Nope. The standard is quite simple. If you assert something, people check it out and find there's no evidence for it, ask you what you were going on, and then find that you can show none whatsoever either, that's when you've been revealed to have just been fibbing.

In an internet discussion you can still say, oh i have evidence, i just cant be bothered to show it or write about it. Doesnt really work for a Presidential candidate pressed on an assertion, much like it doesnt work for, say, a defendant in court.

It's pretty simple: McCain asserted as fact that something had happened, and his campaign repeated it over and over again and even cut an ad about it. Even though it was flat-out false, and they never had any evidence that it was true in the first place.

They just made **** up.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 12:21 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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


So then as long as its couched as an "opinion", someone is free to say whatever they choose, without having to back it up?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 12:22 pm
Well, there is a difference between opinions and facts, MM. Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 08:40 am
McCain lies - again


Quote:
FACTCHECK.ORG
Obama's Celebrity Cred

A new McCain ad calls Obama a celebrity (true) who says he'll raise taxes on electricity (false).


By Joe Miller | factcheck.org
Jul 31, 2008 | Updated: 9:35 a.m. ET Jul 31, 2008

Summary
McCain's new ad claims that Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity." That's false. Obama says no such thing.

Read on..


Quote:
On the Issues
What Obama Electricity Tax?

By Juliet Eilperin | Washington Post - The Trail
Jul 30, 2008

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The few campaign watchers who aren't transfixed by the images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) new attack ad aimed at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), might be asking themselves right now, "What's this about an Obama electricity tax?"

Short answer: there isn't one.

Read on...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 09:16 am
desperate times call for desperate measures, Mccain seems more than desperate.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 09:22 am
I suspect that this is more a product of a misguided campaign team, and that in fact, McCain himself can be blamed for ineptly putting that team together, but not of willfully lying himself. À propos of McWhitey's thread on how screwed up McCain's campaign team is, it occurs to me that they are attempting to do what the Swifties succeeded in doing with Kerry. The difference is, the Swifties were not a part of the Shrub's campaign, and they were (in terms of the campaign team) completely deniable. It seems to me that McCain's team is attempting to smear Obama, but they aren't bright enough to see the big distinction between a group like the Swifties and the candidate's campaign team itself.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 09:50 am
nimh wrote:
McCain lies - again


How very Rovian of him...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 10:56 am
Setanta wrote:
I suspect that this is more a product of a misguided campaign team, and that in fact, McCain himself can be blamed for ineptly putting that team together, but not of willfully lying himself.

OK. Consider my post amended to:

nimh wrote:
McCain campaign lies - again
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 12:55 pm
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 06:35 pm
nimh wrote:
It's pretty simple: McCain asserted as fact that something had happened, and his campaign repeated it over and over again and even cut an ad about it. Even though it was flat-out false, and they never had any evidence that it was true in the first place.

They just made **** up.


The McCain campaign, after first retracting the allegation about Obama cancelling a trip to wounded journalists because he wasnt allowed to make it into a big photo-op, has now started with it again.

In that light, this rather lengthy dissection is something more than just a PS.

The conclusion, however, remains unambiguous: the McCain campaign "has simply made all of this up."


Quote:
More on McCain's Ongoing "Troops" Smear

I blogged (very) briefly about this last night, but I think it's worth unpacking in slightly more detail. In its "Troops" ad last weekend, the McCain campaign charged that on his overseas trip "[Barack Obama] made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras."

The pushback was swift and unequivocal. NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who was present on the trip, called the suggestion that Obama canceled the visit because he couldn't bring cameras, "literally not true." The Washington Post said that there was "no evidence that the charge is true." When the Post asked the McCain campaign to offer any evidence to support the charge, "[McCain spokesman Tucker] Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital."

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign finally retracted the allegation. As campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb wrote, "Earlier today, we conceded there was no evidence that Senator Obama canceled his visit with the troops simply because the media was not be allowed to accompany him."

Yet later Wednesday, the McCain campaign stumbled upon evidence they thought might support their initial allegation (more on this "evidence" in a sec), and un-retracted the allegation.

[In short, the] McCain camp admits that they made the allegation despite having absolutely no evidence that it was true. Subsequently, when they ran into a shred of evidence conceivably supporting their fabricated allegation, they reasserted it, saying they were right all the time. By this standard, any allegation that has not been preemptively disproven--that McCain supported the war because he was bribed by oil companies, say, or that the reason he's so close to Phil Gramm is that he and Cindy are evading taxes by hiding assets in Gramm's Swiss bank--is fair game to throw out there, on the off chance that, somewhere down the road, some evidence that it's true might be uncovered.

But back to the "evidence" the McCain campaign cites to support the idea that the smear it made up might actually be true. Goldfarb quotes an exchange between Fox News's Major Garrett and Obama communications adviser Robert Gibbs:

    Q: The schedule was for this plane, with us in it, to fly to Ramstein. By the way we were expected to pay for the flight, what were you suppose to do with the entourage then? Gibbs: You would have stayed on the plane. Q: We would have stayed on the plane, would there have been any pool report? Gibbs: There may have been, I don't know if we ever came to a decision on that.
From this, Goldfarb infers, "We can't really know what Senator Obama's thinking was at the moment he canceled the visit, but we know that the campaign was at least considering sending a reporter with him, and when the Pentagon said that wouldn't be allowed, he decided against making the visit. It seems fair to ask whether Obama canceled because he'd been denied another spectacular photo-op on a trip that was about nothing but photo-ops."

First, notice the [..] wiggling: The McCain campaign wasn't "asking" whether Obama canceled because he couldn't bring reporters--if that were the case, the Obama camp's unequivocal answer should have settled the question--they were asserting that it was the reason.

Next, note that Gibbs did not say affirmatively that the campaign was "considering" bringing a pool reporter. He said he didn't know if there'd been a decision--implying, if anything, that he was not a part of any discussion that took place. I don't know if John McCain has come to a decision on whether to pick Ted Stevens as his running mate; that doesn't mean he's "considering" it.

Further, while the possibility that a pool reporter might have been brought along may seem at first to support the idea that Obama wanted the troop visit to be a big media event, in fact it contradicts it. A pool reporter (who, as Ben Smith noted, does not typically bring a camera at all) is what you bring with you as a presidential candidate when you want the minimal media presence possible, not, as the McCain camp disingenuously implies, when you want "another spectacular photo-op." This is apparent from the brief excerpt cited by Goldfarb (Gibbs tells Garrett that "You"--i.e., the traveling media--"would have stayed on the plane"), but it is still more apparent from the full transcript, the primary subject of which is the Obama campaign's desire not to use the troops as a political prop.

Finally, Goldfarb invents a causal chain of events for which there is not a shred of evidence, claiming "the campaign was at least considering sending a reporter with him, and when the Pentagon said that wouldn't be allowed, he decided against making the visit." As the transcript shows, the possibility that a pool reporter might be present came up in the explicit context that the rest of the media would remain on the plane. There is no evidence of any kind that there was some subsequent discussion with the Pentagon on the question of whether a single pool reporter could attend--and even if there had been, no evidence that this was a, let alone the, reason for cancelling the trip. Goldfarb has simply made all of this up. [..]

--Christopher Orr
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 07:04 am
I just did a quick scan and didn't see anything about this -- sorry if I'm repeating something that's already been pointed out.

But not only did the McCain campaign lie with the ad that they put out, they may have had a *different* commercial ready to go if Obama HAD decided to make the visit:

Quote:


http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/the_new_normal.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 07:54 am
Yeah. Typical. And that's pretty telling, when something as outrageous as that is just typical.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 04:50 pm
By the way, past a certain point, if McSame doesn't reign in these goofballs, he becomes, for all practical purposes, himself a liar.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2008 09:03 am
mysteryman wrote:
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.

Except he was right. The surge didn't work. Bribing insurgents to get them to stop attacks did work, though.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 02:57 pm
Let us seek some candidate
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 03:01 pm
This claim that the surge worked reminds me of Reagan's claim that he somehow brought down the USSR. Both claims are absolutely false and unsupportable.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 03:22 pm
Next few years are worse than BUSH resgime.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2008 05:30 pm
And here we have him lying once again. And it's not even a new one! It's an old one that's was discredited long ago, but here's the "maverick" putting it out there again.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154782

0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 06:40 pm
Quote:
McCain Challenges Obama's Patriotism Again

John McCain alleged today that Barack Obama declined to defend his country when speaking in Germany last month:

Quote:
Referring to Obama’s speech in Berlin, McCain said that he had a “chance to express such confidence in America” -- but passed it up.

“He was the picture of confidence, but in some ways the confidence in one's self and confidence in one's country are not the same,” McCain said.


As NBC's Mark Murray points out, this charge is utterly false:

Quote:
In fact, in that Berlin speech, Obama expressed plenty of confidence in America. "I also know how much I love America," the Illinois senator said that day. "I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived -- at great cost and great sacrifice -- to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world... What has always united us -- what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores -- is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please."


There's actually a lot more, too. In this passage, Obama straightforwardly criticized Euro anti-Americanism:

Quote:
In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth -- that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.


This is just a shameless lie by McCain. News reports usually just repeat politicians' claims without making much of an effort to gauge their accuracy. So Mark Murray deserves some credit for placing McCain's smear into a factual context.

--Jonathan Chait
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 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/17/2019 at 02:40:40